Yeshua is telling us the saving truth
Last update: 9th March 2018
Next update: not 24th, but 27th March 2018 at the latest
My apologies for the poor graphic presentation. Reading from the screen becomes easier if you make the sentences shorter. You can do that by narrowing the webpage frame.
Welcome to the initiative for the British Christian Patriotic Party
From 25th December
2003 to 3rd March 2004, the text 'Britain faces the threat of Anglocide' was randomly
e-mailed to more than 8,000 people working
in British universities (about 7,400 academics and 600 support staff). To the present day,
none of them seems to be willing or able to refute this text. It is dealing with the gravest
of subjects and it is, if judged by current standards, breaking down taboos. Down below you'll find links to the main text, then a list of my articles and internet letters, then a series of shorter texts. It's in chronological order, so you'll find the
latest almost at the bottom of this page, above the standard closing text.
The universities were those of Aberdeen, Bath, Belfast, Birmingham, Bournemouth, Bradford, Brighton,
Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Coventry, Durham, East Anglia, Edinburgh, Essex, Exeter,
Glasgow, Huddersfield, Hull, Lancaster, Leeds, Leicester, Lincoln, Liverpool,
London (Imperial College, Metropolitan), Loughborough, Manchester,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth, Reading, Sheffield, Southampton,
St Andrews, Staffordshire, Surrey, Sussex, Swansea, Warwick and York.
Britain faces the threat of Anglocide
Britain and the other European nations might perish
in what looks like a lengthy psychological war.
How to survive in a Christian Patriotic manner.
please read on (December 2003)
Britain faces the
threat of Anglocide (2/2)
ARTICLES AND INTERNET LETTERS:
Address to the
few upon whose choices depends so much: adolescent Jews, growing up in a Torahist environment
"... In 2001, I re-read the New Testament and I was profoundly touched by it. I came to
understand the essential difference between the Mosaic and the Christian faith. What do you
do with the things you know but others don't? Do you use your 'knowledge surplus' against
them in order to get on top of them, even to harm them, to ruin them? Or do you share your
surplus with them, for the benefit of both parties? Is knowledge to be used as a weapon or
as a tool? ..."
please read on (December 2003)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 9 SHEETS
The BBC, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times show no interest in talking to me, but
a number of my readers are perhaps wondering how I would answer some critical questions. So
let's imagine that I am a journalist working for the old media, set to interview, well,
myself.... please read on (9th April 2005)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 16 SHEETS
A review of
frequently broadcast opinions after Muslim terrorism hit London
"... Terrorism is a matter of life and death. The people have every right to live in a country
that isn't pestered by it. So to solve that problem, a cool calculated exchange of sound
arguments is required. Are the British witnessing such an exchange, looking at the BBC? No,
they are not. ..." please read on (9th September 2005)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 7 SHEETS
and 26th November 2005: the BBC twice airs a Timewatch documentary about Hitler's mind
"... All the facts about Hitler's atrocities, neutrally told, provide for more than enough
material for the education of present and future generations to prevent Nazism from ever
reviving. It are precisely the omissions and distortions in programmes like these that
confront us with the necessity now to challenge another demolishing world view. ..."
please read on (22nd December 2005)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 9 SHEETS
Internet letter to ten chief editors in The Netherlands
IN DUTCH AND IN ENGLISH "... A new Dutch parliament
will be elected on November the 22nd and prime minister Balkenende, the other party
leaders and the interviewers are talking about several problems and solutions, as the
old media show, but not about the problem of the Torahist influence. I feel committed
to the well-being of the people to which I belong and I would therefore like to ask
you the following. ..."
please read on (9th November 2006)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 5 SHEETS
Internet letter to Nick Griffin, chairman of the British National Party
"... This BNP comment clearly demonstrates a lot of enthusiasm over the NPD's electoral
victory. Now, it's very well possible that the facts I mentioned above are new to you.
However, now that I've been sharing these facts with you, how do you look back on this
enthusiastic comment now? ..."
please read on (10th January 2007)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 3 SHEETS
The old media are full of this one too:
"In America, it are the evangelical Christians, the religious right-wingers, who are the
big pushing force behind President Bush and his disastrous wars." Are they indeed? I don't
please read on (9th May 2007)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 3 SHEETS
How to neutralize the well-known words of mass intimidation
"Racism". "Xenophobia". "Hate crime". "Discrimination". "Prejudice". For decades now, the
old parties and old media have been hurling these words at us, and because of it,
many people feel insecure to speak their mind, when their hurted sense of justice fills them
with annoyance and indignation. So it's time to learn to say something back.
please read on (9th May 2007)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 2 SHEETS
"... I think that bad ideas have been given - and are still being given - the image of being good ideas, and that good ideas have been given the image of being bad ideas. ..."
please read on (9th December 2009)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 2 SHEETS
Internet letter to the presidents of the national parliaments of the twenty-seven EU countries
"... Imagine the people you are representing were properly informed about Moses's astonishing doctrine of confusing, dispossessing, expelling, subjecting, even ruining the non-Jewish peoples - they would surely demand from their parliament to undertake action against it. ..."
please read on (9th April 2010)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 3 SHEETS
Internet letter to Prime Minister Mr Cameron
"... Britain is one of those countries the choices of which have had great consequences for the entire world. ..."
please read on (18th May 2010)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 2 SHEETS
Internetbrief aan tien lijsttrekkers
This is an internet letter in which I am addressing ten No 1 candidates of the old parties in The Netherlands, where on June the 9th general elections will take place. The text, in Dutch only, is almost identical to my letter to the national parliaments in Europe.
Geadresseerd, en tevens als 'echte' brief verzonden, aan de dames en heren Cohen, Halsema, Pechtold, Roemer, Rouvoet, Rutte, Van der Staaij, Thieme, Verdonk en Wilders, ter gelegenheid van de naderende Tweede-Kamerverkiezingen op 9 juni.
lees verder a.u.b. (25 mei 2010) + Een overzicht van de (non-)reacties tot dusver.
VOOR HET AFDRUKKEN VAN DEZE TEKST ZIJN 4 VELLEN NODIG
Internet letter to Israel's President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
"... what if you found out that a certain people called the Swej have been carrying a book called the Harot along with them, wherever they go, for the past 3,500 years? ..."
please read on (14th May 2013) I got an acknowledgement of receipt from the Prime Minister's Office (14th June 2013)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 2 SHEETS
Internet letter to 27 political parties in Europe
"... I would like to ask you the following question. What is your political party doing against Torahism to prevent it from harming the interests of your people (any further)? ..."
please read on (9th July 2013)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 3 SHEETS
Why not show Deuteronomy 15:6, Mr De Poel, instead of that anti-Semitic cartoon?
"... The cartoon shows three people at a dining table. At the left, a man in morning coat is seated. He is fat and sweaty, he has a hooked nose, and his three cuff links have the shape of little Stars of David. Above the man, who is feasting on a variety of dishes, stand the words 'The banks' ..."
please read on (10th October 2013)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 5 SHEETS
Mr De Poel, why not show your film to some other friends of Mr Wilders?
"... Now, it is possible that the Jews mentioned above have already been informed about the Wilders-Strache contact, and to leave nothing to chance, I could send internet letters to them about this ..."
please read on (29th October 2013)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 3 SHEETS
Internet letter to First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond
"... Can your forthcoming White Paper on independence be expected to have the answers to these questions? ..."
please read on (29th October 2013)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 3 SHEETS
Internet letter to UKIP leader Nigel Farage
"... Would you call this line of thought anti-Semitic? ..."
please read on (29th October 2013)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 3 SHEETS
My slightly one-sided correspondence with the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Germany
New: my last e-mail to Dr Ralf Melzer of November the 9th, 2013
please read on (I sent my first letter to them in May 2013)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 6 SHEETS
A selection from the texts I published on the British Democracy Forum
In August 2010, I sent an internet letter to Britain's main parties; the Conservatives replied ///// On the existence of God ///// Twelve opinions most people have strong feelings about ///// Are you determined never to fall in any sort of anti-Semitic trap? ///// How the media are making us insecure towards the Jews ///// What I find insidious about the expression 'white working class' ///// Is Islam slowly taking over the West? ///// Is it any use to vote for a socalled rightwing populist party? ///// You'd better like the EU. Or else... ///// David Cameron in April 2010: 'I will empower UK Jews' ///// Baroness Kennedy (Labour): 'The people with power are not the politicians' ///// The BBC's tale of two gossiping presidents ///// The idea behind my internet letters ///// How TV makers can make us feel bad about a particular country ///// Internet letter to US President Barack Obama ///// Internet letter to several news media in America ///// and more /////
please read on (24th December 2013)
Yeshua is telling us the saving truth
... "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (Yeshua in John 14:6) ...
please read on (31st May 2014)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 8 SHEETS
The Ukraine crisis: what does it look like, versus, what is it, most presumably?
"... He sees that this world, in spite of all the sheen of civilization, is still a dog-eats-dog-world, in which a coup d'état isn't internationally condemned, much less followed by sanctions ..."
please read on (18th August 2014) With some corrections on 1st September.
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 7 SHEETS
Suppose, the reversal takes place next week. Then what?
"... The whole of the anti-Torahist effort has to be carried out in such a way that it positively influences the discussions in the Jewish indoor world ..."
please read on (11th December 2014)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 10 SHEETS
Do you know how the British people are portrayed on Dutch TV?
"... In the episode of March the 15th, a journalist of The Times was privileged to present his take on the UK's issues. This journalist, one Sathnam Sanghera, had picked immigration ..."
please read on (4th April 2015)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 7 SHEETS
Internet letter to U.S. Presidency candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
"... In 2000, I became aware of the existence of the stunning Mosaic doctrine, as worded in the Torah, by which mentally defenceless Jewish children, as from the age of five, are indoctrinated to develop a supremacist, even genocidal mentality towards the non-Jewish peoples, and by which they are indoctrinated with the fear of their own (!) god, who is said to punish the Jews ruthlessly, if they won’t live by this Mosaic doctrine ..."
please read on (4th September 2016)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 4 SHEETS
How the BBC was creating a pro-war mood before the invasion of Iraq
"... In other words, the Newsnight staff edited an introduction meant to make us think that Mr Blair in 2003 is comparable with Mr Churchill in 1940 ..."
please read on (December 2003, published as a separate text on 10th October 2016)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 5 SHEETS
A BBC presenter has suggested WHAT ??
"... I reserved the fourth place for the supreme counter-argument. We may be able to do things because the laws of our countries allow us to do so, but I believe that in the final analysis, we are all answerable to God, and although He never calls me up to share His views with me, I believe that the sight of a couple of thousand people, owning firms that make big bucks out of producing pornography, and the sight of tens of millions of people watching pornography, is seriously adding to His ire over mankind, an ever larger part of which seems to be spitting on His commandments in many other respects as well ..."
please read on (18th November 2016)
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 9 SHEETS
"The Russians even tried to interfere on the Dutch referendum on the Ukraine association agreement...."
.... according to UK Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon MP, speaking on the BBC on October the 9th, 2016. Related internet letters, in Dutch and in English:
Internet letter to the Dutch Minister of Defence + the Ministry's reaction (last update 31st March 2017)
Internet letter to the Dutch Foreign Secretary + the Ministry's reaction (last update 31st March 2017)
Internet letter to several parliamentary parties in the Dutch Parliament + follow-up (last update 17th February 2017)
Internet letter to several news programmes and newspapers in The Netherlands + follow-up (last update 3rd January 2017)
Internet letter to BBC host Andrew Marr (10th March 2017)
Addition to the ways to confuse a nation (section 5.6 in the main text, part 1)
A presenter is clearly in favour of Method-5 over the years. This can be derived from the
questions he's asking and from the reasonings he is pushing his audiences in. His employers,
set to confuse the public, are happy with his work. So when he occasionally utters a stance that
is logically conflicting with the overall patterns in his influencing, they don't mind. For
example, when he publicly says something nasty about something or somebody his employers
don't like either, they'll let it pass without any ado.
Now, suppose the presenter's masters are suddenly worrying that the country might become
aware of their confusing activities. They will then jump at an
earlier remark of the presenter to make a case for their seeming impartiality. They'll
announce they will discontinue the cooperation, and they will show indignant
Method-5 influentials who are pleased with that discontinuation. The widely broadcast
controversy will become a vivid recollection in many people's minds. It will therefore
become harder to explain to the public, a part of which now erroneously believes the
presenter is pro-Method-7, that he usually promotes Method-5. Confusion can only be disguised
by creating yet more confusion. (no. 49) (22nd January 2004)
I have sent letters to Prime Minister Mr Blair and BBC Chairman Mr Davies
These letters contain diskettes with the text and I am mentioning my full name and address.
I mailed these letters on January the 26th. I've marked the envelopes with
'Christian-patriotic initiative'. (27th January 2004)
I have also informed The Guardian, The Independent and The Times
As an introduction to my e-mails, I wrote the following:
To: The Independent, The Guardian and The Times
This is to inform you that as from 25th December 2003 I have been e-mailing the following text to people working in
Britain's universities. What I am hoping for is that some brave people will once found a British Christian-Patriotic Party,
seeking to change anti-fascist Britain into a Britain that isn't troubled by any totalitarian ideology, including the beliefs
and actions of the Mosaicly brainwashed among the Jews.
It is a good thing that Hitler has been defeated, but Hitler's defeat didn't turn the Torah into a comic book all of a sudden,
and I hope you will inform your readers about the fact that the Jewish people never distanced themselves from that
book, which contains a number of directives to confuse, to dispossess and to slowly destroy all non-Jewish peoples,
thus including the British people that lost half a million lifes fighting Nazism and Japanese imperialism.
On the 26th of January I have sent letters to Prime Minister Mr Blair and BBC Chairman Mr Davies, in which I am
mentioning my full name and address.
uk.geocities.com/ibcpp [replaced by www.ibcpp.org.uk as from 30th September 2009]
I have used the following e-mail addresses:
The Guardian: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
The Independent: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
The Times and the THES: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
(27th January 2004)
I have received about 15 reactions so far. Most of them were negative. No
factual correction or exposure of a logical error in any of them. Some Jews reacted too. They
weren't positive either, but it's better than ignoring.
To those who asked me to remove their names from the mailing list - don't
worry, this is a once-only event. To those who asked me other questions:
this is not the right time for me to enter into any correspondence, I am
really sorry for that. I have now e-mailed more than 8,000 people.
I was notified by Downing Street that the Prime Minister has received
my letter and diskette. The message didn't say whether he has actually read
my text or not.
The BBC and the three newspapers haven't reacted. (3rd March 2004)
I have to wait and see
For half a year now, I haven't received a single e-mailed reaction. And since incoming e-mail
is the only way I can find out whether my readers are spreading this website address (I
haven't installed a hit counter), I can't say a thing about the effects of my
move so far. It's possible that many people do read me, but don't send mail. So do I have an
increasing number of readers or not? I haven't got the foggiest idea.
A comparable tale can be told about the influence of my text, if any, on today's
establishment. In the past six months, I have of course noticed some remarkable government
policy changes, Tory statements and BBC programmes. In my opinion, they may be (partially)
inspired by concern a significant number of potential voters would agree with my views (if
these views ever get well-known, that is). However, I have no evidence that such concern does
exist, so I will not bore you with any further speculations
on the subject. (10th September 2004)
The lesson from the sea
The quiet horizon, dividing the sky and the sea, suddenly revealed to harbour waves of death
and destruction. The world mourns for the huge loss of human lives in South-East Asia and
Africa, and those who believe in God, are praying for the victims' souls. The organisations
of helpers are pleasantly surprised by the quick increase of financial gifts, showing mankind
at its best, a family of peoples. But, as the BBC's Mr Omaar rightly said, the world should
also keep the needs of the stricken countries in mind, after the camera crews have left the
areas of devastation.
The catastrophe has made people say: 'There is no god, let alone a loving god. If such a god
existed, how then could he allow such terrible things to happen?' But if that is true, the
reversed reasoning is also true - mankind has witnessed several manifestations of
formidable natural violence that didn't demand any casualties, so there must be a God who
Ín 1908 a meteorite exploded over Central Siberia, flattening woodlands and causing fires in
a wide uninhabited area. Fortunately, this meteorite didn't hit Moscow, London, Washington
DC or any other city, so there must be a loving God.
In 1994 a comet from outer space collided with our solar system. This collision had been
foretold and the curious astronomers directed their telescopes and the Hubble space
telescope towards Jupiter. The torn-apart comet Shoemaker-Levy caused several gigantic
explosions in the thick atmosphere of that planet. Fortunately, the comet hit Jupiter, not
Earth, so there must be a God who cares about us.
Every second of the day, our solar system lies under siege of lethal radiation from, again,
outer space. It doesn't affect us on Earth though, since the solar wind, a constant flow of
charged particles leaving the sun, is holding that radiation at a distance. Now, this solar
wind isn't exactly healthy for mankind either, but we are protected against that
protecting solar wind by the Earth's magnetic field, which is deflecting those
Thank God, I would say.
So among all these inconceivably great forces of nature, mankind has originated and,
relatively recently, evolved into Homo Sapiens, and he wants to figure things out, he hopes
to find explanations, because these answers will at least give him the feeling he is on top
of things, as if he is seeking compensation for his physical frailty by finding intellectual
Now, even a minor rearrangement of two tectonic plates on our small planet already causes
this much suffering, and it is confronting us with two reasonings which are clearly
contradictory, but which both sound rather convincing. Isn't then the first lesson that
should be drawn from the tsunami disaster, that we, mankind, should simply be more
humble? (9th January 2005)
"Secret Powers Everywhere"
That is the title of an article on conspiracy theories, that was published in 'Scientific
American Mind', the December 2004 issue, volume 14, no. 5. On the magazine's cover, the
publication is being referred to by the line 'The Truth about Conspiracy Theories'. I am
the author of such a theory and I am interested in the truth, so I have read this article
attentively. It can also be found at
www.sciammind.com (9th February 2005)
The apostle from Poland has made his final journey
The embodiment of serving leadership, Pope John Paul II was a great Christian guide, because of his unfaltering commitment to values that have defied the storms of millennia
and because of his numerous deeds to bring all the peoples closer to the God of Love for all
mankind. (9th April 2005)
I've added a new text
It can be found at Fourteen questions to myself. In February
I announced that I would update this website in March, but I didn't. I apologise for the
inconvenience this may have caused. (9th April 2005)
"We do not war primarily with races as such. Tyranny is our foe, whatever trappings or
disguise it wears, whatever language it speaks, be it external or internal, we must
forever be on our guard, ever mobilised, ever vigilant, always ready to spring at
Prime Minister Winston Churchill, University of Harvard, 1943
Speeches & quotes, Speeches,
"The price of greatness is responsibility"
(....by which I don't want to recommend you to spring at
throat. But what I find striking about Mr Churchill's remark, is
that he was still full aware that the British people can have internal
adversaries, while he was in the middle of a war against tyranny
from overseas. 8th May 2005)
It is time to introduce myself
My name is Richard Schoot (1958), I am a Dutchman and I am living in a town near Den Haag (The
Hague). Firstly, I owe my readers an apology for trying to make them believe I am a Briton in
I undertook my first political action six years ago. Out of concern over how Dutch society is
developing, I wrote a pamphlet in which I described
the moral and social deteriorations in my country since '1968' and
I argued there is a relation between the decline and the prevailing opinions in the public
debate. Analysing these dominant opinions, it occurred to me they are the extreme
opposites of the extremist Nazi ideas, from which The Netherlands as an occupied country had
been suffering during five years.
Some of the examples I gave. Then: the relentless persecution of the Jews. Now: the
diffidence of the Dutch to criticise Israel. Then: the total
subordination of the individual to the interests of the collectivity. Now: the harping on
the rights of the individual. Then: state censorship. Now: the unlimited freedom for
artists and media people to use this freedom irresponsibly. Then: the glorification of
everything that is white. Now: the glamorisation of everything that is not white.
While unreservedly condemning Nazism, I went on arguing that The Netherlands are getting into
serious trouble as a result of the progressive ideas, and I turned against the standard practice
of dragging the Nazi era into the public debate to isolate those with common sense views.
After the liberation of Holland by the Allied armies in 1945, I wrote, the Dutch are now
facing the necessity to free their minds themselves, in the interest of sound government
policies to solve national problems.
In my pamphlet, I proposed to found a new
political party called 'Constructief Nederland', that should advance what I then called
moderately right-wing nationalist policies. I wrote a concept for a manifesto, I expressed
my views on the troubles the new party could be challenged by and on the kind of people the
party would need in order to be successful in the long run. I also announced I would ignore
the old media as much as I could, partly out of aversion to their biases, partly out of
curiosity about the potential of the new media.
I made it clear that I thought of the world view prevailing in the media as
an annoying but benevolent and
understandable reaction to Nazism and colonialism. I really found it hard to imagine that
any group of people could be willing to sneakily damage a society on purpose decade after
decade, and I didn't know about the Painful Passages back then.
I put my pamphlet on the internet and I spent a small fortune on two adverts in two
national newspapers to draw people's attention. These adverts were published on 9th and 10th June
1999. I felt I had made a strong and unique case about the
paralysing effects of WW2 on Dutch politics,
something that matters to the entire people. Furthermore, I was to the best of my knowledge
the first Dutchman who had published a political pamphlet on the internet, and the first
Dutchman trying to found a new party with the aid of that medium.
Because of all of this, I expected at least some media attention, but I didn't get any.
That surprised me. Even my announcement to ignore the old media seemed newsworthy to me,
in a world where your average politician is constantly struggling to get his or her
message in the news. So this media silence meant a setback to me, but I had to accept it, and
although I received only very few e-mails of people telling me they read my pamphlet, I
began to write articles for my website.
In 2000, I asked four opinion magazines for an interview, but without avail. Later
on in that year, I had a remarkable chance encounter with a man, who after my
introduction said he knew my name from the internet. A relative of his had
drawn his attention to my initiative, for which he showed
sympathy. He told me that his work brought him in regular contact with the editorial staff
of a local newspaper. After bringing up my initiative, they told him they
knew, but that they weren't allowed to publish about it.
This encounter made several things clear to me. In the first place, the fact that a man I never
met before, knew my name from the internet, was an encouraging indication that people
were spreading my website address. In
the second place, my initiative had apparently been newsworthy indeed. The only reason
why that particular newspaper hadn't paid attention to it, was because its editors had
been blocked to do so. In the third place, having found out about Torahism in the meantime,
I now understood there were forces at work who
didn't want the Dutch people to reflect on my pamphlet. The disproportionately large role
which the Nazi occupation is still playing in the Dutch mind, is evidently not something
the Dutch themselves, officially a 'free and democraticly ruled' people, should
be allowed to discuss.
My discovery of Torahism and of the New Testament answered
all my questions about the developments in the post-1945 West. All the separate bits of
knowledge I had gathered by then suddenly fitted together. I saw a clear overall
picture and I was overwhelmed by it. I saw the great danger of the Mosaic influence and I
was resolved to warn people against it. I immediately began to write again. In August
2001 I decided to go to Britain with this new text after its completion, without having a
clear idea about exactly how.
I had several reasons to take this route. Moses's inheritance concerns all the European nations,
so I preferred to word my new insights in the world language that is English. But I was
especially motivated to go to Britain because of the indignation I felt. I knew Britain had made
great sacrifices to help liberate the Continent from Nazism. I knew that British
soldiers and sailors had lost their lives in great numbers all over the world, that British
women had exhausted
themselves in the war industry, and that many British children had to be evacuated to the
countryside to escape the Luftwaffe and the V rockets.
My own people shouldn't have to accept
the psychological misuse of the Nazi era, but the British people rather less so
surely, in my opinion. In connection with this, I came to believe that a successful
Christian-patriotic movement is more likely to originate in the UK than in The Netherlands.
Now, I could have told straight off in my English text that I am a Dutchman. Why didn't
I? 'Thanks' to its liberal-progressive establishment, Holland obtained an
ill reputation throughout the world as the place 'where everything goes'. So were I to
reveal my nationality, I expected British readers to think: 'Why doesn't he try to fix the mess in
his own country?' I felt I then had to tell about all the ins and outs of my first
pamphlet as well. Explaining things could easily become quite complicated, I thought, while
my core message was complicated more than enough already. When a writer raises very delicate
issues like Jewry and racial differences, all sorts of alarm bells start
ringing in the average reader's mind. So to lower the acceptance barrier as much as
possible, I decided to pretend being an Englishman. The advantages of this construction
outweighed the risk readers would notice that English is not my mother tongue.
It was an effort to deceive people, but my apology will hopefully be accepted. (9th June 2005)
The London bombings
Innocent people were randomly stricken by ghastly aggression. I am sympathising with the
victims and their families, who are now going through something we as outsiders can't really
imagine, I feel respect for those who are doing their best helping others in the
aftermath, the doctors and the nurses, the emergency workers, the detectives now facing a
difficult job, and it's obvious that the terrorists involved deserve nothing but
the sharpest condemnation. No perception of God, no anger over the West's double
standards, no suffering from injustice, no feelings of humiliation can ever justify
such deeds, that are contemptible for their cowardice and repulsive for their cruel
fanaticism. The West is far less noble than the West's image is constantly suggesting, but
blind terror is quite not the way to make the world a better place. (9th July 2005)
Hurricane Katrina, the stampede in Baghdad, plane crashes....
May God have mercy on the souls of the victims and support their next of kin. (9th September 2005)
Six newly elected Tory MPs have written a letter to The Spectator, saying the Muslims are
right about the decadence in the UK. I wonder when they'll say the Muslim indoor world
is right about the Torahist influence in the world. (9th September 2005)
Another manipulation technique I've discovered (no. 50)
A polling company can get two different outcomes when they put one and the same question
to a random selection of, say, 1,500 people. How? By firstly asking their respondents
another question that will influence their mood towards the main subject, and then ask
them the main question. The polling company will subsequently only publish
that second question and the figures about the outcome of the poll.
example. A certain organisation wants to know how a certain people feel about the French. The
pollers know that that organisation is hoping for a favourable outcome for the French.
So their first mood-setting question will be something like this: 'The French gave the
world champagne, perfumes and haute couture, the Louvre in Paris is annually attracting
of art and antiquities from all over the world and the Citroën DS became a legendary
car thanks to its design and highly innovative pneumatic suspension. How do you feel about these things?'
The respondents, reminded of pleasant things about France through that question, are then asked
how they feel about the French in general.
The combined reactions to that same question will however
turn out to be quite different, if the pollers hope for an unfavourable result
for the French and initially ask: 'Only a few months in office, President
Chirac ordered nuclear bomb testing to resume in the Pacific, the French were standing aloof
while US and UK troops liberated the Iraqi people from an evil dictator and it was a
Frenchman who invented the guillotine. How do you feel about these things?' (9th September
I've added a new text
It is dealing with the
after the terrorist attacks in London. (9th September 2005)
Prime minister Mr Blair about the BBC
In the Sunday AM programme of September the 25th Mr Marr had an interview with Mr Blair. They
came to talk about a confidential remark of Mr Blair's that had been made public by Mr
Murdoch. This interview item led the BBC World Service to bring the following Ceefax
Blair admits BBC Katrina disquiet - Tony Blair says he "didn't care much for" some
BBC reports about Hurricane Katrina, after claims he was angry at the corporation's
"anti-Americanism". But the prime minister told the BBC's Sunday AM programme: "I'm not
making any great criticism of the BBC - you carry on doing whatever you want." Media tycoon
Rupert Murdoch said Mr Blair told him the BBC World Service coverage was "full of hate of
America". The BBC said it was committed to "full, accurate and impartial coverage".
'I'm not making any great criticism of the BBC - you carry on doing whatever you want.' It
reminded me of what I have written in the main text, 6.6.1: 'In my view, the interests of
the old media and the old parties are unhealthily interwoven. The picture of some wordless
deal emerges: the old media are allowing the old parties to build an image of decent,
reasonable parties for themselves, as long as the old parties never mention Torahism.'
Please also note the 'full' and 'impartial' bits in the Ceefax report. (9th October 2005)
An example of how the Nazi era is politically misused in my country
At the end of September, Dutch railway company NS and the 'Centraal Joods Overleg' (Central
Jewish Consultations) launched a poster campaign in 66 train stations. The posters came in
two text variations: 'In 1940-45, it were the Jews who had to bugger off. Who now?
Don't let the hatred resurge' and 'The train to Auschwitz used to depart from here. When
will the world get any wiser?' (Original texts: 'In 1940-45 moesten de Joden oprotten. Wie
nu? Laat de haat niet herleven.' and 'Vroeger vertrok hier de trein naar Auschwitz. Wanneer
wordt de wereld wijzer?')
I find such texts utterly offensive. The Jews had to bugger off in those years,
yes, but under the orders of the occupying forces of a merciless militaristic police state,
not under Dutch orders. Not only had they to bugger off, they were deported to get murdered,
around 110,000 of them. Again, under Nazi orders, not under Dutch orders. These posters
however maliciously suggest that the Dutch were responsible.
Furthermore, the question 'Who
now?' suggests that other ethnic groups might once become the victims of the alleged
Dutch hate, and the campaign got prime time TV coverage. In other words, hundreds of thousands
of TV viewers of non-Dutch origin were given the idea to regard the Dutch as potential mass
This has nothing to do with sincerely furthering
tolerance and respect, this is insulting the Dutch people and I suspect it is deliberate
anti-white psychological warfare. (9th November 2005)
Iranian President Ahmadinejad on October the 26th: 'Israel must be wiped off the map.'
This outrageous remark was rightly condemned by the EU under the presidency of Mr Blair in
the following statement: "Calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are
manifestly inconsistent with
any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community". Well said.
The problem is of course that the President of Iran (who reportedly is a good Muslim
towards the poor in his country) has now given a golden PR opportunity to those politicians
who want to camouflage certain Torahist-imperialistic moves as indispensable actions for
Israel's self-defence (by which I am not saying that veritable Israeli self-defensive actions
Yet, leaving the predictable lies aside, there is now a State of Israel existing since 1948
and I hope it always will.
I believe that the Jews are a restless people. They are a restless people because of all the
tensions that sprout from Torahism, and because of their awareness that sixty years ago, the
lack of a country of their own facilitated Hitler to commit his terrible crimes.
It is however in the interest of the entire world that the Jews once find rest. It
is in the interest of all mankind that its most intelligent part finds rest. So there
has to be a secure State of Israel, and the anti-Torahist rollback that Europe needs, has to
be carried out for the sake of the existence, sovereignty and
well-being of the European peoples, not for the purpose of making life bitter for the Jewish people.
When a Christian-patriotic movement succeeds in doing that, and
thus gains the trust of benevolent Jews, an anti-Torahist movement within Jewry itself
will once arise and get increasing influence over the years. It's all much easier said than
done, but I am really convinced that that's the appropriate way ahead. (9th November 2005)
The BBC is repeating the series 'Auschwitz - the Nazis & the 'Final Solution'
This series, written and produced by Laurence Rees, was firstly screened in January
of this year. When I saw the first episode, I was amazed by the scene in which
a bunch of SS guards were singing a song to the melody of.... the Dutch national anthem. I am
not familiar with the musical repertoire of the SS, but they surely had dozens of other
songs. The makers of the series should have picked another melody. This choice was
needlessly embarrassing to their Dutch viewers. (I'll keep another thought on this subject
Noticing the announcement of the re-run, I was touched by the irony of the fact that by
producing this series, Mr Rees has been spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' pounds
to keep the public vigilant towards the dangers of national-socialism only, whereas I am
alerting my visitors to all lethal doctrines by means of a website that doesn't cost
anyone a single penny.
The next episode is scheduled for Saturday the 12th of November at 8.25 on BBC2. (9th November 2005)
David Cameron in 'Sunday AM': 'We need an intellectual revolution'
Yes Mr Cameron, we do indeed, we do need that. (9th November 2005)
The disgusting nihilism raging against France
I'll go into that next month. (9th November 2005)
How to confuse a nation through the old media, Part 51
Newspapers can confuse their readers by publishing articles in which the distinction between
facts and opinions has disappeared. The opinion pages begin to welcome clarifying fact-based
articles, articles based on muddled reasonings and glib lobbyist propaganda alike. In this
way, articles that don't bear the same intellectual weight, are all getting the same status of
an opiniating article, which results in undermining the importance of the clarifying
fact-based publications. (9th November 2005)
Commemorating the Reichspogromnacht
After a German diplomat in Paris had been killed by a young Jew, the Nazi state stirred
up feelings of hate and vindictiveness and staged a night of violence
against the Jews on 9th November 1938. Around 90 got killed, synagogues were set alight and
Jewish shops were looted and destroyed across the country. (9th November 2005)
I added a new article
It's a critical look at the
BBC documentary about the
psychological profile of Hitler which the Americans made in 1943. I've postponed the publication
of my text on the violence peak in France. I like to wish you an inspiring and merry
Christmas and a good, hopeful and healthy 2006. (22nd December 2005)
The Lancet reports: Congo is the world's worst crisis
The report was mentioned in a CNN Text message of 7th January. Some fragments: 'Nearly 4 million
Congolese died between 1998 and 2004, the indirect result of years of ruinous fighting that
has brought on a stunning collapse of public health services. (...) 38,000 die each
It's heavily tabooised, but I believe that the unbearable problems of this insane magnitude
in Africa can only be sorted out, if there is a permanent Christian white presence in these
countries, that is empowered by that country's government to make things of vital
In my 1999 pamphlet, I already proposed to make barter deals
with Third World governments. I wrote:
'Why not replace the existing development co-operation by true development co-operation? Why
not seek a form of co-operation that prevents Third World inhabitants from wanting to escape
their country, as what is happening now? The huge amounts of money The Netherlands have been spending
in the past thirty years, didn't constitute help, but fake help. Because of the fear of being
labelled 'paternalistic', the ruling elite gave away hundreds of millions of guilders [billions
actually] without demanding proper auditing of the spending. So the result became what you
could already have
expected - nihil. Besides, don't forget that there is something condescending about help. The
helped one can even begin to feel a certain resentment towards the helper. By accepting
help, the helped one recognises that he can't manage, that he is conducting the struggle for life
less well than the helper does. That is not a very pleasant insight. It isn't for nothing that
the Arabic saying goes: 'Why does he hate me? I never helped him, did I?'
That's why I am
pleading for development co-operation on business lines. Why shouldn't The Netherlands go
look for a limited number of nations, five or six at the most, to construct a kind of
international partnership? We come to those governments with a clear proposal. We let you
share in what we have, you let us share in what you have.
We Dutch can bring in the following:
telecommunications, management skills, medical facilities, starting capital, enthusiastic
young people and knowhow on various domains: civil engineering, agriculture, chemistry,
you name it. You can bring in labourers, raw materials, minerals, crops. Surely, that can
lead to a barter deal that benefits The Netherlands as well as the Third World country
Some principles are universal; everyone in the world understands them without
further explanation. 'Something for something' is one of them.
There is nothing unethical about it.
And, very important, this principle makes both parties
accept one another as they are.
That's real development co-operation for you. And the influence
we gain in such a country, we can apply to effectively do something against child labour and
so on, because we'll be present there ourselves. (....) We can go to the countries we've
colonised in earlier times and say to them: 'We've long ruled over your country and we did
so on the basis of an error, thinking we were superior, but we've learnt from our mistakes,
now we are coming to you with a proposal that can bear fruit for both our countries, and that
plan is arguably the best way to make up for our wrongs in colonial times.'
What I am trying to get across here, is that we need a far better approach for the
solution of Africa's problems than what we get to hear now all the time, this whole media
parade of pop artists half a year ago for instance, who were
pressing Western governments for 'debt release', which amounts to giving money away
that isn't theirs, but the Western taxpayers', who never get any say in this.
We need an approach based on mutual respect, an approach that on the one hand recognises the
racial facts of life, and that on the other hand spares the Africans loss of face, that leaves
their self-respect intact.
suffering is another reason for me to hope that present-day taboos will once crumble, because
I understand what Einstein meant when he said: 'The way of thinking that got you into
trouble, can never be the same way of thinking that will get you out of it.' I simply fail
to see what is so 'liberal' and 'progressive' about persisting in the untruth that
the human races are equally talented, an untruth that, in Congo for instance, is daily
contributing to the unimaginable misery of our fellow men over there. (9th February 2006)
The Islamic anger over the mockery of Mohammed
From the multitude of opinions that were privileged to be screened in the past days, a small
1. 5th February, Dutch discussion programme 'Buitenhof'. Presenter Rob Trip tells his
guests: 'Die Welt, an authoritative newspaper, and most other European newspapers are writing:
Islam can only then be considered civilised, if it's just as easy to make jokes about
Mohammed as about Jesus.'
1a. I think it is a great misunderstanding to assume that Muslims will ever go along with this.
They don't view the mockery of Christ as progress, as something that should inspire them, as an
example well set. On the contrary. That the Christians have allowed this mockery to take
place for decades, is something they probably view as an indication of the inferiority of
1b. What is it about liberal-progressive people that
they never seem to doubt the wisdom of their own positions, that they never account and
apologise for the wrongs that came forth from
their ideas? Time and again I've read interviews with these people, sighing: 'Since
the 1960s we've emancipated the women, we legalised abortion, we're working on euthanasia laws,
we've emancipated the gays, but now that the Muslims have moved in, it looks like we have to start
all over again with them.' What is it that makes these people so arrogant? Do they ever
confront themselves with the possibility, if even for two minutes, that they are
wrong, that all the 'progress'
they achieved, is based on a lack of respect for life, based on the denial of the existence
of female and male qualities, based on the discarding with all the knowledge of life
which mankind has accumulated since it learnt to write? Their definition of 'civilisation'
will never be accepted by Muslims. And what is so 'civilised' about hurting and offending
people in their hundreds of millions?
2. There is something peculiar about the joint statement of the UN, the EU and the
Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued by Mr Annan, Mr Solana and
Mr Ishanoglu respectively. The statement is meant to show
understanding for the feelings of the Muslims, but to condemn the violence. It contains
'(...) But we also believe the recent violent acts surpass the limits of peaceful
protest. In particular, we strongly condemn the deplorable attacks on diplomatic missions
that have occurred in Damascus, Beirut and elsewhere. Aggression against life and property
can only damage the image of a peaceful Islam. We call on the authorities of all countries
to protect all diplomatic premises and foreign citizens against unlawful attack. (...)'
'The image of a peaceful Islam', it says.
Apparently, these three gentlemen are only worrying about how Islam looks like in the
eyes of the Europeans. I'd say Europe is better served if it's told the truth
For the full statement: www.un.org, click 'Welcome',
'UN News Centre', look for 'Search UN News' in the right column, type: SG2105
3. A poll in my country learnt that about two thirds of the Dutch don't understand the
Islamic anger (source: Maurice de Hond). Yet, 1950s Holland would have understood it, as 'holy'
was a word most of my countrymen connected well with then, and 2050s Holland will hopefully
understand such things too. The sooner, the better, of course. (9th February 2006)
God is Love, says Benedict XVI
Hear hear.... (9th February 2006)
An Austrian court sentenced David Irving for denying the Holocaust in 1989
During his trial last February, the historian pleaded guilty to the criminal charges made
against him. He said he erred in saying there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. He
acknowledges that the Nazis have murdered millions of Jews. These statements constitute of
course a welcome blow, a welcome wake-up call to those whose neo-Nazi sympathies have always
made it hard to accept what has really happened under Hitler's rule.
In chapter 10 of the main text and in 'Fourteen questions to myself', I've been critical
of the way how Mr Irving has been portrayed in the old media, not knowing that he
has actually denied the Holocaust. His 2002 reply to me wrongly led me to assume that he has
always been a Holocaust revisionist. I would have written differently about this issue, if
I had known better. (16th March 2006)
A couple of weeks ago, the BBC broadcast 'The plot against Harold Wilson'
Who says the BBC is shying from investigating conspiracy theories? (9th April 2006)
Confusing technique no. 52: down-imaging by feeding thought associations
An unknown writer has produced a text that is considered a threat
by mendacious TV makers. They ignore him. He is however determined
to spread his text, so he resorts to photocopying and other means of reproduction. After a
while, the TV makers are worried to understand that an increasing number of people are very
interested in reading and spreading his writings. Consequently, the hypocrites decide
to down-image him in the following roundabout manner.
They make a programme about a certain celebrity
writer, after making sure this famous person will not object to their plan. The texts of
this author show a slight superficial resemblance to those of the boycotted
writer. The TV makers will make full use of this vague similarity. In their
script, they'll put as many
hints to the unknown writer as they can think of. The decisive differences
between both writers are flatly ignored.
Furthermore, the TV makers pay a lot of attention to the impressive writing skills of the
famous writer, but they plan to explain to the public that these skills have a dark side to
The celebrity will be portrayed as a great manipulator, an irresistible seducer. He almost
magically deprives his readers of their criticising abilities, and they love him for it.
It will be suggested they are eager to be
submitted to his verbal voodoo.
The programme is broadcast. Very many viewers don't know anything about the unreported writer.
These viewers will watch the programme, logically assuming it's about the
They can't possibly realise that the
programme isn't actually made for them. It is produced to aim at the people
who have read the unknown writer's text and agree with it.
Now, picture one of them, while he or she is watching. The continuous stream of hints has
the intended effect. The viewer gets tingled by the similarities. They spark thought
associations that lead his mind from the famous writer to the unknown writer. The viewer
is not given
a chance to reflect on the differences, as the programme keeps on loading his mind with new
images, more words, fresh input.
The emphasis on manipulative, seductive writing
has the intended effect too. Before the programme, the viewer felt appreciation for
the unknown man's text, because it had clarified several important issues to him. But now,
he starts wondering whether the unknown writer has manipulated him in the
same way the famous writer apparently goes about it. The viewer begins to
doubt the integrity of the unknown writer, and the sowing of that doubt
is exactly what the programme makers are after. (9th April 2006)
In 'Fourteen questions to myself', I dealt with the phenomenon of negative hints, but I am
noticing the opposite thing is going on too. I am in a position that can easily
lure me into wishful thinking, but occasionally, I am observing statements that I in all
modesty can't interpret as anything else than positive hints to my work, and I've come to admire
people's sense of justice, magnanimity and fearlessness. I will and can not go into detail.
I may be 95% sure that something is meant as a positive hint, but I can never have 100%
certainty, and besides, I don't want to embarrass people.
Still, if you, my dear reader,
recognize yourself in this, if you have made veiled references to my initiative, either in
written or in spoken words, if you, by doing so, have signalled that my opinions should
get access to what is called the 'public debate', or, a step further, if you've meant to
signal that you share my views, then I want you to know I'm very grateful for that. It helps
me a lot. It helps fuel my drive.
By the way, is all the circumspection that I have
to exercise now not a sad comment on our times? (9th September 2006)
I can think of good reasons to stop, but I will continue
In the past two-and-a-half years, I have never received any e-mail. The few reactions in
early 2004 were the only ones. That means a serious
setback to me. At the time, I was hoping that one out of every x number of readers would
react, so that if my texts were being spread by increasing numbers of people, an increase of
received e-mails would indicate that to me, in course of time.
I know that my ever-empty inbox
imply people don't spread the word, perhaps my internet book has already been read by hundreds
of thousands of people, telling others about it, yet feeling an inner obstacle
to react, but this is nevertheless bothering me. Furthermore, that I never get mail, is not
an easy thing to tell to the people around me, as you can understand.
Then, there are moments of strong doubts over my personal
suitability to be a promoter of the Christian message.
Now, these and other things could of course lead me to stop writing for the website or remove
The reasons to continue however are carrying much more weight. (9th September 2006)
Home Secretary Mr J. Reid MP: "We have to get away from the daft so-called politically
correct idea that everyone who wants to talk about immigration, is somehow a racist"
Mr Reid said so a couple of months ago, but he's quite not the first one who said it. In
the past decades, I've heard so many of my countrymen say things like: "When you
say something about it, you're called a racist!", in a mixture of irony and incomprehension,
whenever they feel annoyed by an immigration-related wrong, and I believe that a whole
lot of people feel the same way at the British side of the North Sea.
It has always been daft (and probably malicious too) to stick the 'racism' label on those
opposed to the massive immigration of people, whose life-styles would predictably conflict
It has always been daft (and probably malicious too) to call people 'narrow-minded' or
'egoistic' or 'nationalistic' when they are worried to see that jobs, that should go
to the British and the Dutch unemployed, are taken by foreigners.
It has always been utterly foolish to make a country like the UK or The Netherlands
attractive for lazybones, frauds and criminals from other countries, who simply compare
the tough way their own governments are treating them with the idiotic pampering over here,
and then obviously understand which way to go. That has never been rocket science.
And now, Mr Reid seems to want to connect with the many who are fed up with
what has become of 'multicultural' Britain. Yet, he seems to be careful to say it in such a manner,
as if his party and the daft idea are two completely different things. Mr Reid doesn't
mention the huge co-responsibility of the Labour party, one decade after the other, for the
pushing of the very idea he's now suddenly denouncing as 'daft' and
'so-called politically correct', and his party isn't accounting to the public for the huge
problems that came of it. (16th October 2006)
In May 2005, millions of Britons voted for the party that literally promised them more
police, cleaner hospitals, lower taxes, school disciplin and controlled immigration....
....yet, what they got a half year later, is a Tory opposition leader who after nine years of
Labour government says: 'I like Britain as it is.'
I'm watching the BBC's news selection programmes quite often, but all I'm seeing
Mr Cameron do is travelling to the North Pole, jumping on a bike, toying with his webcam,
proudly showing a sloppily drawn tree as his new party logo and giving speeches I
can never remember one sentence of. What happened to
"school disciplin"? What happened to "more police"? What happened to "the British values" and
"the forgotten majority" Mr Howard claimed to stand up for in May 2005? (It's
really as recent as that!) What happened to "the subversion of British values" Mr Howard
accused Mr Blair of, back then? That's a rather serious accusation, isn't it?
Now, that a party is moving in another direction than the one they promised before
the elections, is bad enough as it is.
But how about the BBC? I can't recall ever having seen
one BBC interviewer grill Mr Cameron on this direction change, that must have disappointed
countless voters. All I'm seeing the BBC do is approvingly saying that the Conservative Party
is 'returning to the centre-ground of politics, shaking off the "nasty party" image'. In
other words, the BBC is rewarding political unreliability instead of exposing it.
What I'm in favour of, is the democratic decency of politicians who firstly think
through thoroughly what needs to be done, then go the public and tell them clearly what needs
to be done, then stick to it, determinedly, consistently, for the
duration of the full parliament, and then, in the new campaign, explain to the public what
the state of affairs is, mentioning both their successes and their failures. That is the
kind of democratic decency that should be shared by all political parties, regardless of
their views, and that is something the voting citizen can rightfully expect in return for
the sign of confidence that is his vote. (16th October 2006)
In the Sunday AM programme of October the 8th, the BBC's first director-general, John
Reith, was said to have been anti-Semitic and an admirer of Mussolini's and Hitler's
So, besides the theory I put forward earlier, this evokes the
possibility of another theory on the causes of the BBC's silence on Torahism.
That second theory is: once the Holocaust was uncovered after the war, the subsequent BBC
directors-general became so disturbed and traumatized by the idea of having so politically
wicked a predecessor, that the Corporation turned
intensely Torahist-friendly on the rebound in the years that followed.
theory matches the real situation best, the British people are still being severely
disadvantaged by the BBC's quietness about the dreadful Mosaic ambition. (16th October 2006)
Dutch parliamentarian Jan Marijnissen's comment on the many conspiracy theories about
The fifth anniversary of the al-Qaeda terrorist crimes gave the old media in my country
cause to pay much attention to these theories, in which the Bush
administration itself is usually suggested to be the perpetrator.
In its edition of
August the 18th, weekly magazine HP/De Tijd ran a cover story on 9/11 theories and on the
kind of people who want to believe in them, as they ignore significant
counterarguments or even give a grotesque spin to such arguments to keep their fantasies
article also mentioned Mr Marijnissen's view on this
matter. (Mr Marijnissen is leading a party that holds 9 of
the 150 seats in the Tweede Kamer, the Dutch equivalent of the House of Commons. His party
considers itself to be an opposition party.)
Mr Marijnissen, as quoted: 'The belief in plots is a dangerous path to go. After all, with a
selective use of the facts, you can make a plot of just about everything' (Original quote:
'Geloof in complotten is een gevaarlijk pad. Immers, met een selectief gebruik van de feiten
is overal wel een complot van te maken')
I find Mr Marijnissen's opinion wise as well as covering only half the truth.
Suppose, an insincere or paranoid person is set on seeing a conspiracy. He writes
a text about it, while omitting the facts that don't convene with his purpose, and he trumpets
his views around. If he gains a lot of support for it among the people, feelings of distrust,
fear and hatred will rise in society, and that can lead to a dangerous situation
indeed. So it's a good thing Mr Marijnissen is
warning against that. People who want to see conspiracies, will see them one day, and the
less political and media influence they have, the better. The assumption of other people's
benevolence and sincerity is a prerequisite for a livable, happy society.
It is however also true that this assumption should not degrade to risky naiveté. With
regard to politics, it is unwise to turn
a blind eye to the sort of political ambitions that can only be realised obscurely by
definition. The political ambitions of those who know how to pose as good democrats perfectly,
but who are anti-democratic at heart. The political ambitions of those who view emotional
blackmail, prolonged hypocrisy, anxious conformism and plain calculating conformism as
morally acceptable to get their way in the end. The political ambitions of those who will
always avoid a clarifying in-depth discussion.
If such ambitions are left unbarred in a democratic society for a long time, then
circumstantial evidence that something worrisome is going on behind the scenes, will
almost automaticly mount for the careful observer who leaves no facts excluded,
emotionally difficult as it may be to stomach some of those facts.
In other words, ruling out the possibility of a plot beforehand can be dangerous too,
because conspiracies regretfully do belong
to the arsenal of political activities, and conspiracies can be
In case the nation becomes aware that such a major conspiracy is likely to exist, it must be
made clear that 'likely' does not mean 'proof' and that values like the rule of law and
the inviolability of life and property must always apply.
On the other hand, the nation can
then rightfully expect its leaders to neutralize the perilous situations and developments,
that were probably caused by plotters. (29th October 2006)
Commemorating the Reichspogromnacht
The 9th of November 1938 saw a night of violence against the Jews in Germany, that led to the
loss of 90 lives, an ominous prelude of things to come. Some disturbing figures from
present-day Germany: the number of far-right crimes there rose by 21% to 8,000 in 2006 in
comparison with the same period in 2005 (source: ARD, 17th October 2006). The eastern German
lands in which neo-Nazi party NPD acquired parliamentary representation rose from two in 2004
to three. (9th November 2006)
Confusing technique no. 53: broadcasting TV scenes, produced to silently deter people
from undertaking political action
A group of powerful people are in control of television and film, misusing it for
ill purposes, and they are worrying that a growing number of people are
contemplating whether or not to undertake political action against that. They would hate to see
that happen, so they begin to make programmes with scenes
that they trust will let the following ideas pop up in the viewers'
1) Going into politics will put so many demands on me, it will ruin my private life. 2) Not
only I myself, but also my loved ones will come under siege of the cruel media. 3) If you are
deemed a serious risk by the establishment or by foreign powers, they might even send in
The suggested message will be: 'Stay out of politics. It will only get you into serious
trouble.' (9th November 2006)
Confusing technique no. 54: biasing the public against an interviewed person by
making an unfavourable allegation about that person without his prior knowledge
Someone gets the opportunity to air his or her views in a newspaper article or in a
TV programme, but malevolent media people want the audience to look at that person
through an unfavourable filter. They can achieve that by admitting a negative allegation
in the beginning of the article or programme, after the interview has taken
place. The public will then judge all the statements of the interviewee in the light of
An example. Politician Mr Jones has told his interviewer things
like 'As this is a delicate matter, we should take our time to carefully look at all
aspects of it' and 'A decision about an important issue directly affects
neighbouring issues, mind you'.
Such statements will get a particular glow over them,
when the medium has used the introduction: 'Mr Jones is getting scared'.
If the media people
want you to like Mr Smith who is saying similar things, the opening words will go: 'Mr
Smith warns against rashliness' (9th November 2006)
Nazi cartoons are shown on British TV, Nazi cartoons are shown on Dutch TV....
In the episode 'Hess' of the BBC series 'Nuremberg - Nazis on trial', broadcast on October
the 9th, a fragment of a Nazi animation film was shown, in which little Jewish caricatures
were flying into books, theatres, courts and other buildings, while a German voice-over,
speaking in the grim fanatical style so typical of the regime, accused the Jews of
harming the German people in all sorts of ways.
Now, I'm not watching the Dutch TV channels all day, Heaven forbid, but
I've recently seen them broadcast fragments of another anti-Semitic animation film on three
days on a row. It was produced during the German occupation under the orders
of Holland's party of Nazi collaborators.
Both the BBC and the Dutch broadcasters alike are remaining monotonously silent about the
ideology of the Painful Passages, so I'll have to go on monotonously marking their monotony.
Because, what is the effect of their selective silence, in combination with the airing of
Nazi cartoons and of the pictures of the Third Reich's
opinion, this broadcasting policy is strengthening the false idea that
says: 'The Nazis viewed the Jews as the source of all evil in the world, so - so -
everyone who says something negative about the Jews, is a Nazi, or an anti-Semite at least'.
It raises the question: who
are the only ones, who can benefit from the general public making that mistake?
If we'd have old media paying attention to the Painful Passages, and if we'd have
old media investigating the political power of Torahism, then you'd get, after an initial
shock, a far less troubled opinion climate in the country, and people would feel uninhibited
to say: 'It's obvious that the ruthless anti-Semitism of the Nazis should
remain a thing of the past forever, but we don't have to tolerate that Torahist Jews
and their associates are exploiting and endangering our nation, and we don't
have to tolerate anybody's psychological warfare.' (9th November 2006)
I added a new text
addressed to ten chief editors in my country. (9th November 2006)
After my letter, I'm waiting and seeing
So far, the ten media haven't put a question about Torahism to Holland's
campaigning politicians. They haven't produced a broadcast or article on the issue yet.
None of their editors has reacted to my letter up to now. No phonecall, no letter,
no e-mail. (12th November 2006)
Still no reaction from the ten media. No counterarguments that weaken my theory. On
the other hand, no questions about Torahism to the politicians either. No
broadcasts or articles on the subject. (15th November 2006)
Still no reaction from the ten media. No counterarguments that weaken my theory. On
the other hand, no questions about Torahism to the politicians either. No
broadcasts or articles on the subject. (18th November 2006)
The same story, or should I say: non-story. Holland's most influential media remain
silent towards the public, regarding the well-known subject, and they remain silent towards
me. By the way, my person can't be the reason why they ignore me. I don't know any of the
chief editors personally, this was the first time I tried to get in contact with them.
The general elections will take place tomorrow. While I'm typing
this, I'm listening to the final TV debate, in which the leaders of the largest six parties
are participating. They're ping-ponging their arguments, soundbites, facts, denials and
reproaches so zealously, one might almost think Holland's future is depending on
this-or-that party gaining some seats extra. (21st November 2006)
Ten of the old parties were elected to send representatives
to the Tweede Kamer, varying from 41 to 2 MPs per party. At least three parties
will be needed to form a coalition government that is backed by a parliamentary
majority of 76 MPs or more. The negotations may well take several months. (23rd
I just heard that lovely song, 'It's the most wonderful time of the year'
Nothing has changed about my conviction that the reversal will come. Probably somewhere
in the course of this decade, the nations will become aware of Torahism, and
a number of post-1968 developments, which have been given a 'good' image, will be recognized,
exposed, as very problematic moral and social deteriorations. The reversal will usher in a
good development for the Jews too, regardless of what any parade of Torahist-friendly
'opinion leaders' will say or yell about it in the old media.
One day, most Torahists will see Moses and his Painful Passages for what they truely
are. I wrote it earlier and I'll write it again: words like 'confusion, expel, dispossess,
ruin' have a negative ring to them in Hebrew too, surely.
I have my moments of doubt and despair of course. There are times the
reversal seems further away than ever, there are times I'm thinking 'it's too late, the
decline already made us sink below the point of no return', but such negative
feelings never really run deep and I think I would have the courage to
declare this second initiative a failure, if I believed that to be true.
So based on everything I've come to discover, understand and learn since 1999, I repeat:
I'm sure the reversal is coming. Don't ask me for the exact date, but there is a date. And
on that positive note, I like to wish you a wonderful Christmas and a good
and life-enriching 2007. (19th December 2006)
I added a new text
It's an internet letter, addressed to
of the British National Party. (10th January 2007)
The enemy within
I feel obliged to inform those among you who sympathize about a difficult issue.
convinced that Christianity will once regain people's hearts and minds. Europe will
once reconnect with its best values. I remain convinced
Christianity has the formidable potential to roll back Torahism, to roll back its pitiful
servant called pseudo-Christianity and to expose the flaws in the God-denying philosophies.
Yet I find it increasingly difficult to imagine I can be helpful to
expedite the reversal. Earlier I already mentioned I have valid doubts as to whether I'm
the right man to get involved in a political-evangelizing action, and mine is now the
moral dilemma of a man who every now and then awkwardly fails to live up to the
Christian standards himself, which he is advocating for the world around him. I'll spare
you the details, and long stories about the sorrow and the shame that come with it.
I decided to mention my dilemma on this website, because the issue is affecting my
initiative. I'm noticing my inner conflict is inhibiting
me from doing something very necessary, namely going full steam against the immoralizing
influences around us, which so many people seem to have accepted as normal and harmless.
Right now, I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing. I'm facing the possibility it's my
own dark side that might silence the writer with ideals in me. I need some time to sort
this out. Perhaps it's a matter of summoning up courage. There are those who manage to turn
their weakness into their strength, but that road isn't clear to me (yet?). I envy
The whole thing is all the more
frustrating, given the texts I am working at and the new internet letters I have in mind.
I'll certainly come back to the subject. (26th February 2007)
"You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?"
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
The end of a dilemma
There are pictures and films a civilized man doesn't want to see. I've seen
them, while, paradoxically, always understanding pornography to be an evil. In a bid to
clean the slate, I mentioned this in the main text, but in vain. I've done wrong in this
respect in the years that followed, including this year.
I feel forced to reveal this for two reasons. Firstly, I want to carry on writing for the
initiative. I therefore have to correct the unbalance in my texts, an unbalance
which is caused by my avoiding of writing about sexual morality issues. But if I am to write
about those, I have to begin with a clean slate ("yet again", I can hear my enemies laugh), as I
don't want to be a hypocrite.
I have also a negative reason for revealing this. My misbehaviour is knowable to others and
I don't want to live with the idea that others are in a position in which they could try
to blackmail me, or that others are waiting for the 'right' day to broadcast my misbehaviour
as a 'scoop'.
I've done wrong, but that's behind me now and I expect to begin to write
against immoralizing influences like TV obscenities somewhere later in this year.
Awkward as you may find it to read all of this, you can't possibly feel more embarrassed
than I do right now, and please, always realize that the necessity of a Europe-wide
Christian-patriotic spiritual counteroffensive isn't in the slightest diminished by the
previous. Beware of the
deceptive reasonings and suggestive associations in the old media that go like: 'Bad people
are in favour of Idea A, so Idea A must be a bad idea, and everyone else in favour of it
must be bad too', a trick that is being played many times. Please let this trick never
mislead or intimidate you. Besides, who are today's media rulers to determine for the great
public who is to be viewed as bad and who isn't?
Please never lose sight of the things that really matter, the facts I listed in 9.2, the
address I made to adolescent Torahist Jews in 7.1, the right that the people have to be
protected against psychological warfare. The facts of 9.2 are carrying incomparably much
more weight than the weaknesses and shortcomings of some Dutchman, as these facts are
negatively influencing the lifes of hundreds of millions of people.
And if it would ever dawn upon me that my
involvement is hindering rather than encouraging good people to found Christian-patriotic
parties, I'll back out immediately. The only thing I'm really interested in, is that
Britain will once read my book and my articles, followed by other countries. I still
believe that that will happen in the nearby future, and then, "the ideological battle of
the 21st century" Mr Blair is always talking about, will finally get its long-awaited
illuminating extra dimension. (10th April 2007)
A promising future for the people of Northern Ireland
The violence in Northern Ireland was one of those problems that the average outsider
only knew enough about to understand that it was a complex and bitterly emotion-laden
conflict, but hope for peace proved to be realistic, as Mr Paisley and Mr McGuinness have
now taken office. From this place a tribute to those who realized this tour de force.
(9th May 2007)
I added three articles
I made separate texts of two parts of the main text, namely my
address to the adolescent Torahists
and possible reactions to the well-known
words of mass intimidation.
I also explored the question
which religion is influencing
President Bush the most. (9th May 2007)
I'm wordless for the time being. (9th June 2007)
I don't give up, but I need to lengthen the pause. (9th January 2009)
My personal problems are laying too heavy a weight on me to be able to write the articles I have ideas for. On the one hand that saddens me, on the other hand it fills me with gratitude, with joy, to think of the texts I published so far and to realize they exert influence. I think it's a matter of time, a matter of remaining hopeful, to regain the mindset necessary to write. My belief in the reversal hasn't diminished and it never will. Someone who admires me for my effort and who isn't Christian last told me contemplatively: 'Faith gives one such life power' and that's true, I wholeheartedly know that. My faith makes me feel great, even when I'm down. (9th October 2009)
(9th December 2009)
I take back a bad comparison
In chapter 8 of the main text, I reproduced an e-mail I sent to Antifa.net in April 2002. In that e-mail, I wrote: 'The Torah is a 3,500-year-old source of racism and fascism.' I take back the 'fascism'. In the first place, fascism and nazism are the same thing in the minds of many people, so it can be regarded as offensive towards the Jewish victims of nazism, and I don't want that. In the second place, comparing the evils of Torahism to other evils only enhances the very confusion in religious, ideological and political matters that so urgently needs to be diminished. Torahism is a dangerous wrong in a league of its own, momentarily largely unknown to the general public, regretfully - no comparison is either suitable or necessary to emphasize that. (9th March 2010)
Norman Cohn wrote 'Warrant for genocide - The myth of the Jewish world conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (1967). A year ago, I bought his book, wondering if and how this author would deal with the Painful Passages
I had already mentioned Mr Cohn's book in chapter 10, but I hadn't read it. I was now curious to face the arguments of an academic, a Fellow of the British Academy even, who dismissed the possibility of an international Jewish conspiracy as a myth. How did Mr Cohn go about paying attention to the Painful Passages, the texts that are the roots of Torahist actions, which need secretiveness to succeed? I found the answer on page 29:
'So [at the end of the 19th century - RS] the new political form of antisemitism came into being. From now on antisemitism was to be deliberately whipped up by ultra-conservative politicians and publicists in their struggle against the progressives. And although Jews were still sometimes accused of such things as ritual murder, these age-old superstitions gradually yielded in importance to the new political superstition concerning a secret Jewish government. This new fantasy was of course just as remote from reality as the old, but it was also just as effective. What Jews really were or did or wanted, or what Jews possibly could be or do or want, had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. To understand how the fantasy arose and spread it is much less important to know about Jews than to know what persecution-mania means and how, given a suitable situation, it can be deliberately exploited in multitudes of ordinary human beings. This had happened before, during the witch-mania that gripped Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was to happen again as the myth of the Jewish world-conspiracy began its deadly work.'
The answer: Mr Cohn (1915-2007) didn't inform his readers about the Painful Passages at all. Instead of that, he formulated: 'It is much less important to know about Jews than to know what persecution-mania means' etc. Foul play or not, by doing so, he covered up the existence of the Painful Passages and he diverted the attention of his readers from what everyone must know about Jewry to his next subject, the subject of persecution-mania.
The backside cover of my edition of 'Warrant for genocide' (Serif, 2005) mentions the following recommendations.
The Guardian: 'A scholarly account of a moral enormity.'
Publishers Weekly: 'A well-documented, accessible introduction.'
George Steiner: 'Powerful and important .... There have been previous histories of the Protocols and the mythologies of modern anti-semitism, but this is the most lucid and ironic.'
(9th March 2010)
I added a new text
addressed to the parliaments of the EU countries. (9th April 2010)
On the happy occasion of the presentation of the Tory manifesto, Newsnight's Michael Crick went aboard a diesel train in Yorkshire and asked several passengers for their opinion on some promises of the Conservatives. One of the interviewed, a woman with a child, said she didn't vote and when Mr Crick replied 'No?', she said: 'No, we need a miracle to save this country.' It reminded me of a quotation of David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister: 'He who does not believe in miracles, is not a realist.' (16th April 2010)
Concerning my letter to the parliaments
Nothing that's fit to put on my website yet. (30th April 2010)
Part 2 of the main text has an appendix now, in which I am mentioning the names I at first omitted in chapter 5.12. (11th May 2010)
to Britain's new Prime Minister. (18th May 2010)
A new internet letter, in Dutch only
ten No 1 candidates of the old parties in my country, where general elections will take place soon. (25th May 2010)
People of hope
When language is your tool, you can sometimes envy and admire others for how well they put to words the ideas you agree with. I, for instance, feel always strengthened when I think of the two clergymen, on Dutch television some years ago, who were talking about the decline of the Christian faith. One of them said: 'In the 1950s, when church life flourished, people enthusiastically said: this is to stay forever. And now, decades later, we see the decline, the empty churches, and you can hear people say: it's a lost cause. But I am optimistic. What was sown by Luther and Calvin, is rooted too deeply for that.'
And I also like to think of what Notker Wolf once said. The head of the Benedictine order, he was interviewed in 2008 by Belgian broadcasters VRT. He was asked: 'How do you view the future of Christianity?' - 'Very positive', he answered - The interviewer, quite surprised: 'Yes?!?' - 'Yes', he said, 'because it doesn't depend on us.' (26th May 2010)
Dialogue efforts: status report
With regard to my letter to the 27 parliamentary presidents, speakers and chairpersons: it's too early to write something conclusive about this.
With regard to my letter to Prime Minister Mr Cameron: so far no reaction, but I think it is too early to expect a reaction already.
With regard to my letter to the No 1 candidates in the coming Dutch elections: so far I got a personal confirmation of receipt from Mr Rutte of the VVD party.
(1st June 2010)
I have no news to tell. (8th June 2010)
My letter to the parliaments of the EU countries
I haven't received a response from 26 of the 27 addressed parliamentary presidents whatsoever.
One of them, I will refer to him/her as 'he', had an assistant secretary send me a reaction, dated April the 12th. I returned that reaction with a polite note to the sender and I wrote the dignitary in question again, asking for a personal reaction. I explained I didn't want people I hadn't addressed to become a party in this, and that I couldn't view a reaction with someone else's signature on it as his reaction. I wrote that if my internet letter were not to achieve its primary aim, I hoped it could at least lead to an exchange of thought on my website which my readers might find interesting.
I then received a reaction from the dignitary's secretary. Ignoring my arguments, the secretary more or less repeated the same message the assistant secretary had conveyed. So I returned his letter to him too, and I addressed the parliament's president again. I wrote that his secretary's letter was beside the point and I invited him again to send me a personal reaction. I wrote I expected his answer would be the same as his assistants'. Yet it was important to me I got it straight from him, I argued, because if that reaction raised one or more questions - and it did - I could directly address him about it, and I repeated that that would hopefully lead to an interesting correspondence on this website. Had he reasons not to react personally, I concluded, I simply had to accept that.
I sent this letter on May the 25th and I haven't heard a thing from him since.
My conclusion: the answer that this dignitary judged good enough to be given by two assistants, was apparently not good enough to be given by himself. (15th June 2010)
My letter to Prime Minister Mr Cameron
I haven't received a reaction from 10 Downing Street. (15th June 2010)
My letter to the ten No 1 candidates in the Dutch elections
Besides Mr Rutte's note I got a letter from another party, but it doesn't make clear whether the signature on it is that of the No 1 candidate I addressed. I asked the sender to clarify this and I am waiting for the answer. Two other parties sent indirect reactions. (6th July 2010)
British Democracy Forum (1)
From July 2010 to October 2012 I have been writing and discussing matters on this internet forum. My thread was closed by the hosts for a reason they gave in the last post.
If you are interested in reading the thread, you'll find it here:
www.democracyforum.co.uk > The Lounge: Introduce Yourself > date of last post: 26-10-2012.
I posted an outline of the contents on thread page 22, post No 220. (That post begins with Previously on my other thread, but you can ignore that.)
I find it a pity I couldn’t say goodbye to BDF visitors sympathizing with my initiative, but I am grateful for having had the opportunity to confront a random group of people on an internet platform with my initiative and to find out how they would react. At times, my stay on the forum had its rewarding moments.
I hope to resume publishing as from 9th May 2013 on my own website, as I remain confident that the reversal will come. (31st October 2012)
A new internet letter
This time to
President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. (14th May 2013) I got an acknowledgement of receipt from the Prime Minister's Office. (14th June 2013)
Internet letter to 27 political parties in Europe. (9th July 2013)
Internet letters to President Obama, to Mr Romney and to twelve news media in the US
I wrote these in June - October 2012 and published them on my thread on the British Democracy Forum (see above). I didn't receive a reaction to any of my letters. (24th July 2013)
British Democracy Forum (2)
As I was checking whether my uploading had succeeded today, I noticed that the BDF is now requiring its visitors to fill in things immediately. Until recently, you could read the posted texts without any ado, and you only had to register if you wanted to post something yourself. (24th July 2013, 19:20 Dutch time)
So far no reaction from any of the 27 political parties I addressed a month ago. (9th August 2013)
Have you ever started a disastrous war? Blame a dead guy
The other week the film 'W' was broadcast in my country. It's Oliver Stone's film about G. 'Dubya' Bush, America's President from 2001 to 2009. At one point, Mr Stone's actors were playing a White House meeting, at which they were wondering why on earth Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction couldn't be found, after America and other countries had occupied Iraq.
In that scene, Mr Stone let one of his actors give a peculiar explanation: Saddam Hussein had only been bluffing to own such weapons and had been maintaining that bluff, out of fear that his own people would view him as a weak leader if he would admit he hadn't any WMD, and then ferociously would come after him.
It reminded me of the BBC's world affairs correspondent John Simpson, who I have also once heard say that Saddam Hussein had been bluffing over the possession of WMD.
Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant, absolutely. But I can remember that before Bush and Blair attacked Iraq, he was trying to convince the world he didn't have such weapons at all. I can remember newscasts of the period showing that he had invited the international media to Baghdad for a press conference, where piles of documents and CD-ROMs, sustaining his case, lay ready to be handed out to the journalists. (25th September 2013)
The NSA scandal
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has canceled her state visit to the US. It had emerged that the NSA had been listening in in phonecalls and that emails of the president and staff had been hacked. Pending the absence of any clarity or explanation over the issue, her state visit can't go on as planned, and in her address to the UN general assembly yesterday, she sharply criticized the US.
It highlights what we haven't seen the European politicians do, after Mr Snowden revealed the NSA's massive eavesdropping. The Merkels and Camerons and Hollandes of this world should have taken a joint and firm stance against Washington, demanding from the US that this Orwellian e-spying has to stop, and some serious explanations and apologies.
After all, we are talking about a violation, in a way and on a scale unprecedented in history, of what has always been considered a hallmark of a free country, namely respect for people's privacy. What we did get to see instead, was a mixture of resignedness and, in Germany and France for instance, rows among the old parties calling one another hypocrites, when it came out in the open that the NSA had been working together with the secret services of these countries.
The NSA scandal also made something disturbing clear about the ICT concerns, whose names and logos have become so familiar in our world, after it emerged that they had been selling information about their customers to Washington's desk spies. That's apparently the true face of these companies, always so successful in selling this seductive image to the general public of 'you, our customer, and we, the brand, together we are the okay people, the cool people of this world'.
How to judge the role of television and the newspapers in this? After all, you could say we owe it to them the whole world knows about this now. Well, it depends on the follow up they will give to the revelations. Let me explain this on the basis of the following example.
In June of this year, The Guardian came with the headline: "How GCHQ watches your every move". Now, suppose this headline is telling the truth. What The Guardian then actually is saying, is that the UK has become a police state. A country in which a branch of government is watching their citizens' every move is a police state in my book. So the old parties - Labour, LibDems, Conservatives - are reshaping or have been reshaping Britain into a police state. Now, I don't know whether it has ever been polled, but I think that the overwhelming majority of the British people don't want to live in a police state. A police state is by any stretch of the imagination not what countless young lads died for on the battlefields of two world wars. A police state is not what the British taxpayers paid the costs of defence personnel and material for, billions of pounds worth, during the Cold War with the police state that was the Soviet Union.
So, come the general elections in 2015, The Guardian can rightfully be expected to carry out some serious grilling of the mentioned parties over this, or at any earlier moment of their own choice of course. Because if The Guardian doesn't do that, while their headline 'How GCHQ watches your every move' was telling the truth, that headline will get a certain sinister whiff about it, in my opinion. The Guardian will then unmask itself as a newspaper that on the one hand is upholding an image of being a newspaper alert on breaches of rights and freedoms, but that on the other hand actually silently wants the current Torahism-friendly political system to remain intact, and that is therefore lending this system a helping hand by printing intimidating headlines.
Now suppose, this headline was not telling the truth, or it was wildly exaggerated. The question that then rises is whether this kind of massively spreading nonsense, this irresponsibly creating unrest, this pointlessly making the British public feel uncomfortable in their own country, is something that should be covered by the freedom of the press any longer. I wouldn't think so; I find that the role of the old media should be the subject of a truely high quality public debate anyhow.
Let's see what The Guardian will do in 2015. I predict that this newspaper will not make life too difficult for the wellknown parties, because so far it has always been a participant in the old order's conspiracy of silence on Torahism.
Quite a witty protest against Washington's grossness took place in Berlin in July, when some people projected the text 'United Stasi of America' on the US embassy there. And a poll in the same month learnt that two thirds of the German people are not satisfied over their government's efforts to clarify the NSA scandal. No wonder that especially the Germans show indignation over this. This is a nation that after the Third Reich and the German Democratic Republic has had its fill of states spying on their own people. (The Stasi were the GDR's state security service.)
The Berlin protesters were wearing Vendetta masks by the way. You've perhaps seen this film 'V For Vendetta', made in 2005, with Natalie Portman, Stephen Fry, John Hurt and others. It is about a future Britain, oppressed by a far right dictator. One of his evil ways is sending vans packed with electronics through the streets of the UK, to listen in to what the unsuspecting people are saying to one another in their own homes. In the end, the dictator is succesfully challenged by a masked loner called V.
I could of course suggest to the makers of that film to produce a sequel, only this time not about a future Britain and its fictitious ruler, but about today's America and its real rulers, but then again, since it is as good as certain that both Hollywood and Washington are run by Torahism, neither city is likely to expose the other's misdoings.
All in all, I view the NSA scandal as yet another strong indication that this whole idea of us living in free countries, with governments that know their place, is nothing more than a deceptive image, and the better alternative is clear to me.
Because in a society based on Christian values, there will grow mutual respect and trust between the people and their government. (25th September 2013)
Innocent men, women and children are, together with the truth, always the most deplorable victims of any war, as is demonstrated once more in Syria. To woefully add to the 100,000+ casualties and millions of refugees, chemical weapons were deployed, and we have seen a parade of politicians, commenters, reporters and Syrians, with far more air time for those claiming President Assad's troops were the culprits than for those convinced it were the rebels.
Among those who are sure the Syrian government was to blame, it's of course President Obama who carries the most weight in the current Western opinion climate, but as yet he hasn't shown his evidence to the world. Day after day though, his belligerent language gave one the strong impression that US military action was imminent.
His promise that it would only be a limited response can only have served the dark PR purpose of talking the American people in yet another war, because even President Obama can't see what the future holds. I mean, militarily intervening in Syria, that hub of strategic interests, is a whole different ball game than, say, invading Grenada. History clearly shows that once a war is started, it easily gains a dynamism of its own, leading to unforeseen calamitous developments.
I'm not a historian, but the examples of this now coming to my mind are August 1914, when the major European powers were sure the war would be over by Christmas of that year; September 1939, when Hitler was surprised by the British and French war declarations, he had gambled he would get away with invading Poland; and of course the hopeless wars against Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11, that never brought their main protagonists alleged they would.
But then, in early September, while tensions were rising, US Secretary of State Mr Kerry unexpectedly mentioned a condition that, if fulfilled by Damascus, would chase away the spectre of a looming new war, and Mr Kerry's remark - his own idea, by the looks of it - constituted an opening on the geopolitical chessboard that within hours was followed by a Russian proposal, as constructive as it was alert, to bring Syria's chemical weapons under international control.
When you add this relieving development to the Syrian Deputy PM's sigh that the war can't be won by either side, an armistice and negotiations are now hopefully within arm's reach, so that this horrendous conflict can come to an end. (25th September 2013)
"EU needs genuine government"
On October the 2nd, this quote was one of the headlines on a Ceefax page of Belgian broadcasters VRT. I looked at the headline for one second and thought: 'That's Guy Verhofstadt. Must be.' I went to the related page and yes! my guess was right. Mr Verhofstadt, a prominent member of the EU parliament, has apparently written a constitution for his ideal, the United States of Europe.
If his ideal becomes reality - and when you follow the remarks of other high EU officials like Barroso, Van Rompuy and Schulz, it indeed looks like Europe is going down that path - then it's bye-bye forever to the national sovereignty and independence of all those European peoples whose histories go back hundreds and thousands of years; yes, it will even jeopardize the very existence of the European peoples, please read my main text if you want to know how and why;
One day, TV presenters will joyfully tell us about the nearing inauguration of United Europe's first president, if present trends continue, and a reporter will guide us through a splendid presidential residence, saying: 'It is already being called the White House of Europe.'
If then, finally, when it is too late, legally speaking, a European nation snaps out of its unawareness, gets over its apathy and starts protesting, not willing to accept 'Brussels DC' as their capital, don't look surprised then if NATO comes into action to violently suppress "the illegal insurgency of destructive nationalists", as television will call it.
Yet Mr Verhofstadt is entitled to cherish his own ideals of course.
Are you British? Don't think too much of the conditional EU referendum the Tory PM promised you. Even if your country will say 'out', you'll see that within ten years the UK's EU membership will be back on the political agenda again.
Please learn from recent history. In 2005, a referendum on a new EU constitution was held in France and in The Netherlands. The opinion leaders in both countries were overwhelmingly on the side of the 'yes' camp, but the newspapers wrote that if only one EU member would vote against it, the whole thing would be blown off. Then, not one, but both peoples, both the French and the Dutch, voted against, much to the dismay of the aforementioned opinion leaders. Did the new EU constitution end up in the dustbin then? No, it didn't. There were some cosmetic alterations inserted, but in essence, the constitution got into effect anyhow, as was admitted by both sides of the argument. (10th October 2013)
Second internet letter to the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Germany. (24th July 2013) + Their e-mail to me. (9th August 2013) + My e-mail of 9th September + My e-mail of 10th October
I added a new article, titled:
Why not show Deuteronomy 15:6, Mr De Poel, instead of that anti-Semitic cartoon? (10th October 2013)
Mr De Poel, why not show your film to some other friends of Mr Wilders? (29th October 2013)
Internet letter to First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond (29th October 2013)
Internet letter to UKIP leader Nigel Farage (29th October 2013)
My last e-mail to Dr Ralf Melzer of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (9th November 2013)
Seventy-five years ago
After a young Jew had killed diplomat Von Rath in Paris, Hitler's dictatorship staged a night of lethal violence against the Jews in Germany in the night of the 9th to the 10th of November, 1938, ominously preluding the Holocaust. (9th November 2013)
A selection from the texts I published on the British Democracy Forum (24th December 2013)
I'd like to wish you a merry and inspiring Christmas, and a good, life-enriching 2014. (24th December 2013)
I added a second P.S. to Mr De Poel, why not show your film to some other friends of Mr Wilders? (8th April 2014)
Yeshua is telling us the saving truth (31st May 2014)
Important text alteration
In Yeshua is telling us the saving truth, in the part titled 4. Crucifixion, I have improved a paragraph. It now reads:
"(...) then be saved.
That doesn't mean that Heaven is the place of destiny for practising Christians exclusively. In Romans 10:13 it says that whoever calls on Yeshua’s name will be saved. Even one of the two other convicts who were crucified next to Yeshua, saw the Light in his last moments and died reassured that Yeshua and he would meet again in heaven. In the final analysis, who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, is up to God to decide. There are, and there always have been, phoneys among Christians, and there are, and there always have been, good people outside Christianity.
That the hereafter (...)"
(9th June 2014)
Entering the 16th year of my activism
That's perhaps a good occasion to ask you to read It is time to introduce myself, a text that I published on 9th June 2005, in the above on this web page. (9th June 2014)
The crash of flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine
Two hundred and ninety-eight people, defenceless and innocent, were suddenly and cruelly torn away from their earthly existence by the horrendous event in Ukraine on 17th July 2014. Those who remain, they are the hundreds of families and loved ones, most profoundly appalled and plunged into mourning. I offer my condolences to them and to all other people personally stricken by this disaster, that especially took the lifes of so many fellow countrymen. What furthermore remains, are questions as to what exactly took place, and those questions must get crystal-clear and irrefutable answers.
Yesterday, I wrote the same in Dutch on
(19th July 2014)
The Ukraine crisis: what does it look like, versus, what is it, most presumably? (18th August 2014) With some corrections on 1st September.
The many years of child abuse in Rotherham and other places
Over 1,400 children, some Asian but most of them white, became the victims of all manner of heinous crime, committed mainly by Pakistanis, for years and years on end, while those in authority played deaf, dumb and blind. It could only happen in this opinion climate that forces hundreds of millions of Westerners to watch their steps on the penalty of being trashed as a 'racist'.
One of the scourges of our times is we don't have people in authority who care about their citizens. All they care about are their careers. You read their statements in the press, once this scandal finally broke to the surface, and you realize that the only motives they have is keeping their jobs (one praiseworthy exception there), minimalizing the possible legal troubles their negligence may land them in, and keeping the current political system intact.
Professor Alexis Jay's findings go back to 1997 and it emerged that those who failed the victims belong to the Labour party. That's ironic, because 1997 is the same year in which a Labour leader became prime minister, and Labour always delivered a pristine job in picturing itself as the political champion of the vulnerable and the socially weak.
Not much is left of that deceptive image now, Labour councillors and police officers having been exposed to have looked the other way, letting the vulnerable and socially weak continue to become the victims of crime, for no other reason than that the vulnerable and socially weak in question were predominantly white, and the thugs were not white.
Although not on that scale, we in the Netherlands have had comparable crimes to stomach, with girls, nearly always white, becoming the victims of gang rape, mostly perpetrated by Moroccan youths, or by youths from the Dutch Caribbean, crimes that were once unheard of in my country.
In my main text, I am extensively going into 1) the ways the old media can create an opinion climate in a country, 2) the very important role that a nation's opinion climate plays in politics, 3) the Western opinion climate as from the 1960s and its dangerous consequences, and 4) what the Torah has got to do with all of this. (12th September 2014)
The miraculous rise of UKIP in the Conservatives' esteem
The turning tide for the UK Independence Party.... how fortunes can change in the dynamic world that is politics. Once, UKIP were ignored, attacked and denounced as 'fruitcakes and closet racists' (copyright Mr Cameron), but look at their rising star now! Apologies for the insults, electoral victories, and coveted by many a Conservative. Headlines like the Daily Mail's: 'Panicking Tory MPs plot to do deal with UKIP - and demand Farage is made Deputy PM' (I saw it on your show, Mr Marr.)
I view parties like UKIP as some sort of political lightning conductors, as safety valve parties. I think the rulers are sensing an increasing disgust and revulsion among the British people towards Westminster politics, and that they have been reasoning: 'Let's ease the thought police restrictions a bit on UKIP, let's give the voters the illusion of an alternative to Labour and the Conservatives'. On BBC Newsnight, I've heard BNP members complain that they have been trashed for a long time for saying the same things Mr Farage is allowed to say now.
I also think that in return, the UKIP leadership will keep themselves at a safe distance from the crucial question as to who the true rulers over Britain are. Ask Mr Farage what he thinks of the weather, and he will immediately put down his pint on the bar with a loud 'clunk' and tell you that UKIP has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
So I don't think of UKIP as the party that Britain needs, but I feel now obliged to bring forward a nuance. I am sure that among the 'ordinary' UKIP members and supporters, most mean well and are doing their bit out of sincere love for their country, in spite of the trouble they experience while doing so. (12th September 2014)
The Islam and Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer
Since 2003, after the ousting of Saddam Hussein, Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims are bombing and massacring the hell out of each other in Iraq.
The Muslims of ISIS, on the march in the Near East, are filming their murders and put their videos online, as to spread fear and to demoralize their enemies in advance.
In the West, young Muslims are watching murders like those of the American journalists online and are pressing the 'like' button. A number of them also travel to the battlegrounds and, if they survive that, return to Europe, perhaps with horrible scenes in their memories, horrible deeds on their conscience and horrible plans on their mind.
In West Africa, thousands flee to neighbouring countries, on the run for the Boko Haram Muslims.
It were Muslims who murdered UK soldier Mr Rigby in a London street. I shall never forget the comment of an eyewitness who said her first thought was they were coming to his aid after he got an accident.
The Hamas Muslims are executing treacherous Muslims right out in the open, while other Muslims, just leaving a mosque, young and old, are watching and smartphoning it.
More Muslims: the 9/11 hijackers, the 7/7 bombers, the Madrid metro bombers, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the US army imam who suddenly turned against his colleagues and shot them, the maniacs who tried to explode a car loaded with petrol in a UK airport, the Afghan policemen and soldiers, suddenly turning their guns on their colleagues and trainers, the murderer who targeted the Jewish Museum in Brussels.
And still, Mr Osborne 'explained' to the viewers of The Andrew Marr Show of September the 7th, that such violence is 'a perversion of the true religion of Islam'.
No, Mr Osborne, this is the Islam, and this has been the Islam as from its beginnings in the 7th century. The Koran is the source of a faith annex ideology that dehumanizes 'infidels' and that approves of violence against them, even incites to do so. There are some positive points in Islam, but they don't balance for the hypocrisy and violence that the Koran presents as holy instructions.
The question should not be: 'Saying such things about Islam, that's islamophobic and racist, isn't it?' That's the question that automaticly rises in many people's minds, as a result of today's poisoned opinion climate. (There it is again.) That's the question that divides the indigenous people, while the Muslims keep on immigrating. The question should be: 'Why are we ruled by people who never informed us about the true violence-related nature of Islam, while allowing Muslims to migrate to Europe in their millions?' That's one of the important questions Europe should start to think about, the sooner the better.
Mr Breivik was not a Muslim, no.
(12th September 2014)
BBC Panorama of September the 8th
I will confine myself to the part in which journalist Mr Sweeney interviewed unidentifiable persons in East Ukraine about the downing of flight MH-17. They said to have seen that Russian speaking military, wearing uniforms with Russian-type camouflage, had been rolling off a Buk missile launcher from a lowloader, in a village near the location that was later to become the crash site.
If Mr Sweeney's contacts spoke the truth, then it is possible that the passenger plane was destroyed by Russian soldiers, instead of by Kiev-loyal Ukrainians or pro-Russia Ukrainians. However, unidentifiable persons don't necessarily make for the most trustworthy of eyewitnesses, and Mr Sweeney didn't produce someone who saw the actual firing of a missile. Mr Sweeney himself has emphasized his findings were 'not absolute fact'.
In the Nieuwsuur programme, shortly after the Panorama broadcast, Mr Sweeney paid attention to the dispute about the cause of the event. According to him, the Buk missile launcher is the No 1 suspect in this, on the basis of pockmarked holes seen in the Boeing's fuselage. That suggests the Boeing was destroyed by a blast fragmentation weapon such as the Buk, and not by a fighter jet's rocket like the Kremlin and the rebels are claiming, Mr Sweeney said. Yet a third explanation remained unmentioned. There is also the possibility of the Boeing having been hit by the ammunition of a fighter jet's board gun. That could also explain for the many holes.
If indeed a surface-to-air missile was launched, whether by pro-Russian Ukrainians or by a Russian crew, then fatally mistaking the Boeing for a hostile army plane may have stood at the basis of the catastrophe.
Comparing two NOS Ceefax reports of July the 18th and September the 9th, I noticed that the possibility of a mistake on the separatists' side was exchanged by the NOS for a depiction of the separatists as to have launched a missile, knowing their target to be the Malaysian airliner.
My Dutch readers can check this for themselves:
Separatist meldde neerhalen toestel and
Getuigen: bemanning Buk was Russisch (12th September 2014)
Family7 is an organization in my country that describes itself as 'the 24/7 Christian TV channel of The Netherlands'. The other week, I heard one of their presenters, Evert ten Ham, say that there is an 'explosive rise' of the number of Jews who believe in Christ. I find that very good news. It's inspiring, it reinforces my hopes of a better future. (12th September 2014)
Some statistics, showing people's (lack of) interest in my website
In the following, the numbers mentioned behind the years and months signify the average number of hits per day.
January 2014: 36
February 2014: 40
March 2014: 30
April 2014: 33
May 2014: 38
June 2014: 49
July 2014: 48
August 2014: 43
1st to 11th September 2014: 41
The key matter
The key problem of today's politics is the most serious one thinkable. It is complex and it touches a lot of sensitivities, and people should place the highest of demands on someone like me who is addressing it, but it has to be addressed:
Hitler's atrocities have obviously produced a world that is profoundly against National Socialism. The world should be, and I expect the world forever will be. In this, I am on the same side with the Camerons, Farages, Ruttes, Merkels and Junckers. The future of the European nations however not only requires policies that are anti-Nazi, but also policies that are anti-Torahist, as the Torah is the cornerstone of an exploitative, supremacist, vindictive, even genocidal faith annex ideology.
That's where the wellknown politicians and I fundamentally differ, because when you judge them on their deeds and statements, they seem to be on the side of Torahism, and not on the side of their own nations (!). The fact alone that they never talk to their nations about Torahism, let alone warn them against it, is as good as proving they are in the bag of Torahism.
Now, we are talking about government leaders here, so there is every reason to be doubtful or afraid when you think of challenging the existing political order they represent. I am afraid, for one. Yet I am not afraid enough to keep my mouth shut and do nothing, and neither should you. Things will only fundamentally change, when we conquer our fear. The first thing you can do, is read the main text, forgive me my mantra, and when you've done that, and agree with it, and thought things over, and discussed it with people close to you, then please draw my initiative to the attention of others, because becoming aware of its true situation is what Britain needs first. I am putting my hopes on the British people rather than on my own, for the reasons I mentioned in June 2005, in the above. (12th September 2014)
One difficulty after another is blocking me from writing, the last couple of weeks. I hope to publish again within two weeks, or next month otherwise. (12th November 2014)
Suppose, the reversal takes place next week. Then what? (11th December 2014)
A merry Christmas to you, and a good 2015.
Je ne suis pas Charlie, mais néanmoins mes condoléances
I am not "Charlie", but nevertheless my condolences to the loved ones of the victims of the Islamic terrorism that I strongly condemn. Again, I am not "Charlie"; I loathe the cartoons of the Charlie Hebdo magazine (including the anti-Islamic cartoons), I find they are fostering misperceptions, hatred, bloodshed, nihilism. In my view, freedom should go hand in hand with a sense of responsibility and with the voluntary self-control that roots in inner civilization. Either on the 9th or the 24th of February, I hope to publish an article about the events and the reactions, on the basis of a number of TV reports, broadcast in Great Britain, The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. (10th January 2015)
Contrary to my earlier expectation, I hope to publish the aforementioned article in March or April. (9th February 2015)
A look at the British Prime Minister’s speech on Holocaust Memorial Day
You’ll find it by googling 'Press release Prime Minister pledges prominent Holocaust Memorial for Britain' (www.gov.uk).
Several lines in the Conservative dignitary’s speech give food for some serious thought. Mr Cameron begins his speech by telling about the life of a Jew called Jack Kagan, who survived the Holocaust. Mr Cameron then says:
“Like so many of our incredible Holocaust survivors, Jack had been going into schools to share his testimony reliving the most harrowing moments of humanity, so that we should never forget. For years our Holocaust survivors have seen this as their duty to us. Now we must do our duty to them.”
I also think it's good that Holocaust survivors tell school children about what has happened. It has to be and to remain a part of any nation’s education. In The Netherlands lives a Jew called Julius Schelvis, who survived the Sobibor death camp, he is also telling audiences about what he went through.
So Jews reminding Europe of the Holocaust, that's obviously a positive thing. Yet we should also be aware that the Torahist part of Jewry has another duty than the duty Mr Cameron is talking about. The first and single duty that Torahist Jews have, is their duty to the Torahist cause. So a Torahist Jew who tells an audience about the Holocaust is not only airing his grief and anger over his losses, he is also telling it with the intention to make the non-Jews listening to him shy of criticizing anything Jewish, including Torahism. Please note that I am not accusing either Mr Kagan or Mr Schelvis of being a Torahist.
Furthermore, Mr Cameron oddly seems to suggest that the Europeans, if it weren’t for the Jews, would soon forget about the Holocaust. Yet who says that the Europeans aren’t able to remember the lessons of 1933-1945 on their own? This is still the continent that enriched the world with an astonishing array of intellectual, technical and cultural achievements. I find Mr Cameron is underestimating the Europeans here.
And talking of duty, how about the moral duty of a Jew towards the Europeans he is living amongst, while he knows and sees that other Jews in prominent positions are engaged in Torahist activities? Like systemicly disinforming millions of TV viewers in matters of race and religion, for years on end?
How about the moral duty of, let's say, Ed Miliband? In 2010, Mr Miliband, on becoming the Labour leader, held his maiden speech in the House of Commons. In it, he expressed his gratitude for Britain having allowed the Jewish Miliband family to immigrate. Yet what substance does Mr Miliband’s gratitude have, when you consider he too never tells the British people one word about Torahism? Is it not by deeds, like a candid warning against Torahism, rather than by empty words, that true gratitude should be shown?
Duty... Mr Cameron is talking about duty... Can someone explain to him that it is the first and foremost duty of the government leader of any given country to take the long-term general interest of his nation to heart? And talk and act accordingly? The Mosaic obsession is flagrantly, over-obviously conflicting with that long-term general interest, period. It should therefore be addressed and contained, although it has to be carried out with understanding for the post-Holocaust feelings of the Jews, surely, absolutely.
Yes, we should never forget, and all of us have a responsibility, to various degrees, based on our position in society, to make sure a Shoah never happens again. Yet every nation has a natural right of self-preservation and we should therefore not be afraid to think of our own interests too, since there are grave and many reasons to see them threatened by Torahism.
It’s perfectly understandable that politicians and media were wary of criticizing Torahism after 1945, when the unimaginable crimes that the Nazis had committed against the Jews came to the surface. Yet the Mosaic doctrine was and is a dangerous poisonous Jewish doctrine, and it is a doctrine used to marinate the brains of Jews in, from a very young age, and it is therefore a Jewish obstacle for constructive relations between the Jews and the non-Jews to originate, and neither the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in Britain, nor the governing parties in my country and elsewhere, neither the BBC or ITV, nor the NOS or RTL or the rest of them, can have good reasons to eternally keep silent about something this bad.
Mr Cameron presents himself to be the spokesman of a “we” that will do this and that. Yet who on Earth are these “we”? Even from the other side of the North Sea I can tell he can’t seriously mean the whole of the British people, if only they were better informed. Once the facts I'm writing about in my main text would get out in the open, a considerable part of the British people would begin to think differently about today's society the Conservatives are apparently so fond of. Let's have a little thought experiment to illustrate what I mean. You can think of a poll question that I believe the vast majority of the British would answer affirmatively, arguably much to the dismay of Mr Cameron’s “we”.
Picture this poll taking place in the high streets up and down Great Britain, with the surveyers asking members of the public: “Imagine a sect in our country, fearing a god who appointed them elevated above everyone else, and they are stealthily busy subjugating and severely disadvantaging the British people, to increase their riches and power, and because they fear their own god will wipe them out if they don’t. Would you expect the Prime Minister to publicly speak out against that?”
Would turn out to be an overwhelming big ‘yes’, I would think. Besides the people who would reply: “Looks like he is on their payroll”, that is.
(The neutral wording of the question, without the word 'Jews', would prevent the irrational fear to be viewed as an anti-Semite from influencing people's answers.)
Mr Cameron: "We will not allow any excuses for anti-Semitism in our country.”
Good idea. But since Mr Cameron never talks about Torahism, he never tells, like I will do now, that there is a crucial difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Torahism; it's all in my main text and elsewhere.
The Conservative leader continues:
“We [will] not let any form of prejudice destroy the multi-faith, multi-ethnic democracy we are so proud to call our home. We will teach every generation the British values of respect and tolerance that we hold dear.”
Mr Cameron and his colleagues in the EU are all talking like this, and they are of course perfectly entitled to view their multi-faith, multi-ethnic societies as a thing of beauty that begs for eternal protection against evildoers, but the fact of the matter is that the origination of this kind of society is entirely rooted in negative factors.
The buzz words "prejudice" and "tolerance"... Having prejudices about this or that group of people is wrong, we are constantly being told. It's wrong to pass too early a judgement on people merely on the basis of, for instance, their racial origin, we are constantly being told. The very word "prejudice" sounds negative, unattractive. The trouble however is that a nation's collective experience with its minorities is also always denounced as "prejudice". Over the years people may understandably have come to a point not to be very pleased by the typical behaviour of this or that minority. That's something you never hear the old parties about. In fact, I never hear them even use a phrase like "a nation's collective experience with its minorities". The old parties are only always sermoning the indigenous people not to have "prejudices".
"Tolerance" on the other hand sounds positive, civilized, the way to go. But where stops "tolerance" being a laudable attitude, and where does it begin to become the naive self-neglect of a nation? That's again an issue you don't hear the old parties talk about. And that's one of the reasons why an increasing number of patriotic people, everywhere in Europe, are losing their trust in the existing parties - and rightly so, in my view.
There is a lot more to be said about "prejudices" and "tolerance", in careful discussions, but these are not likely to be started by the Conservatives and the other socalled "centre-ground" parties - another term that deserves some attention.
I wrote an
internet letter to Prime Minister David Cameron
in 2010, but I didn’t receive a reply. Later on in the same year, I wrote an internet letter to the Conservative Party among others, see
the texts I published on an internet forum, and then I got a reply, stating the matter would be sent to the Home Office, but in the five years that followed I haven’t heard either the UK’s Home Office or the Conservatives speak one word about the issues I drew to their attention. (5th March 2015, improved on the 6th)
The murder of Boris Nemtsov
A human life was brutally ended by cowards shooting someone in the back. I hope the perpetrators get the punishment that lowlife murderers deserve. The Russian authorities arrested several people, and there are two things I found striking in the newscasts I’ve seen about it, on the NOS and RTL in my country, the VRT in Belgium and the ZDF in Germany.
One, these items all had the same tenor.
Two, this was the tenor they had in common:
“Although arrests have been made now, although someone confessed to having played a part in this, although it may once be known who actually pulled the trigger on Mr Nemtsov, who was an outspoken Kremlin critic, this case won’t be closed soon, as the most important question remains unanswered: who ordered the killing of Mr Nemtsov?”
Given the media bias I am describing in
my article on the Ukraine crisis,
on hearing that question only one name can and will come to mind in the heads of many millions of European TV viewers. I think I don't even need to mention that name for you to know who I mean.
That’s the achievement of the unilluminated few, Europe’s chief news editors, who apparently believe the profession of journalism should be about prematurely manipulating masses of unsuspecting people into accusatory opinions that bear no relationship with any evidence whatsoever. (13th March 2015)
The BBC’s The Big Questions programme, March the 8th, topic: “Have immigrants become Britain’s scapegoats?”
Now, there is a question that I think a lot of immigrants will say ‘yes’ to, whether they live in Britain or in another European country, because there is already a poisonous atmosphere in Europe, in which problems between the groups are very quickly attributed, by politicians as well as by the media, to the socalled “intolerant”, “discriminatory”, “racist”, "prejudiced" attitude of the indigenous Europeans.
Where do I find the right words to bring home the following?
Both the immigrants and the indigenous Europeans have to realize there is a third party in play in all of this,
1) a third party that was and is most probably the biggest driving force behind the mass migration to Europe;
2) a third party that remains out of sight of the general public, as it most probably controls the mass media and can therefore instruct the mass media to focus people’s attention on everything except that particular third party itself, and
3) a third party that will not hesitate to raise tensions between the immigrants and the indigenous people.
Might violence come from these tensions, Heaven forbid, the current rulers will give the bloody events such a spin that keeping things as they have been the past decades, looks like the best solution – but that would be a very serious deception. Again.
Don’t let these people fool or upset you, by means of their underhanded slogans or underhanded talkshow topics. Don’t let them lure you into trouble, that might only cause you pain, but that will leave the ill interests of that particular third party - yes, yes, Torahism - unchallenged. (13th March 2015)
The same programme, topic: “Is it more important for Christians to do good than do God?”
That’s a false contrast, in my view. Furthermore, we are all under God, and so it’s important for all of us to do good. Besides, I don’t like the phrase ‘do God’. It reminds me of that awkwardly arrogant comment ‘We don’t do God’, attributed to the main PR adviser of Mr Blair, during his time in Downing Street. (13th March 2015)
...and in the meantime, Brussels goes on turning Europe into a single super state
January the 17th: the European Commission wants a uniform tax system for EU companies.
February the 25th: the European Commission presents the plan for its Energy Union: one internal energy market and one power grid for the entire EU.
March the 8th: European Commission President Juncker demands the raise of one European army. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other top politicians in Berlin think of it as a good idea. One of them, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen, says she is as convinced that that one European army will once see the light of day, as she is sure her grandchildren will once live in the United States of Europe (source: ZDF). (13th March 2015)
On March the 13th, I changed the closing standard text, see below.
While watching or reading the international news, please remember this rule of thumb
When you're somewhere halfway the TV report or newspaper article, and you hear or read the words ‘Critics say’, the opinion that then follows is nine times out of ten something Torahism wants you to think. Especially so, when the introducing words are ‘Human rights organizations say’ or ‘Civil rights groups say’. That particular opinion is often the closing section of the report or article, so that it will be the last opinion that impresses your mind. It will therefore have the biggest chance to persuade you. (20th March 2015)
Film critics are also saying something loud and clear these days: watch Selma!
It’s a movie about Dr Martin Luther King and what is usually called “the struggle of the African Americans for equal rights”. No positive superlative is left aside to promote this movie. Film critics say (!) it’s phenomenal, electrifying and so on. After having seen so many films and TV fiction involving the relations between the whites and the negroes, I don't have to see 'Selma' to be able to predict it is a movie that will make white cinema-goers feel sick and ashamed of their own race, and that will feed feelings of aggrievedness of the negroes towards the whites, because feeding those negative feelings is what the old media are always doing, in my opinion.
* Chapter 5.14 in
part 2 of the main text
(20th March 2015)
Bingo on BBC Breakfast
While awaiting Mr Osborne’s budget speech, the programme of March the 17th regaled its viewers with a budget item in the merry setting of a bingo show. Surely, a light note is welcome every now and then, but I think the British people would be better served by an in-depth series answering questions that easily dwarf the annual ins and outs of the budget presentation: why is it that the British people are burdened by a national debt of 1,680,000,000,000 pound? How did it come about, in the past decades? Who were the main warning voices against it? Why were they ignored? To which banks are the constituting debts owed? Who are the people who own these banks?
The other European nations are in a similar predicament. France's national debt is 1,832,000,000,000 pound. Germany's is 1,483,000,000,000 pound. My country's is 357,000,000,000 pound. (Multiply by 1.39 for the amounts in euros. Source: www.nationaldebtclocks.org)
More on this subject:
* Chapters 5.6.1 and 5.7.1 in
part 1 of the main text
* My article dealing with the 2008 banking crisis, and why the taxpayers had to foot the bill.
(20th March 2015)
I added the article:
Do you know how the British people are portrayed on Dutch TV?
I wish you a happy and meaningful Easter. (4th April 2015)
I'll resume in two months time
After the attack on Charlie Hebdo in January, I announced I would write an article about it and the international reactions. That publication is now again postponed, but not cancelled. (10th April 2015)
South Carolina shooting
Nine people in a church in Charleston, predominantly visited by negroes, were shot dead by what police describe as a white man in his 20s, still at large on the moment of publication. I strongly condemn this despicable crime, the destructive lunacy of it, and my thoughts and sympathy are with the loved ones of the victims. (18th June 2015)
I need more time to find new energy. (9th July 2015)
BBC Bad News At Ten
Have you ever heard people around you say: "I never watch the news. It's only misery"? Have you ever noticed that most of the time, the main headlines in the national newspapers are reporting on something negative? If you would write down the main headlines of say, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Sun and The Daily Mail, in the course of only one week, you would see a collection of problems grow that not even the most able government could solve in twenty-five years. Or take the BBC for instance, let's have a look at the content of the BBC News At Ten of August the 12th:
The enormous explosions in the Chinese town of Tianjin.
A former PM predicting the "annihilation" of his own party in case one particular fellow party member becomes its leader.
The rise of 1 to nearly 2 million EU nationals working in the UK in five year, while unemployment rose by 25,000 between April and June.
China devalueing its currency for the second day in a row, sparking turmoil in global financial markets, with the chance of everyone getting hurt in their wallets.
News reminding the watchers of the bin lorry accident killing six people in Glasgow.
Counter-terrorism squad arresting five members of the same family living in East London.
Police using tear gas against crowds of migrants on the island of Kos.
News about boarding passes on airports, and about savings not being passed out to passengers.
IS beheaded a Croatian engineer in Egypt.
The National Crime Agency reports that organized crime syndicates in big British cities are taking over drug networks in rural and seaside towns.
A row at the Chelsea football club.
The death of Hollywood dog Uggie.
Attention for the Perseid meteors that may be visible at night.
Bad news most of it. Yet there are so many positive things happening in this world too. So why is it that the old media are always over-reporting the negative things, the things that deject or disturb you?
To find the answer to that, it takes two things. Firstly, you have to dare to admit the thought to your mind that the old media are indeed under the control of Torahism. And secondly, you have to know what it says in Ezra 9:12. The book of Ezra is one of Torahism's holy texts.
In that particular passage, the prophet Ezra is instructing the Jews how to behave towards the non-Jews: "Never seek their peace or prosperity".
So there you have it. By over-reporting on life's negative matters, on war and terrorism, on human misery, on strife, on failure, Torahism is deliberately creating a permanent mood of unrest and discomfort in the country. It is what Torahism is indoctrinating itself must do. It fears all sorts of terrible things will happen to itself, if it doesn't, because Torahist Jews live in fear of their own revengeful god. It's pathetic, but it is the reality.
A nation that lets Torahist Jewry get control over its media, will sooner or later find out that the media are not a part of the solution, but a part of the problem. (13th August 2015)
I cancelled the article on the Charlie Hebdo murders after all and I won't announce the next update anymore. (13th August 2015)
Besetzt? Nein, befreit.
Ceefax page 505 of German broadcasters ARD is what they call their 'Calendar Page'. It's updated every day and on that page, the ARD goes back in time and mentions about twenty historical events that took place on the same date through the centuries. Now today, at about 12:30 CET, I saw they wrote the following about something that happened on the 4th of September, 1944:
2. Weltkrieg: Antwerpen wird von britischen Truppen besetzt
(Second World War: Antwerp is occupied by British troops)
Occupied? Surely the ARD, usually horribly politically correct, meant to say that that Belgian city was "befreit" (liberated) by British troops. I immediately agree there are more urgent things going on in the world right now, but I simply couldn't let this pass uncommented. I wonder whether the ARD will improve on their choice of words before midnight. (4th September 2015) They didn't. (5th September)
On the ARD's Calendar Page of September the 10th:
1944: Die Alliierten befreien Luxemburg (The Allies liberate Luxemburg)
The increasing migration from the Middle East and Africa to Europe
A task for the future Christian Patriotic governments, an already immense task, namely the repatriation of most of the foreigners and their descendants, is obviously becoming more difficult each day. I guess that a bad situation will always grow even worse before the tide turns for the better. (16th September 2015)
Labour leader Mr Corbyn would rule out the deployment of nuclear weapons, if he were a war-time prime minister
By saying this in public, Mr Corbyn shows he ignored the option of ruling out in his heart the deployment of those hellish weapons, but to keep quiet about that inner decision in public. I believe he would have rendered Britain a great service if he indeed had kept it to himself. Instilling uncertainty in the mind of a potentially genocidal enemy as to whether Britain, in extremis, would use nuclear weapons or not, is increasing Britain's security towards that potentially genocidal enemy. That is something that any prime minister or PM hopeful, regardless of his political colour, should understand, but the Labour leader apparently doesn't. (1st October 2015)
Most of the time, EC President Mr Tusk would immediately denounce "xenophobia", but occasionally, pandering to "xenophobia" seems to come in handy
For the war in Syria to end, the EU wants a solution that excludes a role for the country's president, Mr Assad. And, um, America wants that too. Let's have a laugh and call it: coincidence.
Mr Tusk said that during his journey in that region, "people" told him that a victory of Assad would only lead to a new exodus of refugees to Europe. (Source: ARD or ZDF Ceefax.) I think Mr Tusk is trying to be "clever" here. I think he is trying to win over Europe's public opinion for the anti-Assad viewpoint, via the concern over the increasing immigration. Because, on hearing Mr Tusk, many Europeans will think: "Well, we already have more than enough foreigners, haven't we, so let them get rid of Assad if that helps, right?"
Yet, that same EU of Mr Tusk has recently granted 160,000 migrants a stay in Europe and it has obliged each EU member state to accept a number of them within their borders (much to the pointless protest of some East European countries who saw their 'no' vote overruled). That surely will sow the plan also to set course for Europe in a bit more than 160,000 heads in the Middle East and Africa.
Now, the Europeans' feelings of unease about such things would normally always be condemned as "xenophobia", "Islamophobia" and as "racism" by Mr Tusk and his fellow EU officials.
But now that the peoples of Europe need to be set up against the Assad presidency, the prospect of even more migration to Europe is suddenly presented as something unwelcome, as something that must be prevented, and we only have to listen to Mr Tusk, because he knows how!
It's an inconsistency that I find typical of the hypocrisy of the EU towards the European citizens.
And why need the Europeans to be set up against Mr Assad? I think it's because the rulers of the West want to see Russia lose its ally in Syria and thus suffer a strategic setback in the region; Navy-wise, for instance. (2nd October 2015)
Helping true war refugees and supporting neighbouring countries that host them, that's the veritable international solidarity Europe should always demonstrate
The EU is reserving 400 million euros to handle the refugee crisis, three quarters of that amount to be spent on centres for Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan (source: NOS Ceefax).
Now, without going into the size of this financial reservation, I would say that in principle, this is an EU measure I agree with. There is terrible violence going on in Syria for four years now, and numerous innocent men, women and children are of course trying to flee the horrors, and since they arrived in Turkey and other adjacent countries in their millions, it would be unfair not to support those countries in ways the refugees will benefit from.
True international solidarity should however not be confused with the "international solidarity" that is used as a slogan to deceive the Europeans; to make them accept the current "diverse" situation in their countries and the increasing migration from other continents.
The best international solidarity any country or alliance or union can bring into practice is of course exerting its weight and influence to bring this war, any war, to an end, better still, to prevent war from beginning.
The latter will require to focus people's attention on the dangerous role of psychological warfare and propaganda, aimed at distortingly portraying benevolent peace-seeking nations or nations defending themselves as enemies. (10th October 2015)
In the closing standard text (see below), the sentence part 'every sensible and civilized person' was exchanged for 'everyone with a heart'. (10th October 2015)
Yasmin Fahimi, a leading member of the SPD, Germany's Labour Party, wants the country's police and judiciary to take action "as hard as nails" ("mit aller Härte") against the supporters of Pegida
The story is wellknown: as from the autumn of 2014, people in their thousands, sometimes twelve to fifteen thousand, are peacefully demonstrating in the German town of Dresden every Monday. They consider themselves to be patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of this part of the world. The abbreviation of this in German is 'Pegida'. Now, it is true that awkward incidents are happening. An example. Recently, one of the protesters carried a little gallows with him, reserved for Federal Chancellor Mrs Merkel and Vice Chancellor Mr Gabriel, as to imply their immigration policies make them traitors to their country who should be hanged. It happened against the background of a country where the number of arson attacks on migrants' accommodations is rising.
Yet by and large, the overwhelming majority of the citizens taking part in the weekly Pegida demos, come in peace. The important difference between the hateful few and the peaceful many is however lost on the SPD's secretary general Yasmin Fahimi. She wants the country's police and judiciary to take action "as hard as nails" ("mit aller Härte") against the supporters of Pegida (source: ZDF).
But if you would ask for her opinion on Koran-inspired violence, she'd undoubtedly say that the great majority of the Muslims seek peace and harmony, and that the jihadism and the terrorism can only be attributed to a small minority of extremists.
She'd be suddenly full of nuance.
Another ZDF Ceefax message had Germany's justice minister, Heiko Maas, also SPD, say that he would be against forbidding the Pegida demonstrations. He said that "hate can't be stopped by bans". So Minister Maas is suggesting: all Pegida supporters are haters, period. No nuances on his part either. Mr Maas even considers the Pegida supporters to be "morally co-responsible" for the arsonry.
And again, what would he say if you would ask for his opinion on Koran-inspired violence? Let me guess: "The great majority of the Muslims seek peace and harmony, and the jihadism and the terrorism can only be attributed to" etc. etc. Then he would also suddenly be full of nuance.
So I listen to these prominent politicians and I think: they are applying double standards, their double standards are to the advantage of the Muslims and to the disadvantage of the original nation, and besides that, the tone of these SPD prominents towards ordinary German citizens is hardening.
We might well be entering times in which the dictatorial mindset of the rulers will become more and more clear to more and more Europeans.
Speaking of rulers, what would Yasmin Fahimi and Heiko Maas say if you'd confront them with the Painful Passages in the Torah? Probably nothing. Keeping quiet about that is of the essence, if you want to have a political career in this Europe, in which, let me quote Labour's Baroness Kennedy again: "The people with power are not the politicians".
The silence of the Western media about Torahism means that a very important fact can easily be overlooked: for all the justified objections against the increasing presence of the Islam in Europe, it are not the Muslims who made the laws that enable them to migrate to Europe, raise big families, build mosques and dominate neighbourhoods. That should always be remembered.
The likelihood is that the thousands of Pegida demonstraters are representing a far larger number of Germans who stay at home, but who are also worried by the growing number of Muslims and other foreigners. All Germans have seen how their government was surprised by the enormous surge of Asians and Africans heading for Germany. Up until July, Berlin expected 450,000 people to immigrate in 2015, yet hastily raised that expectation to 800,000 one or two months later, and is now reckoning that one million foreigners, often wrongly called "refugees", will have entered Germany this year alone.
By the way, in September, Germany counted 193,000 people not entitled to an asylum status, and 21,000 left the country of their own accord (source: Bild). Where's the SPD's criticism of the remaining 172,000 who should leave but don't?
Questions 3 and 4 in
Fourteen questions to myself
A review of
frequently broadcast opinions after Muslim terrorism hit London
(27th October 2015, improved at 14:25 UK time)
Suppose I were a Russian, interested in reading something about Dutch politics....
.... then the column 'Dutch Ambassador shows Western arrogance' on the Russian website
english.pravda.ru wouldn't make me any wiser. First things first: I share the author's criticism of my government's choice of words regarding the events on the Crimea the other year. I also share the author's criticism of the Western attitude towards Russia. For the rest however, it's a very reprehensible article, a tirade against an entire people, my fellow countrymen. It contains not a shred of understanding of the sick, twisted, if not absent relation between the Dutch people and their mis-leaders, the "elites" running my country's politics and media since the 1960s, 1970s.
It already starts very early in the column with the author defamating The Netherlands as "a country built on piracy on the high seas". Since The Netherlands were and are predominantly built on hard work by honest people, it is as absurd as it is offensive to reduce the origins of Dutch society to that. And speaking of high seas, I'd suggest the author tries to find out which people taught Peter the Great how to build ships. This is actually the only slur I want to go into, I'll leave the remainder, with lines like "spreading filth and disease" and "festering strip of silt", for what it is. The Borodin incident took place in October 2013 by the way, not October 2015.
An outsider's look at your country can have the benefit of making you look afresh at your own actions and your own history, but this column, brewed by a man who is evidently delighted by his own résumé, goes way beneath constructive criticism and belongs to the unsavoury realm of vulgar propaganda.
So far for my reaction to that column. Considering Pravda.ru as a whole, I want to say that I have been appreciating much of its content, yet not always its tone of voice, since I discovered this website in June 2013. (9th November 2015)
Unjust Nazi comparisons
On November the 3rd, the founder of the Pegida demonstrations called Germany's justice minister Maas (SPD) "the worst psychological arsonist since Goebbels and Schnitzler". (Schnitzler was a TV propagandist in Communist East Germany.) I am against all unjust Nazi comparisons, including this one, aimed at someone I strongly disagree with on a lot of issues (see in the above, October the 27th). To me, belief in democracy also means belief in the duty towards the general public to keep the debate as clean and businesslike as possible, especially because I find that we are living in times in which a whole lot of very sensitive issues need to be talked about. Unjust Nazi comparisons only create or contribute to unnecessary alienation and division among the people listening to that debate. Another reason why I am against unjust Nazi comparisons is that they usually reinforce the idea that political evil and National Socialism are identical. They are not. Nazism was a form of political evil, but not every form of political evil was or is Nazism. (9th November 2015)
Germany on a 9th of November, once: the Reichspogromnacht
Meant as a reprisal, the night of brownshirt violence against Jewish lifes, synagogues and properties, 77 years ago, is in today's Germany commemorated as the Reichspogromnacht. In the old media in The Netherlands, the phrase 'Reichskristallnacht' is often used, the 'Kristall' referring to the broken glass of shop windows all over Germany. Yet I once heard Professor Guido Knopp explain, in a ZDF History programme, that the term 'Reichskristallnacht' was in fact an invention of the Nazi regime. By calling the broken glass 'crystal', Nazi propaganda bizarrely tried to add a touch of humour to the ominous events, to make them look less serious. (9th November 2015)
The fated flight of the Russian passenger jet over Egypt
In October, the Dutch Safety Board released a report about the cause of the crash of flight MH17, above East Ukraine in July 2014. 298 lifes were lost, two thirds of them Dutch. According to this report, a Russian-made Buk ground-to-air missile caused the airliner's destruction and the leader of the investigation team said the missile was fired from rebel territory, without accusing the rebels.
The findings are however contested by Moscow. One Russian minister described the logic of the Dutch report as disgraceful. This is only one headline of many indicating that the unclarity continues to exist, in a peevish atmosphere between the two governments. It goes without saying that this situation is painful for the victims' loved ones. It's a burden on my heart.
And then, on October the 31st, above the Sinai, a Russian plane has broken apart, with a bomb being mentioned as the cause. 224 people died. Can anyone of the Russians on board be blamed for that other plane's fate, more than a year ago? No. They were just innocent holiday makers, leaving hundreds of families in mourning, and so I sent President Putin my condolences. (11th November 2015)
For the record
I posted my letter of condolences to President Putin on the 6th of this month.
On the 9th, Pravda.ru published an article related to the column 'Dutch Ambassador shows Western arrogance'. I read that related article on November the 12th.
(13th November 2015, rewritten on the 14th)
Murderous Islamic fanaticism claims 127 lifes in Paris, 99 heavily wounded, an entire country in shock and fear
After this night of horrors, after the near-massacre in the Thalys train, after the massacre on the Tunisian beach, what more atrocities are needed before the following dawns upon the European nations? The Islam does not belong in Europe, and the Western nations should only go to war for the sake of genuine self-defence, not for the sake of the geopolitical games of international Torahist Jewry. This is what Torahist Jewry and its non-Jewish helpers are after, if need be by means of war: 1. Oil. 2. Install Torahism-friendly governments in the countries around Israel. 3. Reinforce Washington's strategic position in the Middle East and Central Asia at the detriment of Russia's, China's, India's.
It's because of those wars, that kill countless Muslims, that Muslim terrorists, in accordance with the Koran's instructions, want to retaliate and target Europeans as well as Jews.
Please see right through the crap that the TV crowd will tell you these days. Please see right through the crap they always tell after acts of Islamic terrorism, the crap like: "Islam is not the problem, extremism is the problem" and "It's our fault that high unemployment is pushing young Muslims into radicalization" and "We shouldn't let the far right and the populist politicians make a profit out of this" and "Islamophobia and racial discrimination are not the answer" and so on.
Those are standard lines to talk you into accepting the current situation as an eternal given. Their talk sounds civilized, but it's meant to fog your mind, to make you feel guilty, to make you blind to the true nature of the Koran, to make you passively stand by while more and more immigration is contributing to the slow destruction of the European nations. Ever read the Torah? You must have noticed its vindictiveness then. Ever wondered how Torahist Jewry is taking revenge on Europe for the Holocaust? Well, THIS IS IT! Mass immigration. Confusion. Fear. Together with the immoralizing garbage they spread through film and TV.
I watched the Pauw talkshow in The Netherlands while the bloody events in Paris were unfolding, while the death toll was rising. I watched the hypocrites sitting at the studio table. I saw how they on the one hand were pulling sombre faces, yet on the other hand were thinking of yet another "politically correct" comment to make, to try and keep the thoughts of the viewers within the usual boundaries. At one point, a correspondent said about the terrorism: "We have to learn to live with this". Who the hell is he to decide that for the entire Netherlands, for the whole of Europe?!?
I most strongly condemn this attack and I'll send President Hollande my condolences. I reject President Obama's claim that the "values" of "liberté, égalité et fraternité" are universal; I try to let myself guide by the Christian values, mankind's supreme beacon.
(14th November 2015)
Christmas, the annual celebration of light, life, Christ
I wish you'll have a great time with your loved ones.
If you feel lonely, I wish you'll notice the presence of God.
The Torahist Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the believers of other faiths, well, their worship is beside the point, they are troubled by misperceptions of God, their gods are non-existent, but I can respect the sincerity with which they experience their faith, and I hope that the Divine inspiration will bring them to Christ too, one day.
I wish the atheists the courage not to run away from the essential questions leading to the conclusion that God does exist.
And I wish all the Christians to keep faith, and not to get annoyed or disturbed over the label "Christian fundamentalist".
The political power of those who seek to marginalize Christianity is the true problem; not well-meaning people who try to remain loyal to the New Testament's teachings.
(24th December 2015)
God's will be done
If God wants the reversal to take place in this year, it will happen in this year. I wish 2016 will bring you the good things you are hoping for. With regard to my political endeavour, I am intending to continue it. However, a publication pause of several months may occur, occasionally. (1st January 2016)
Project Hurray! The UK has voted to leave the EU
The present is the history of the future, and what a present it is, in the two meanings of the word! No amount of international pressure and high-level scare-mongering has been able to extinguish the British desire for sovereignty. The EU monster has now lost a limb. My congratulations to the Leave majority, and my respect for the wellmeaning part of the Remain minority. (24th June 2016)
The above contains the text 'A look at the British Prime Minister's speech on Holocaust Memorial Day', dated March the 5th, 2015. In that article, I mentioned the Dutch Jew Mr Schelvis. His first name was Jules and not Julius, as I erroneously thought. My apologies for this. Mr Schelvis, who survived the Holocaust, deceased in April of this year. (4th September 2016)
British Democracy Forum (3)
I recently found out that the British Democracy Forum changed its name in 2014, then suddenly disappeared from the internet in October 2015. From 2010 till 2012, I have been posting my contributions on that discussion site. Via this link you'll find
a selection of my BDF posts.
I think of it as an important episode, as it gave me the opportunity to make my case in some sort of public arena. Every politician and every journalist who knew about my initiative at the time, and everyone else for that matter, had the possibility, under a pseudonym if they wanted to, to challenge me on that forum, to point out fundamental mistakes or unsound reasonings to me, in case I had made any, but I never got a response that forced me to reconsider my ideas.
The number of views that my BDF thread attracted, rose from a daily average of about 25 in 2010 to about a 100 in 2012. See also the texts of 31st October 2012 and 24th July 2013 in the above. (4th September 2016)
And how about people's interest in my writings nowadays?
According to my provider's statistics, I had 181 views in the period of 3 August - 3 September. That's about 6 a day on average. (4th September 2016)
A new internet letter:
To U.S. Presidency candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
(4th September 2016)
As a prominent pro-Brexit voice earlier this year, Boris Johnson, a man with Turkish ancestry, said about the EU that over the centuries, Europe had always seen efforts of one empire or another to bring the whole of Europe under one centralized government. As examples he mentioned Napoleon and Hitler, whose endeavours had ended in bloody tragedies. Especially his likening of the EU to Hitler's Germany led to a lot of upset headlines and angry reactions.
It's of course impossible precisely to determine if and to which extent his comments have influenced Britons to vote for Leave, but I am sure that by saying so, Mr Johnson successfully tapped into the collective memory of a nation that has victoriously waged war against both the Corsican and the Austrian, and that wants to be its own master.
This, and the displeasure of millions of people over seeing how the mass immigration is turning their own streets and neighbourhoods into places in which they themselves feel like foreigners, has made the majority of the voters decide for Leave on June the 23rd.
Mr Johnson's siding with the Leave camp did not land him in the job a host of media, inside and outside the UK, had said he was aiming for. Yet, serving under Prime Minister Theresa May, he became Foreign Secretary. In that new and important role, he has now offered to help Turkey join the EU in any way the UK government can (source: The Daily Telegraph of September the 27th).
It's the kind of news that can ignite anger as well as a laugh about political absurdity. Britain, fed up with mass immigration, votes for Leave. As one of the results of that outcome, a Leave figurehead becomes a Cabinet member. Then, he uses that position to help Turkey join the EU, knowing that subsequently, millions of more Turks will migrate to European countries, that already are as much fed up with mass immigration as the British are!
I underlined 'more Turks', because there are already millions of Turks living in West European countries - and most of them feel Turkish, much to the pleasure of Turkish President Erdogan, who is known to have said that "the bellies of Turkish mothers are our mighty weapon". Mr Erdogan obviously enjoys the prospect of greater Turkish influence in Europe by sheer birth rates, higher than the average European ones.
Why is Mr Johnson doing this? Why this U-turn? Before June the 23rd, the Leave side warned against "Turks on our shores" and he portrayed the EU as a negative sovereignty-threatening force. He will however now be promoting the ominous fusion of 80 million Turks, most of them dedicated Muslims, and 300 million Europeans, most of whom have been alienated from their Christian faith, and too many of whom are now sheeplike listening to the false TV sermons of the high priests of "progressive liberalism", while in Islam, the "achievements" of "progressive liberalism", like gay marriage, abortion and the fixation on godless materialism are looked upon with horror.
Every Muslim who enters Europe only has to zap along the TV channels of his host country for ten minutes to see that the imam in his village of birth was right about the doomed infidels of the West. What does he know about the misleading influence of the media on the Western mind since the 1960s? How could he know that until the 1960s, many values of the Westerners were similar or comparable to his own? He doesn't know, but he's likely to carry a book with him with a lot of particularly venomous instructions regarding the non-Muslims.
Mr Johnson will now help pave the way for another couple of million people with a Koran in their suitcase to the continent that never saw as much Koran-inspired violence as in the last couple of years: Paris, Cologne, Brussels, Nice, I'll spare you the long list.
And so, again, why does the UK government want to help Turkey join the EU, obviously so conflicting with common sense, and in stark contrast to Mr Johnson's own pre-referendum statements?
It's to please Washington, I think. Washington - and that's not the same thing as the American people - was disgruntled by the outcome of the Brexit referendum. Before it, President Obama warned against leaving the EU, a meddling in Britain's internal affairs that rightly offended many Britons. A United Kingdom outside the EU should join at the end of the queue, if it wanted a trade deal with the US, Mr Obama said.
And now to show to daddy Washington that Britain is still a sweet obedient boy, despite its naughty behaviour on referendum day, Mrs May and Mr Johnson are supporting Washington's push for Turkey's admission to the EU, because that's something that President Obama is advocating, just like his predecessor George W. Bush.
I think that the East Coast Empire is the true ruler of America (chapter 5.14.4 of the main text), and I think that the US Presidents are carrying out its agenda. I think that by pushing the migration of as many Turks, other Muslims, Africans and Asians to Europe as possible, the East Coast Empire hopes to deliver the fatal blow to what it contempts and hates, namely the Europe as the white man's continent, based on Christian thought, the Europe that in Torahism's blurred view did too little to prevent the Holocaust from taking place, the Europe a part of which was once the Third Reich. (5th October 2016)
Deceived Americans, necessary questions, absent answers
I haven't received a reaction from Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump to my
internet letter of September the 4th. Now, it goes without saying that the contenders for the White House are not answerable to someone in The Netherlands; they are answerable to those who work hard or donate money to help them get elected, and to the people who will entrust their vote to them.
Still, I would like to put the following to the Americans among my readers: the question on the table is whether Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump are on the side of the whole of the American people, or on the side of those 2 percent of the U.S. population who are brainwashed to believe that the other 98% were born to serve them, while talking the 98% into believing they're living in a democracy.
Given the importance of that subject, and given the leading position of America in the West, does it really matter from which Western country some necessary questions are put to the candidates? Like the question I asked in my letter?
I leave it to you to judge that. (10th October 2016)
How the BBC was creating a pro-war mood before the invasion of Iraq
(10th October 2016)
October the 9th: Minister Fallon's bombshell that was followed by seven days of intense.... silence??
On that date, the BBC's Mr Marr had an interview with Britain's Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon MP. After listing several accusations against Russia, Mr Fallon concluded by saying that the Russians "even tried to interfere on the Dutch referendum on the Ukraine association agreement".
Now, one might expect that that led to a burst of MPs' questions and alarming headlines in my country. After all, Britain is a country which The Netherlands are allied with in NATO and in the EU (as yet), and the minister of defence of that country apparently has evidence that a foreign power has been operating in the dark to manipulate the political decision-making in The Netherlands. On top of that, there is quite no shortage in my country of politicians and media people who are critical of Russia.
Surprisingly however, Mr Fallon's revelation led to.... deafening silence. I watch much of EenVandaag, the NOS Journaal, RTL Nieuws, Nieuwsuur.... but they had nothing about what Mr Fallon said. I googled the search terms 'minister fallon rusland referendum oekraïne' to find newspaper articles: nothing.
Isn't that strange?
Shouldn't the Dutch Minister of Defence Mrs Hennis ask her British counterpart for his evidence? Shouldn't the Dutch Parliament ask her to do so, and, once the proof is there, ask why the UK government knows more about Russian meddling in Dutch affairs than the Dutch government itself? Shouldn't the media wake up Parliament? (16th October 2016)
A BBC presenter has suggested WHAT ?? (18th November 2016)
I wish you a merry Christmas and a good 2017.
"The Russians even tried to interfere on the Dutch referendum on the Ukraine association agreement", according to UK Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon MP, speaking on the BBC on October the 9th, 2016. Related internet letters, in Dutch and in English:
Internet letter to the Dutch Minister of Defence + the Ministry's reaction (last update 31st March 2017)
Internet letter to the Dutch Foreign Secretary + the Ministry's reaction (last update 31st March 2017)
Internet letter to several parliamentary parties in the Dutch Parliament + follow-up (last update 17th February 2017)
Internet letter to several news programmes and newspapers in The Netherlands + follow-up (last update 3rd January 2017)
Internet letter to BBC host Andrew Marr (10th March 2017)
I suspend the publishing until the reversal
Under the current circumstances, it has become impossible for me to continue. (10th April 2017)
It was horrendous what happened in Las Vegas, the people attending a concert in the open air who died or got wounded because of the man who opened fire on them with automatic weapons, from a high position in a hotel. This and the earlier shooting sprees, all the other gun crimes, make me wish two things for America. In the first place, that America will remember what President John F. Kennedy once said:
"Just as a man who realizes that his life has gone off course can regain his bearings only through the strictest self-scrutiny, so a whole people, become aware that things have somehow gone wrong, can right matters only by a rigidly honest look at its core of collective being, its national purpose." (Source: Life in Camelot - The Kennedy Years, edited by Philip B. Kunhardt Jr.)
So I wish for America that it will self-investigate, that it will look criticly at all the "accepted" ideas and "values" that stand at the basis of what America has become, in the course of the last five decades.
Furthermore, the demonic event in Las Vegas made me immediately think of a story in the New Testament, I had to look up where exactly, it is in Mark 5, it's the story of a man who was possessed by many demons, but who was cured by Christ. Christ drove these demons out of the haunted man's mind, the demons fled into a herd of swine who then ran into the water and drowned.
I hope for America that it will see the resemblance with today's society, indeed full of demons too:
the demon of personal frustration turning into violent behaviour;
the demon of contempt of other people's lives and happiness;
the demon of mind-altering antidepressiva, source of profit for the pharmaceutical industry;
the demon of thrill-seeking;
the demon of the tons of violence and sadism on TV, in film and in games, turning many of us in adrenaline-addicts;
the demon of making money out of producing and broadcasting truth-distorting 'documentaries' about terrorism and race riots, programmes that spread anxiety and fear, and thus incite people to arm themselves, which is of course also helpful for the weapons' manufacturers to make money;
and, to finish this incomplete list, the demon of the false sense of superiority that people can get from holding a weapon in their hands.
So trying to (re)connect with the Christian values, is what I hope America will once recognize as the better idea. Don't count on the politicians and the media to take a leading or supporting role in this. What they have on offer is just more of the same, because the rulers want to keep things as they are. (4th October 2017)
It is 2017, October the 24th.
There is no trace of the reversal in sight.
None of the wellknown politicians, none of the wellknown media has informed the nations about Torahism. I on the other hand have been trying to do so, since 2004, by writing on the internet, in the hope that one day, I would produce a text that will be massively spread and bring about the breakthrough that I am convinced is necessary.
I have to try it this way, because television and newspapers don't inform the general public about my initiative. In the past years, I wrote to TV channels and newspapers in several countries, so they know of my existence. In 2012 for instance, I wrote to ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News, Newsweek, The Nation, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Time and USA Today. None of them replied.
As yet, my effort has not been successfull; my website attracted 10 hits per day on average, over the past month.
So there is no reversal in sight. Yet, as you may have noticed three weeks ago, I have begun publishing again, despite my announcement in April. My expectation of some sort of miracle remains alive. (24th October 2017)
July 2017: a horrific insult of Christianity on the Russian website Pravdareport.com
I will not quote it. If you can't master your curiosity, you will have to look it up yourself. It's in the article Trump's "Western Civilization": The most idiotic speech in history. This article appeared on Pravdareport.com on July the 6th.
I know of many important indications that after the fall of Communism, Christ made a comeback to Russia, but the pitch-black spirit of the Antichrist clearly never left the country. (24th October 2017)
What to say in a world in which bad news is being shoved into the living rooms by the carloads?
I was busy writing an article about the Islamic act of terror by an Uzbek, that took the lives of eight people in New York, when the news of the massacre in the church of Sutherland Springs broke. An ex-airforce man, frustrated over his mother-in-law, takes it out on people gathered in the church that she also visits. It leaves one speechless. What will happen next week, is becoming a question you don't like to think of.
America, as the West's most important country, needs to self-investigate, I expressed this wish earlier, on October the 4th. In fact, America should already have begun thoroughly self-investigating itself in 2012, after the Sandy Hook massacre, no, earlier, in 1999 after High Columbine.
It's the mass shootings that get the publicity, but they are of course only the tip of an iceberg of non- or scarcely reported violent crimes.
A courageous and honest look at everything, every widespread idea, every dominant opinion, everything that's always been taken for granted, in order to judge whether it's a genuinely good idea, a time-tested idea, or an idea that just looks good, but that in reality is a bad idea, a phoney value, something treacherous, useful only for the rulers, but not for the socalled ordinary people, who in America constitute the overwhelming majority, as well as in any other country. So it's time to ask questions that matter.
What are all the factors that influence, that educate, that mentally shape the mind of the American, as from the day he or she is born?
What lessons are the parents teaching their children, as to how to behave, how to cope with adversity, how to treat others? Are those lessons time-honoured? Or were they invented in the 1960s, the period that I view as the beginning of a lot of confusion, as the beginning of the decline of the West?
What are the standards America's department of education is imposing on the publishers of schoolbooks? When were these standards implemented by Washington?
How does violence in film and TV influence the mind? Has there already been scientific research into that? If not, isn't it about time to start such research? I mean, I am just as interested in NASA's latest exploration of the outer planets as the next guy, but the need for this kind of research is now far more urgent, isn't it?
Where people forget about God, godlessness will emerge, and all the misery that comes from that. So has there ever been a thorough investigation carried out in America as to why people stopped visiting their Christian churches, since the 1960s? What can be learnt from the categorization of their answers, in other words, what are the main causes of what is poshly called 'secularization'?
Questions like that. (9th November 2017)
79 years ago: the foreshadow of the Holocaust
The 9th of November in 1938 brought a state-initiated night of violence against the Jews in National Socialist Germany, as a reprisal for the murder of a German diplomat by a young Jew. What started with the boycot of Jewish shops and this night of violence, abysmally descended into the Holocaust. Hitler hated Torahism so much, that he turned the German state into a genocidal machine. A predecessor of his, Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled over Germany till 1918, also hated Torahism, he has emphasized that the Germans should always be aware of it, but Wilhelm II was strongly opposed to the way the Nazis maltreated the Jews, if I am not mistaken. (9th November 2017)
I have seen a lot of TV coverage of the campaigns for the U.S. presidency election in 2016, and one of the things about it that struck me, was the bitterness, the enmity between the two sides. I can recall an American woman who said that the mood in the country had never been so tense. As an example, she said that people in her street no longer placed a political sign on their front lawn or behind their window, out of fear for political vandalism. That was something she'd never experienced before during earlier campaigns, she regretted to say.
Even I, as a TV viewer in Europe, realized how high tensions had run, by one surprising moment. You had three TV debates between Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump, and it was during the second or third debate that someone in the studio audience asked the candidates to mention something positive about the other. I can remember how relieved I felt by that question alone, as it formed such a relaxing contrast with all the vitriolic stinging by the contesting sides of the months before and in that very debate, up until that moment.
It even seemed to me that the two candidates were also pleasantly surprised by that question, as if they welcomed a brief moment in which they could say something nice about one another, and, if memory serves me right, Mrs Clinton then praised Mr Trump for the way he had raised his children, and Mr Trump admired Mrs Clinton for never giving up.
But that was just one moment of friendliness in an opinion climate that on the whole is dominated by negativity - and it's that negativity, that bitterness, that eagerness to mock and ridicule and name-calling that is perhaps the biggest political problem of them all in the West, because in such an opinion climate, all the other political issues can never be solved in a satisfying way.
So where does this destructive negativity come from? I think there are two causes. In the first place, over the past fifty years, less and less Westerners feel connected with the Christian values. (It's perhaps worse in Europe than in America.) That's a pity, as Christ teaches us to be modest, honest and fair - and modesty, honesty and fairness are blessings in any political debate, whatever the issue that is at stake, whether it concerns race or gender or Islam or homosexuality, or any other subject that so easily can trigger fierce emotions in people, because they are subjects that lie close to our hearts.
The second cause of the negativity is definitely the influence of television, in my view. Let me give you a rather familiar example. Imagine two groups of people in the street protesting pro and contra a political issue. I don't find it hard to imagine such a scene, because television has shown us protesting angry people thousands of times, in the past decades. Everyone who has always been interested in the news, has this clear image in his or her memory: people take to the streets to loudly make their protests heard all the time.
So we often see groups of people in a stand-off, kept at their distance by police officers and fences, and each group is holding signs with inflammatory texts and a lot of exclamation marks. The camera team then moves in closer, so that you can see and hear some of the individuals in the groups, and you hear the namecalling and the insults hurled over to one another.
All this contributes to a negative mood in the country, because television has this enormous amplifying effect. An angry person disturbs everyone who sees him or her. It affects some perhaps more than others, but when you see an angry person, it upsets you. So if an angry person is filmed by a TV news crew, and those images are selected for that evening's news programme - you always get to see selected images - that one person will upset people in millions of living-rooms.
But you never see the TV crew ask the protester a series of in-depth questions, to establish whether this person knows all the ins and outs of the political issue at hand. So the one whose shouting is transmitted to millions of living-rooms, might very well be a half-informed person, or a hopelessly biased person, or someone who is simply pretty shortsighted.
So the goal of the TV news makers is not to make you wiser, to give you all the ins and outs of a certain matter, no, their goal is apparently to upset you, and to deepen the rift between two groups of people in society - and the more groups in society look angrily at each other, the less inclined they will be to think about who their rulers are. "Divide et impera", divide and rule! It's as old as Rome, but today's rulers are obviously not the Romans.
I am convinced that the West needs some true changes, some genuine improvements, but it won't ever come from or via today's TV makers. Television is in the wrong hands, I'm afraid, but I believe the internet offers the possibility to counter its ill influence on society.
I believe the future will once bring debates on the internet that will 1) make millions of people realize that TV has kept them uninformed about essential facts for decades, and that will 2) truely contribute to constructive solutions of society's problems - in an atmosphere that modest, honest and fair people will definitely qualify as positive. (25th November 2017)
The psychological warfare against an innocent European tradition
Tonight, a time-honoured festivity will take place in many Dutch homes. It's a children's feast about a fictitious bishop called Sinterklaas, derived from 4th-century bishop Saint Nicolaus of Myra. The "main" Sinterklaas arrives by steamboat in a Dutch harbour each November, to be welcomed by a multitude of impressed children and their parents. After that, children live in anticipation of Sinterklaas's birthday on the 5th of December for weeks. Once that evening breaks, a knock on the door may indicate that a bag with gifts has been put there, if the family hasn't the good luck that Sinterklaas has arrived in person. The festivity, that goes back centuries, has its own typical sweets, its own songs, its own rituals like writing and reciting poems for the happy recipient, its own unique and pleasant national mood.
Not however to the liking of those who are obsessed to view racism in even the most innocent things like this annual tradition. Since a couple of years, they take issue with the aides of Sinterklaas, the Zwarte Pieten (Black Petes). The character of Zwarte Piet is based on the Moors, a black people that lived or is still living in North Africa. Now, The Netherlands have seen the immigration of negroes as from the 1970s, and a number of them, or their descendants, bent on misconstruing everything, say they feel offended by the "white supremacism", the "racism", the "stereotyping of blacks in subordinate positions" that according to them is typical of the whole folklore of Sinterklaas.
So they seek to protest loudly and create unrest at the place of Sinterklaas's arrival. Like all fanatics, they don't care about the feelings of the children and the parents that are present. Like other ungrateful immigrants, they don't respect the customs and traditions of the country that opened its borders to them. And like every other group who wants to disturb the majority of the Dutch, who are modest, reasonable and hard-working people, the anti-ZwartePiet-protesters get plenty of opportunity to complain and accuse and talk eloquent nonsense.... on television.
Those who run television in The Netherlands are playing a negative role in this issue in another way too. Regrettably, there are Dutch who, in their resentment of the anti-ZwartePiet-protests, stoop to insults and foul language on the new media - and they get loads of publicity: their insults are shown on TV, their prosecution is paid attention to on TV, the judge's sentence is paid attention to on TV. Why are the TV makers in The Netherlands, like the NOS Journaal, doing that?
My guess is that they want to inject feelings of insecurity into the majority of the Dutch people, the modest, reasonable and hard working people I just mentioned. "Am I on the same side with such people?", many will instinctively think, when they learn of the insults and the dirt spread by the prosecuted persons. And so, they will slowly be troubled by uncertainty about their appreciation of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. I think that the other objective of the TV makers is to strengthen the irrational feelings of being wronged among the black people living in The Netherlands.
And then, there are of course prominent politicians who want to help push the Dutch in the defensive in their own country. In October 2013, a United Nations official called Verene Shepherd, a Jamaican woman, said she thought of Sinterklaas as a return to slavery, and that the festivity should be abolished. The UN were founded in 1945, but it apparently took them 68 years to realize the Dutch are celebrating something horribly racist each 5th of December. In November 2013, Deputy PM Lodewijk Asscher pleaded for a slow "evolution" of Sinterklaas. In November 2016, Prime Minister Mark Rutte's Cabinet wanted Sinterklaas to be adjusted to modern times. It said that Zwarte Piet could hurt people. And under that pressure surrogates for Zwarte Piet made their entry, next or instead of the original ones: the Green Petes and the Yellow Petes, and the otherwise Coloured Petes, and the white Petes with streaks of soot in their face.
For someone who is not Dutch, such modifications may look futile, too childish to worry about, but I view this whole matter as symbolical for the caving in the white nations have to do all the time, in the past decades. Whether you keep track of what's going on in Belgium, or Sweden, or the UK or Germany, you'll notice that it are always the whites who have to push themselves to the limit as not to offend Arabs, Asians or Africans, and I get the impression that this goes for white America too.
However, the first signs of the turning tide may already be visible. On November the 7th, the NOS Journaal published a Ceefax message about a newspaper's investigation (!) of how Dutch towns would celebrate Sinterklaas's entry: with Zwarte or with other Pieten. The (translated) NOS headline was: Piet remains black almost everywhere, and the closing sentence of the report was:
During its investigation, the newspaper sensed irritation with the committees. They find that the media are preserving the discussion about Zwarte Piet.
Is the media pressure, as massive as it is malevolent in so many issues, finally approaching the point of rebound? Only time will tell. For now, from this place, a tribute to every good-natured Dutch activist and city councillor who wants to honour our country's traditions, and I hope tonight's Pakjesavond (Gifts' Evening) will be a joy again for very many people. (5th December 2017)
Please don't fall for the media trap that is the word "Judeo-Christian"
Obviously, you know this word if you are interested in what's going on in the world, and if you therefore follow the news attentively. Phrases like "In our Judeo-Christian culture..." and "the Judeo-Christian civilization" will then sound familiar to you. The word is of course also used by old party politicians as well as by the media. I think of it as a misleading word. Sure, Yeshua (Jesus) was a Jew and Israel is the Holy Land for both Jews and Christians. But what I find misleading, is that the word "Judeo-Christian" suggests that Torahism (Judaism) and Christianity are more or less similar faiths. It suggests that the faith of the Torah is something like the faith of the New Testament. Now, I don't have an academic degree in studying either of them, and I'm always open to correction, but I see fundamental differences between the two, so much so that they are incompatible, and the incompatibility has to be attributed to Torahism. What are these differences, in my view? The first ones that then come to my mind are:
1) The Torah, written by Moses, is extremely focused on worldly power. The god of the Torah promises the Jews they will take control over the lands of other peoples. In the case of Israel, the Jews, who were coming from Egypt as the story goes, are promised they will take the entire land in their possession, and the original inhabitants have to be dealt with in a way that has very little to do with "tolerance" and "dialogue". In the case of the other countries, the Jews are promised that mega-banking will be the way they can seize control. Please read the Torah yourself, it's the first five chapters of the bible, and you'll find that I am telling the truth. In every synagogue, a very expensive handwritten copy of the Torah is kept, and once a year, the members of every synagogue, all over the world, celebrate the existence of the Torah by dance-like walking behind it in a joyful procession.
On the other hand, in the New Testament speaks God, through Yeshua. The way I understand the New Testament, is that God wants the nations, including Israel, to live peacefully next to one another. Politics, the gaining of power, is important, yes, the world can't do without politics, you need a set of arrangements by which the best people can become the leaders of the country, but worldly power will only be blessed by God if it is applied for good causes. God will not bless worldly power if it's abused for a materialist ideology that denies human nature, that oppresses benevolent people. God will not bless worldly power if it's abused to change democracy into a deceitful show. He will not bless worldly power if it's abused for the intimidation of nations, for wars of conquest, for building a merciless empire at the expense of countless lives.
The systems built on that dark kind of worldly power may last many decades, it may look for a long time the future is entirely theirs, millions of people may be mesmerized and enthused by the system's lure, but one day such a system will collapse, by God's invisible hand. The New Testament teaches us that at the end of the day, God reigns supreme, not man, not money, not even Torahist money.
2) In Torahism, the Jews are indoctrinated to believe, from early childhood onwards, that it is only the personal happiness of the Jews that counts, and that the other peoples have to be confused, weakened, divided among themselves, as much as possible. The sooner the targeted people starts to pine away by loveless short-lasting relations, divorces, childlessness, addictions, feuds, mental problems, euthanasia, abortion, the loss of national cohaesion, the loss of national selfconfidence, the better, because that will make more room for thriving Jewish families; it will create more opportunities for the traditionally very assertive Jewish career-making; it will ease their way to the top and their staying there.
In Christianity, the Gospels are meant for every human being to lead a happy life, regardless of his or her race or nationality. As in Torahism, there is profound respect for the wisdoms of life in Christianity, the learning of the do's and don'ts for a happy life, and that's why the Ten Commandments stand in the highest regard in both faiths. Christians however know that all nations should share in that wisdom, whereas Torahist Jews believe that that wisdom is meant for them only.
3) The Torah's adulation of the Jews as 'the Chosen People' has regrettably resulted in the Torahist conviction that the non-Jewish nations are inferior and must either give way for the Jews or submit to Torahist rule. So Torahism is a racist doctrine; Christianity is not. (Islam, for all its bloody mistakes, isn't racist either.)
4) In Torahism, the enemy of the Jew has to be destroyed. In Christianity, the enemy of the Christian has to be loved (Matthew 5:44).
5) The concepts of Heaven and hell are unknown in the Torah, whereas Yeshua teaches us that they do exist. Life on Earth is not the whole story of man; there is a hereafter, and there is a one-on-one relation between how you spent your life on Earth, and where you will end up in that hereafter. That's difficult to imagine, because our senses inform us only about the visible, audible and tangible reality around us. Yet Heaven and hell are as real as God Himself, and those who want to find God, will find God, and there will come a day in their lives they will see a sign of His that He does exist and watches over those who honour Him.
Now, if little humble me knows these essential differences, the kings of television, the distinguished film directors, the chief editors of the wellknown newspapers know them too, surely. So why do they use that phrase "Judeo-Christian"? Because it's a word that lends something of the gentleness of Christianity to give Judaism a nice shine. It draws many Christians, or people who were raised in a Christian family, into the untruth that they and the Jews, the Israelites, Israel, are on the same side in today's world that is full of threats. It's a phrase that psychologically mobilizes as many Christians as possible, as many Westerners in general as possible, for the (geo)political goals of Torahist Jewry - and those who fall for the term, are either badly informed or a bit foolish, because they can know, they can easily discover that Torahism has in fact an anti-Christian agenda (Exodus 23:24).
It goes without saying that those (geo)political goals are never described as Torahism's. They are called "America's ideals" or "the Western values" or "the Western interests" or what-have-you. It also goes without saying that when the threats in today's world are created or enhanced by Torahism, the old media don't tell that to the general public.
Now, the above is written by a Dutchman you've never heard of, and that Dutchman is writing it on the internet, that hatchery of many a mad conspiracy theory. Furthermore, television never shows you a 12-part documentary or docudrama about the subjects I just mentioned. That absence on the TV screen makes these issues hard to imagine. Add the three together, and chances are you will dismiss my writings as a load of rubbish. Yet there is also a chance you will feel challenged to do your own research, and that would be a good thing. The West needs better informed people more than ever, but a warning is now called for. Whoever gains in-depth knowledge about Torahism, will certainly discover that the Torahist mentality is appalling. There is nothing Torahism is not prepared to do to achieve its objectives. That discovery can easily make you hate the Jews, if you care about the country you live in.
Hating the Jews is however not the answer. Hate of the Jews led to the catastrophic unimaginable crime of the Holocaust, and to the post-war Torahist reflex to take revenge on the entire Christian white world. And remember President Richard Nixon, who in his resignation speech in 1974 said that hate destroys yourself. No, trying to understand how Torahism came into being, 3,500 years ago, and how its ideas have been preserved through all those centuries up until our times, that is the better idea, and I hope you will find the
helpful there. You'll also notice the main text has more nuance than this short article allowed for. (9th December 2017)
I wish you very pleasant and inspiring Christmas days. (24th December 2017)
The best message I can think of to begin this new year by is to repeat that Yeshua is telling us the saving truth. And by 'us' I mean: mankind in its entirety. (5th January 2018)
I changed the standard closing text on this page
Its first sentence used to begin as follows: "Britain, The Netherlands, the other European countries are in very big trouble, in my opinion, (...)" (5th January 2018)
I added a separate webpage for the
corrections. (5th January 2018)
President Trump helped an "enemy of the American people" make money
In February 2017, President Trump tweeted this: "The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!"
That's something I found very strange right away. I mean, how come an enemy of the American people is not an enemy of their President?!? I haven't seen anyone ask him to explain this.
More than ten months went by. Then, I saw he had given an interview to the New York Times in December. Now, that is something that has helped the NYT's publisher make money in several ways. People in the streets pass a newspaper stand, see the headline and think: "That might be interesting, I'll buy myself a copy". So such an interview boosts the newspaper's single-issues-sales. (End-of-the-year interviews like this always attract more buyers anyhow.) People who were contemplating to end their subscription to the NYT read the article, admire the newspaper's tenacity to win the president over to do an interview and decide to maintain their subscription. People who only occasionally bought a single issue feel the same way, and take a subscription. The interview increases the number of hits on the NYT website; the publisher's sales people can now charge higher rates for web ads. Media all over the world mention this interview and the name of the newspaper, thus reinforcing its already very strong brand fame; that is another commercial bonus.
If Mr Trump truely found the media he mentioned to be enemies of the people, he could have said to those media after his inauguration: I am not talking to you anymore, when I have something to say, I'll say it via www.whitehouse.gov, to the American people directly, without giving any of you the chance to distort my messages. But he hasn't said that, no, he even helps "enemies of the American people" make money. No, President Trump isn't that great an adversary of the old media as he purports to be.... (9th January 2018, corrected 20th January 2018)
Whether author Michael Wolff is telling untruths or President Trump, America is losing either way
If Mr Wolff's book 'Fire And Fury' tells the truth, and President Trump is really surrounded by staffers who think he's an 'idiot' and a 'moron', then that's bad for America, because it means that the top level of the American government consists of a mentally unfit person and (many?) talented parasites who despise their chief, but want to remain on the White House's payroll nonetheless. That would always be an alarming situation, but especially so in today's world.
However, if the President is right and Mr Wolff's book is indeed a bunch of lies, then that's also bad for America, because that book is then amounting to character assassination with a lot of impact on the world, given the formidable free publicity this book is getting in all the global media. That will diminish America's standing in capitals around the world; it will make foreign leaders with interests opposite to America's take the White House less seriously, which - again in today's world - could also quickly lead to an alarming situation. So either way, America loses.
My guess is that President Trump is as Torahism-friendly as everyone else in Washington DC (see further down), but that he seriously underestimated how much some of his campaign pledges and remarks have rubbed the East Coast Empire up the wrong way. I think that that is why the big media and TV comedians are so vitriolic against him. He is Torahism-friendly, yes, but he is just not Torahism-friendly enough; he is not as Torahism-friendly as Mrs Clinton likely would have been.
Now, why am I calling President Trump Torahism-friendly? Well, it's visible in small things and in big things:
1) His term is still work in progress, but so far he hasn't addressed the conflict between Torahism's 3,500-year-old agenda on the one hand, and the U.S. Constitution and the U.S Declaration of Independence on the other hand. He should do so, because looking after the long-term interests of the whole of the American people is any President's supreme duty. America's most sacred documents seek to guarantee that America is and remains a republic functioning well for its entire people. Torahism however means that a small but brilliant and self-indoctrinating minority, Torahist Jews, will always try to get absolute rule over the entire people that let them in. I am describing this conflict more specificly in the main text, as from chapter 5.15, and I am arguing there that Torahism has probably won.
2) When Mr Trump's campaign turned out to grow successful in 2015-2016, he got the world's increasing attention, including mine. I then wondered how and when Mr Trump would signal to Torahist Jewry that he wouldn't oppose Torahism - call it: cynicism by experience. I didn't have to wait very long. Somewhere in 2016 - I haven't noted either the occasion or the exact date - I heard him refer to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as 'Bibi'. Now, 'Bibi' is Mr Netanyahu's nickname, used by his loved ones and closest friends. So when Mr Trump said it, it was what they call 'coded discourse'. That is language that has far more meaning than the general public realize, meant to be understood by a selection of listeners only. Please note, there was no need for Mr Trump to use that nickname. Countries can have good constructive relations with one another without their government leaders cosying each other up like that. In fact, a more formal atmosphere among them is to be preferred, because that will make it easier to discuss sensitive issues. So by publicly saying 'Bibi' instead of 'Israel's PM' or something like that, Mr Trump was actually signalling: "I like Israel and I like everything that is Israelite."
3) In December 2017, President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital, without even mentioning East Jerusalem, that other nations see as the future capital of a Palestinian state.
4) For nine years, the USA and five other countries negotiated to reach an agreement on Iran's nuclear programme, a complex agreement that must have required iron selfcontrol on everyone's part and the best diplomatic skills before it came about. Now, there is big hostility between Iran and Israel; the latter never stopped rejecting the negotiations and protested its outcome, while the rest of the world felt relieved by it. So when President Obama broke the news about reaching the agreement, in a televized broadcast from the White House, he had Vice President Joe Biden, a Jew, at his side. Politics is full of symbolism; by his mere presence, Mr Biden was silently reassuring Jews worldwide: "Trust me, people, it's a good agreement, Barack Hussein hasn't gone rogue on us".
But now, that agreement is apparently not good enough anymore. President Trump is now sharing in the Israelite discontent; he calls the agreement "the worst deal ever" and wants to discard it, and neither he nor Israel seems to give a damn whether that will increase the chances of a (world) war.
5) It is absolutely impossible not to be Torahism-friendly, while making a career in real estate in a place that Jews are proud to call a Jewish city, when they think no-one is listening: New York!
I'm not talking behind President Trump's back by the way, he knows my initiative and my address, I sent a
letter to Mrs Clinton and him, two months before the elections. No reply, alas. (9th January 2018, corrected 20th January 2018)
Israel is to deport law-defying Africans who entered the country illegally
A sensible measure in the interest of the people of Israel. This was perhaps already on Mr Netanyahu's mind in September 2016, when he said that - I'm quoting the NOS - Israel can be an example for other nations. (9th January 2018)
UK newspaper: "Britain could be back in the EU within a generation, hints May's deputy Lidington"
It's on The Telegraph's home page. For my British readers: please read what I predicted on October the 10th, 2013, in the above on this page. (20th January 2018, UK time 12:43)
The BBC then and now
My bookcase holds a copy of 'Allemaal onzin' ('All nonsense'), written by Dutch columnist Simon Carmiggelt (1913-1987). It's the 1973 edition. On page 37 begins a story about his family's attitude towards the Wilhelmus, the national anthem of The Netherlands. Mr Carmiggelt's family were social democrats and they refused to stand up when the anthem was played in public, and the author tells about the trouble that their principle got them into every now and then, in the 1930s. But at the end of the story, Carmiggelt tells how he was moved to tears by hearing the Wilhelmus during the Nazi occupation, when he was listening to the broadcasts of Radio Oranje on the BBC, his radio hidden in the kitchen's cupboard, because the Dutch were forbidden by the Nazis to listen to foreign radio broadcasts.
I am mentioning this, because I realize how much the BBC must once have meant for the Europeans living under Hitler's brutal dictatorship, how much joy they must have felt when they heard a faint English voice of the BBC say that Montgomery's victory at El Alamein meant that Rommel's march through North Africa was put in the reverse. I can imagine how people were thrilled to hear the BBC tell that the Red Army's epic victory at Stalingrad meant that Hitler had lost 250,000 troops, and that he could forget about conquering the oil wells of the Caucasus. I can imagine the massive relief people in occupied Europe must have felt when they heard the BBC report on the awesome event of June the 6th, 1944, taking place in Normandy: D-Day.
But look at the BBC now.... A boost for the anti-Nazi spirit then; a disgusting lackey of Torahism now.... Let me focus on a scene I saw in last Saturday's episode of the BBC's 'Hard Sun'. From memory: a man is threatening a priest, while he's ranting against God. He says that God commanded the slaughtering of seven nations, thus: genocide. "Genocide!", he repeats, yelling at the priest. The latter responds fearfully: "There was a new covenant...." The irate man: "Yes, in which He commanded the torture and killing of His own son!"
I regard this scene as a 'perfect' example of the deceitful poison that malevolent media can inject in the minds of millions of ill-informed people in a few seconds, knowing that it would take better informed people far more time to explain what's so damaging about it, that is, if these media were to invite such a better informed person to their studio, which they decidedly never do in some matters, since they are malevolent. Anyway, here, on the internet, is the antidote for the scene I just described:
1) The bible actually consists of two sets of texts, the Old and the New Testament, and each Testament has its own view on God and mankind. These views differ fundamentally from one another; that was however not said in the programme.
2) The Old Testament is the Torahist part of the bible, the New Testament is the Christian part of the bible; that was however not said in the programme.
3) The commandments to commit genocide are written down in the Torahist part; that was however not said in the programme.
4) The ones who are ordered to commit the genocide are the Jews; that was however not said in the programme.
5) God's motive to let his own Son be tortured and crucified isn't cruelty, but His love for mankind. Please read
Yeshua is telling us the saving truth for my explanation.
6) The Christian priest is not portrayed to say proudly and self-assuredly: "You're totally mixing things up. You are mixing up the genocidal god of the Torah and the true God who gave us Christ and the New Testament for the benefit of all mankind, including you". No, the BBC picture the priest as an insecure man who is suggested to be answerable for the genocidal commandments in the Torah. A falsehood can not be more ridiculous than that: it are of course the rabbis of this world, who are drumming the Torah into Jewish children's heads, who have some explaining to do.
7) By letting a fictitious person say these things, the BBC create an possible pretext for themselves. They can always say: "Well, it's not the BBC's own viewpoint, it's what we paid some fiction writers for to let a non-existent person say.... we also broadcast 'Songs Of Praise', you know, which isn't exactly the Devil's cup of tea, or is it?"
So this is the spiritual damage that this BBC scene of a few seconds is causing, in my opinion:
Many badly informed viewers will (even more) mistake the bible for the repulsive book of those strange Christians, a book that from cover to cover seems to be full of a cruel god who is ordering genocide and a hellish life for his own son.
The Christians among the viewers of 'Hard Sun' (there can't be that many) will have felt indignant about the deceitful image of the bible that the BBC have been projecting, and they will have felt pushed in the defensive, will have felt uncomfortable, by the sight of a priest who is outsmarted by a ranting and threatening person.
Such a scene might easily deter young people, searching for values and truths to hold on to, from looking into the Christian message.
The scene has therefore contributed to a deeper division between Christians and non-Christians, and it has contributed to pushing Britain a bit further away from Christianity, which is a pity, to understate it, because it is exactly the erosion of the Christian values in the past half of a century why today's Britain and the other Western countries have become such a mess.
Yet I remain sure the current situation will not last forever. The pitiful souls that run today's BBC may obsessively be convinced that Yahweh, the god of the Torah, is on their side, but God isn't, and Yahweh doesn't exist, but God does. (24th January 2018)
Is repeating the same questions in the BBC talkshow 'The Big Questions' useful for the British people? I think not.
'The Big Questions' of today, that just went on air, will have this topic: 'Is porn damaging to society?' Remarkably, the programme had the same item in 2011. I don't think the British people are well served by BBC programmes that dish up the same question every seven years. The better idea would be a programme that arrives at clear answers and useful conclusions for society. Re-reading my notes of the 2011 broadcast, I saw that presenter Nicky Campbell ended the programme then by saying that a report of the Scottish Ministry of Justice had concluded that pornography did have a stimulating effect on rapists, but that that report was contradicted by other reports. So the interested viewer was left puzzled, but confused is perhaps a better word. (28th January 2018, UK time 10:03)
Immigration and Sir Winston Churchill
At a cinema in the centre of Den Haag (The Hague), I saw a 'coming soon' poster of 'Darkest Hour', with Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill.
That reminded me of another film about the man who was Great Britain's Prime Minister in 1940-1945 and 1951-1955. That film was 'The Gathering Storm' (2002) with Albert Finney.
Looking at some fragments of it on YouTube, it came to my mind that Mr Churchill had been PM in the same decade in which the migration from the West Indies to the UK was already going on. I wondered whether he had ever spoken about this, and if so, what. So I googled 'churchill immigration west indies 1950s', and one of the results was this article of The Guardian from 2007:
What Churchill said about Britain's immigrants
The quotes in the newspaper article show that Mr Churchill would view mass immigration of coloured people, attracted by the welfare state, as fatal.
I find it also interesting to see how The Guardian is describing his concern. The newspaper calls it a reflection of "attitudes of the time". In this way, The Guardian tries to belittle Churchill's assessment of the situation; the newspaper is suggesting "oh well, lots of white politicians were like that at the time, we know better nowadays". In my view however, Sir Winston Churchill deserves praise for his foresight.
In the above, posted on the 8th of May 2005, you'll find a quote of him about fighting tyranny. (31st January 2018)
No to anti-Semitism, yes to anti-Torahism
There have been several TV programmes in the past weeks that were going into anti-Semitic incidents.
In Belgium, a series called 'Children of the collaboration' was aired by the VRT. In one episode, a former professor in chemistry, a Dutchman, was shown to say that Jews are parasites.
Right after President Trump had announced the Jerusalem decision, a Palestinian smashed in the windows of a Jewish restaurant in Amsterdam.
In January, the NOS Journaal in my country showed a video made by the Jewish owner of an Israeli restaurant in Berlin. On that video, a German man, the neighbour of the restaurant owner, was saying: 'Six million of your people were murdered, so what do you want here? All back to the gas chambers.... nobody wants you.... " In the same NOS Journaal, North Africans and Arabs were seen to set an Israeli flag alight, on the square where the Brandenburg Gate stands. On January the 28th, an ARD programme in Germany dealt with the question: 'The Holocaust commemoration: how anti-Semitic is Germany?' The programme showed pictures of neo-Nazi vandalism, like swastikas sprayed on synagogues and on Jewish tombstones. In other broadcasts on German TV, I've seen the controversy over a church bell in the German town of Herxheim. It was a gift of Hitler in 1934; the bell has a swastika on it.
In Austria, a politician of the FPÖ party, engaged in the country's coalition government, appeared to have been a member of a students' club that until recently used a songbook with a line that mocks the Holocaust; the song called for more gas to do the seven millionth.
In the United Kingdom, the media raised the question in 2016 whether the Labour party is troubled by anti-Semitism. That story keeps coming back, recently for instance in the BBC's The Big Questions.
CNN had an article titled 'Poland's Holocaust law should terrify you'. In the article, the journalist writes that a Holocaust denier is the only Republican running for a seat in a congressional district of Illinois.
A lot can be said about each and every of these incidents, but basically I condemn all of them. I am saying 'no' to anti-Semitism. I am saying 'no' to the hate, contempt, insults and violence against our fellow human beings that are the Jews. I am however saying 'yes' to anti-Torahism, because Torahism is the dark side, the destructive side of Jewry and it is a side that television, film, newspapers and schoolbooks never mention, let alone report in-depth about. Thanks to the internet however, peaceful yet resolved anti-Torahist action can successfully be undertaken, theoreticly speaking.
If you're interested in what I understand by anti-Torahist action, please read the main text, or the 10 pages of
Suppose, the reversal takes place next week. Then what?
And the sooner the church bell in Herxheim is molten and recast into a proper bell, the better, because Hitler was a manifestation of the Antichrist, and a church bell with a swastika on it is therefore an abomination. (9th February 2018)
Are the BBC still waging a psychological war against the whites?
In today's The Big Questions, one of the topics will be: 'Is Britain still racist?' In chapter 5.6 of the main text, I am describing how a question can contain an accusation, and this is an example of it. The question is suggesting: "Well, the whole of Britain was traditionally racist through and through, everyone knows that, but my goodness, is it really still racist now, is this day and age?!"
Since the British people are still a white people, predominantly, this BBC question is in fact accusing the entire white population in the UK of having a history of racism. The only thing that now needs to be looked at, 'Auntie' has decided, is whether white Britain is still racist today.
The BBC however know that for decades on end, the overwhelming majority of the British people have been voting for parties with pristine anti-racist programmes, namely Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
The BBC know that up and down the country, decent families in their millions are bringing their children up not to be racist.
The BBC know that one racist remark can be enough to break someone's career, block his of her chances of promotion or get violent mobs or internet trolls to harass him or her.
The BBC know that millions of taxpayers' pounds are going to anti-racist schoolbooks, anti-racist theatre performances, anti-racist foundations, centres for anti-discrimination complaints and what have you.
The BBC know that, the Oxfam scandal set aside, there are brave whites volunteering to help people out in disease-ridden Third World countries.
Yet, despite all of this, the BBC are adamant to hurl this insinuating question into the British homes.
In the past decades, the BBC have inundated the British living-rooms with series, films and documentaries full of mean racist whites maltreating, insulting or downright lynching non-whites, but that's still not enough to their taste.
And what will this TBQ topic trigger in Britain's living-rooms, in today's quarrelsome opinion climate? Fruitless discussions and arguments among white people of different generations: children vs. their parents, grandchildren vs. their grandparents. Whites feeling guilty, for the thousandth time. Whites getting angry, for the thousandth time. Many negroes and Muslims, nodding in agreement with those on the TV screen who do find Britain is still 'racist'.
And not very many viewers will think of the subjects the talkshow is not raising, the big questions it is not asking. Like: 'Are Britain's immigrants racist?' and 'Is racial awareness always racism?' and 'Is British Jewry racist?'
I find that the question 'Is Britain still racist?' is dividing the indigenous British people among themselves, and that it is justifying and emboldening a negative attitude of Asians, Africans and Arabs towards the whites in the country. That amounts to a 'yes' to the question I asked in the headline.
The same broadcasting corporation that never informs you about Torahism, is waging a psychological war against the whites in a country inhabited and cultivated by whites from time immemorial. Please reflect on the gravity of this for a few moments.
The programme just went on air. If there will be something in it that transcends its usual confusing bickering without a constructive conclusion, I'll come back to it. (11th February 2018)
A 19-year-old with an automatic weapon killed 17 people in a Florida high school, 15 are hospitalized
Dear Americans, please read my text of October the 4th, 2017, which I wrote after the Las Vegas shootings. These massacres are not going to stop by themselves, people. (15th February 2018)
Anti-Torahist publications: how (not) to write them
Imagine two countries, A and B. Country A is ruled in the way every country should be ruled: by its own people. Country B is ruled by Torahism, but since Torahism is also in control of the country's media, Torahism makes it look like as if country B is ruled by its own people.
Now, country A knows that country B is ruled by Torahism, but it wants to have constructive relations with country B. Country A wants peace, and it wants co-operation for the benefit of both countries. At the same time, country A is well aware that Torahism wants to subjugate it, but the country is determined not to let that happen ever.
This creates a difficult position for country A. On the one hand, it wants to constantly signal a preparedness for dialogue and co-operation with country B, but on the other hand, it has to see off all the attempts of country B (read: Torahism) to force it into submission.
As the stealth ruler of country B, Torahism has all the resources of that country to try and achieve that: it will use country B's publicitary power to falsely depict country A as a source of trouble, as underminers and cheats, as a threat to world peace. It will use country B's economic power to empoverish country A. It will use country B's military power to push back country A's sphere of influence in the world. It will use that military power to encircle country A itself, to intimidate it.
This means that country A also has to signal its determination to be its own master, and thus its determination never to submit to Torahism. So country A decides to let its media occasionally publish articles and broadcast programmes which, rather in the shape of hints than in plain text, relay the following message to the Torahist Jews among their viewers and readers: 1) we know what your people are doing in country B, 2) forget about doing the same in our country.
Country A chooses to issue this message hint-wise instead of calling it aloud, as not to bring matters to a head. It wants to offer Torahism the opportunity to moderate its ways and to snap out of its expansionist dreams, without loss of face.
Regrettably, Torahism is in a place where such a resolute yet benevolent approach has the contrary effect on it. Torahism has in fact always been about the obsession of Torah-indoctrinated Jews to make the other peoples bow for them. Therefore, country A's courageous and self-conscious attitude only triggers a doubling of Torahism's efforts to force country A into a subordinate position.
On the rebound, country A begins to think that publicly speaking out against Torahism might be better serving its national interest than hinting against it, the line it has been following so far. Torahism's intensified actions against country A are in fact solving country A's dilemma. So country A decides to become more explicit about what it knows about Torahism's power in country B - and that knowledge is impressive. Country A has the factual knowledge at its disposal to substantiate that some very grave crimes that took place in country B, are the work of Torahism.
If country A would then honour me to ask for my advice, I would advise against publishing an article or holding a speech that mentions those grave crimes of Torahism, without further context. The context that is a must in my view, goes into the origination, the root of the Torahist mentality. That context should grow understanding for the fact that the Torahist mentality (like I mentioned more than once) is the product of indoctrination of Jewish children as from a very young age. (Please read paragraph 5.8.3 of the main text.)
The appalling things done by Torahism are rooted in the Torahist mentality. The Torahist mentality has been instilled in the Jews concerned without their consent. That explanation is of the essence to prevent the Jews from becoming hated and to push back the already existing hate of them as much as possible. Explaining to the general public that it is the indoctrination of children what's causing the Torahist mentality, is therefore the Christian thing to do. The reader has to be left with the understanding thought: "When you marinate the minds of mankind's most intelligent children by a ruthlessly supremacist idea, it somehow figures they will do bone-chilling things on a grandiose scale once they are grown-ups."
The last thing you want people to say to themselves and to others is: "Those g[xxxxxxx]d Jews were behind this-and-that after all!" That's the hateful mindset Hitler and Goebbels wanted the Germans to have.
A list of grave Torahist crimes without an explanatory context will only fuel the false world view and the propaganda of neo-Nazis (and of Muslims).
Country A also has to take the prevailing opinion climate in country B into account. Since the Torahist media in country B have already been burdening country A with a bad image, an article or a speech that lists Torahist crimes without context will have a contrary effect on too many people in country B. They are after all used to misconceive even the slightest criticism of Jewry as anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism. "I already knew they are up to no good in country A, but now it turns out they are anti-Semites too!" That will be the predictable reaction of many millions of people.
It is also preferable to go into one grave Torahist crime at a time. Mentioning them all at once evokes the risk that the reader will soon give up, in a denying reflex. His or her mind will quickly sense a whole list as an indigestible and implausible overload. I would pick the most decisive one first. The rest can then logicly follow later.
Can't the leaders of country A find it in themselves to resist Torahism in a Christian understanding way? In that case, they'd better abstain from anti-Torahist activities altogether, because God's help in this is indispensable. (15th February 2018)
'Watch a robbery go horribly wrong', it says on the CNN homepage. CNN apparently thinks there are robberies that go well. (16th February 2018, UK time 22:43)
A couple of weeks ago, I switched my TV on and I saw on BBC World someone speak with the explaining title: "Indian PM warns against protectionism". There was that forbidden word again: protectionism! I understood I was looking at a broadcast from the Swiss town of Davos, where prominent people from politics and the economy meet each year.
Now, let me begin by saying that I find we are living in a world that is producing far too much junk, as in: stuff consumers don't really need but buy nonetheless. I'm directing that criticism to my fellow Westerners in particular of course.
That set aside, 'protectionism' is always said in a disapproving tone of voice on TV, as opposed to the allegedly wonderful blessings of free trade in the globalized economy. For decades, the televized 'elite' wants the viewers to believe that a government that puts the interests of the country's own workers first, should be frowned upon, because it is guilty of this 'protectionism'. I remember how former EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes was once speaking disdainfully about a plan of French President Sarkozy. He was considering to take some protective measures for the sake of the people working in the car industry of northern France. She explained how Brussels would punish France, if those measures would really come into effect.
But how could those talkshow guests possibly argue against the logic of a young American I once saw who said: "When I look around in Walmart, all the products there are manufactured in China. How can that be good for America?" What could they possibly say to him, if they were truely interested in his concerns that is, which I doubt?
When a product is made in China and sold in America, it means someone in China has a job and someone in America hasn't. It means that someone in China has a salary he or she can spend and that someone in America hasn't. It means that a company in China makes a bit of a profit on each sold product and that a company in America doesn't. Multiply that by millions of products and you'll see a serious disadvantage for America. It's as simple as that, but it is exactly the simplicity of some political problems that makes the current rulers shiver, so it seems.
Since November 2016, it has been said many times that the loss of manufacturing jobs in America was one of the causes of Donald Trump's electoral victory, and I think that's true, I am sure many American workers have put their hopes on him. The other day, I saw President Trump speak in Maryland, on CNN. He mentioned some impressive figures about the improvement of the employment. It looks like he's doing a good job for the U.S. economy, but I still don't think he is on the right track: he has already taken some deregulatory measures to please the Wall Street banks (source: The New York Times, 27th November 2017). Remember the 2008 greed crisis? That was their greed. You can read my text about who are paying the bill for that one
here. And who will pay for the next crisis, if nothing changes fundamentally. And that next crisis could mean the ATMs will refuse to give you your money, and the supermarkets will close because the electronic paying is out of order.
Capitalism tamed by Christian values is a blessing; megacapitalism led by the hardly known predatorial agenda of, um, certain people, is a curse.
By the way, the fact that America's workers voted Mr Trump into the White House implies that the Obama administration had let them down tremendously, during those eight years. That is something I never hear the old media say. They showed more interest in reporting which multi-million dollar houses the Obamas have been buying. It is as if these media were suggesting: "See how well you can thrive as a politician, if you are loyal to the system."
People need their authorities, their government to protect them against unemployment. Yet when it comes to matters of life and death, you are talking about a different order of magnitude naturally. The protection of the lives of the individual citizens and of the nation as a whole is the first duty of the authorities. That's what state institutions like the police and the army have been invented for, in the beginning of human history. The protection against criminals, against aggressive nations, against mighty egoists behaving intolerably, against the loss of the national identity, against the corruption of the nation's morale, and I find that many states are failing there bigtime.
But right now, I don't want to point at the useless 'policies' of the wellknown political parties of the West, because of which murderous drugs crime and other crimes have soared out of control in America and Europe, in the past fifty years.
Right now, I don't want to write about the stunning release of killers and rapists, which is one time causing dismay in the UK, another time causing dismay in my country, another time causing dismay in America, where in 2015 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle was shot dead by an illegal immigrant who had been deported back to Mexico FIVE times before. ("Look at that bathroom, Michelle, it looks more like a ballroom, hahaha.")
No, I want to point at a neighbouring country of Prime Minister Modi's India: Bangla Desh. The textile workers over there could have done well with a little more 'protectionism' by their authorities. In November 2012, over 1,100 people (!) lost their lives in a fire in a textile factory in a suburb of Dhaka. Workers had been forced back to their stations in the building by their supervisors, even though smoke was already rising from the first floor. Where were the authorities?
In April 2013, again over 1,100 people (!) perished in a textile factory in Dhaka itself. That building had collapsed. I can remember the TV news reports of the day before the collapse. Workers were desperately pointing at emerging cracks in the walls to convince their supervisors of the looming danger, but they were forced to go back to their work all the same. The police had demanded the complex be shut down, but in vain.
A 2015 report of Human Rights Watch (an organisation I am referring to reluctantly) stated that the working conditions in the Bengali textile industry had hardly improved since (source: VRT).
People all over the world need their governments to be competent enough, energetic enough, dedicated enough, powerful enough to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Yes, you can overdo it, a strong state. Hitler and Stalin clearly overdid it, and I suspect our rulers to overdo it too, sneakily, to tighten their grip on us. You can overdo every good idea, and then it will turn into something nasty, but people need their authorities to do the things they can't be expected to do on their own.
If you have a low income, and you are looking for a home to live in, and you are lucky to get an apartment in a highrise in an attractive city, you shouldn't have to worry whether the cladding on the outside is flammable or not, I am now of course referring to the night in London, June 2017, when over 80 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire. I found the images simply unbelievable. People should be able to take it for granted the authorities won't allow any contractor to build a 24-storey torch! (I resented the minorities-glorifying media exertions after the disaster, but that's another matter.)
No, Your Excellency, Mr Modi, with all due respect, but 'protectionism' isn't always bad, it's actually more than welcome in some domains, although there should always be an independently thinking parliament to check if the state isn't exaggerating. (24th February 2018)
A tribute to the Prime Minister of Hungary for his patriotic boldness
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán addressed the Hungarian nation on February the 18th and in a Ceefax message on German TV (ARD), some quotes were given. Mr Orbán, who is against the ongoing migration from Asia and Africa to Europe, is warning: "Nations will cease to exist, the West will fall." And he said that the Christian faith is Europe's last hope.
I've heard Mr Orbán say sensible things earlier. In September 2015, he warned that the Europeans could become minorities in their own countries, after German Chancellor Angela Merkel had allowed migrants, most of them undocumented and most of them Muslims, to enter Germany in numbers of about a million.
Mrs Merkel did so without consulting either her EU colleagues or, worse, her own people first, and German TV is now volunteering to be the living-room loudspeaker for those voices who find that the migrants' relatives should also be allowed to enter. So: many millions more.
Contrarily, Mr Orbán is a leader who speaks common sense and he doesn't leave it at words, but also undertakes action if the longterm interest of his people requires that. The border fences he built make it clear that he definitely wants Hungary to remain Hungarian. His whole stance is in defiance of the mighty forces who want him to take the opposite 'multicultural' decisions. In his speech, Mr Orbán was referring to Berlin, Paris, the EU, the IMF, the UN and to the network of George Soros.
The government leaders of Poland, Czechia and Slovakia have a similar patriotic spirit. They see the problems mass immigration led to in Western Europe, the indigenous people losing their jobs to cheaper immigrants, the unemployment statistics in which other immigrants are overrepresented, the crime statistics in which immigrants are overrepresented, the eternal misunderstandings and rancour between the Muslims and the original people, backhandedly fanned by the media, the acts of Islamic terrorism and the continuous threat of it, and these East European leaders rightly decline to burden their nations by the same misery.
The old media of the West have always been reporting sympatheticly about those in favour of immigration, and negatively about those who are against it (if the latter get any attention at all), and the ARD are no exception.
So, predictably, the ARD used negative wording to describe Mr Orbán's viewpoints.
The headline of their Ceefax report was: 'Orbán wettert gegen Einwanderung'. That means: 'Orbán is raging against immigration'. Do you like raging people? Neither do I, and the ARD know most of us don't like raging persons. So by using such a negative word in the headline, they put Mr Orbán's opinions in an unfavourable light right from the start.
The ARD report also said: 'In seiner Rede zur Lage der Nation entwarf er finstere Szenarien'. That means: 'In his speech on the state of the nation he sketched gloomy scenarios.' By that choice of words, the ARD were downplaying Mr Orbán's realistic assessment of the situation as the fear of a pessimist - and most people aren't easily convinced by fearful men, and most people don't feel attracted to pessimists either. When it comes to what kind of leaders people want, people feel much more inspired by bold realists.
So by depicting the bold realist Viktor Orbán as an unpleasant fearful pessimist, the ARD were making his visionary warnings look like remarks you don't have to take seriously.
I however found Mr Orbán's speech fascinating and informative. It can be found on the website of the Hungarian government,
via the links 'The Prime Minister' and 'The Prime Minister's speeches'.
The original ARD Text report:
Orbán wettert gegen Einwanderung
Ungarns Regierungschef Orbán hat erneut in scharfen Worten über die Einwanderung nach Europa gesprochen. In seiner Rede zur Lage der Nation entwarf er finstere Szenarien: "Dunkle Wolken liegen wegen der Einwanderung über Europa", sagte er. "Nationen werden aufhören zu existieren, der Westen wird fallen." Das Christentum sei Europas letzte Hoffnung. Ungarns Parlament erörtert demnächst ein Gesetzespaket, das Flüchtlingshelfern die Arbeit erschweren soll. Im April stehen zudem Parlamentswahlen an.
(28th February 2018)
February the 26th, German magazine Der Spiegel: "The Hitler church bell will remain hanging"
The city council of Herxheim (Germany) has decided to let the bell of the Saint Jacob church remain in the tower. The church bell was a gift of Hitler in 1934. It has the inscription 'Alles für's Vaterland - Adolf Hitler' ('Everything for the Fatherland') and the bell also carries a swastika. The city council wants people to regard the church bell as 'an impetus for reconciliation and a warning reminder against violence and injustice'. (Original text: 'Ein Anstoss zur Versöhnung und Mahnmal gegen Gewalt und Unrecht.') The city council decided to put a remembrance text on the church building and to let the bell ring again. The bell is the property of the municipality; the Evangelical Church of the Pfalz land had offered to buy a new bell and to pay for the removal of the Hitler bell, but it seems now it will not come to that. I find that Herxheim has taken a bad decision; I mentioned this matter earlier, on February the 9th, and I expect to come back to it. (5th March 2018)
D66 leader Mr Pechtold: "FvD is bothering my children online"
D66 and FvD are two political parties that are represented in the Dutch Parliament. The parties are led by Alexander Pechtold and Thierry Baudet respectively. Both D66 and FvD are as silent about Torahism as the other parties, but in the eyes of many viewers, their political differences may well appear as the most profound in Dutch politics.
Now, on March the 4th in the WNL Op Zondag programme, Mr Pechtold said that FvD had been sending 'follow us' requests to his children's Instagram. He said that FvD must have done its best to find the account, because his children's surname isn't mentioned on their Instagram. He called upon FvD to stop it.
In its reaction, FvD called Mr Pechtold's accusation nonsense. It said it doesn't know who his children are on Instagram, and that it had not been actively searching for his children's account to send its requests to (source: RTL Nieuws). The party implies it was a coincidence.
As a TV watcher, you are too often left with the question who is telling the truth, just like now. If it's Mr Pechtold, I can very well imagine and share his indignation and concern. If it's FvD, it sees itself now wrongly accused, on TV and in several newspapers, of reprehensible methods. It is D66's accusation that is making the headlines, not FvD's response.
I am now curious to see the follow-up of this, as that may clarify the matter. If there isn't any follow-up, then that will also say something about today's politics and the media in my country.
Personally, I am all in favour of democratic decency. I am pro respecting an opponent's family and privacy, and contra the sort of thing I just described. I am pro civilized discourse and contra name-calling and yelling. I am pro battle-of-ideas and contra street battles. I am pro trying to understand an opposite political view, and contra hate campaigns; I am also against hate campaigns that disguise themselves as 'anti-hate'. (7th March 2018)
North Korea's Kim Jong-un and President Trump will meet
That's good news. You'd rather see them talk to one another than exchange unpleasantries. (9th March 2018)
The Moon: Russia and China will work together
I read it on ARD Ceefax this morning. If that doesn't give Hollywood a great idea for yet another sensationalist fear-mongering movie, I don't know what will. Title: Blood Moon. Poster visual: telephoto picture of the red-colored eclipsed Moon, with the black silhouette of the Statue of Liberty in front of it. Subtitle: The day the Moon became Earth's enemy. (9th March 2018)
Down below, I added a link to a number of political texts which I wrote in 1999 and 2000. (9th March 2018)
Next update: not 24th, but 27th March 2018 at the latest
First publication: 22nd January 2004
Here you'll find texts which I wrote in 1999 and 2000 for
my first political initiative, 'Constructief Nederland'. These texts are in Dutch only.
My e-mail address is:
Thank you for visiting this website
Richard Schoot, The Netherlands
Although I am a Dutchman, I pretended to be an Englishman in the main text, which I e-mailed to the UK in 2003-2004, and in some other texts. On June the 9th, 2005, I apologized for this and explained why. (24th February 2018)
The Western countries are in very big trouble, in my opinion, as there are solid reasons to assume they’ve turned into Torahist dictatorships. It’s very important to know what Torahism is. Please read
my main text
If you come to agree with my views, please remember that the only way out is a patient and peaceful way. Not a single person can be held solely responsible for the present situation. It looks like we are ruled by people who actually can’t help themselves they are misleaders, and we are letting them mislead us on and on.
Avoid confrontations that can easily turn overheated. Don't react to provocations. Please don't view the avoiding as cowardice. It isn't. Be strong, be calm and calm down others, before their anger causes them to do foolish things.
Our countries urgently need new political parties, Christian Patriotic parties, and so the more people will get to know about this initiative, the greater the chance some true, constructive change in politics will ever come about.
So your drawing this website to other people’s attention would be very welcome, but now a warning is due. Since the 2013 revelations about the secret surveillance of our e-mails, phonecalls and internet surfing, sending an e-mail or calling someone up has become something you should think twice about. That’s the bitter and disgusting reality the Western world descended into, in the past half of a century, despite the sacrifice of nearly a hundred million lifes in two world wars, and despite the huge defence costs it took to hold our own against Communism.
So I am a bit between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, I don’t want to see people land in trouble, and resisting malevolent rule has always been a very short road to trouble for people’s personal lifes.
Yet on the other hand my initiative needs people to spread the word about this website, because the old media ignore it, and not for noble reasons, I fear.
If you are in a dilemma, my best advice to you would be to pray, and to ask God to help you choose between passivity and activism.
In my article Suppose, the reversal takes place next week. Then what?, as well as in the main text, I am exploring how the political change can be brought about, once the nations have become aware of Torahism.
Torahism is the forgotten evil in politics. It is forgotten because the Nazis were terribly aware of it, and Hitler’s crimes against the Jewish people were abysmal enough to make everyone with a heart ignore Torahism, let alone criticize it. That however created a unique window of opportunity for Torahism, and it is most probably exploiting that to the full, from the 1960s to the present day.
I sent my digital book to the academic world of Great Britain instead of my own country, for the reasons I put forward in the text ‘It is time to introduce myself’, 9th June 2005, in the above on this webpage.
I am trying to conduct this initiative in the spirit of the Jew I am mentioning in the first line of this website.
Long live the Jews, down with Torahism.