Your question contains a compliment and an error. I thank you for the compliment, but I am not a right-wing extremist. I only seem to be one. That there are no simple solutions, is something that the old parties and old media have told the country a million times. Everything is so complex, we are being told. Society is growing ever more complicated, the newspapers and political magazines are writing. But really, I've never heard anyone say that every complicated problem is a composition of a number of simple problems. So if you wish to tackle a complicated problem, you have to unravel it, you have to reduce it to the composing simple problems first, in terms that most people can understand, and then start solving these, patiently, and in a logical following order. If the old parties find they have achieved great successes by their favourite complicated solutions, well, let them tell the people all about it then, and we'll start the discussions from there.

I find the phrase 'multicultural character' misleading. Character is about what you essentially are, and the character of British society has always been uniracial and Christian until the 1950s.
         You find that society has to be made together, and I also find that society has to be made together. However, the politicians and the British people have never had any discussions together about the desirability of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, and it came into being all the same. Oddly enough, some serious disadvantages of the multi-ethnicity became subject to a taboo, that burdened the British people with great injustice.
         When in the 1960s or 1970s did the old parties hold meetings together with the Britons in the major cities, asking them for their OK to make way for foreigners in their hundreds of thousands?
         Countless so-called asylum seekers get priority in housing and are tapping money from the British welfare state, pulling faces as if that is something perfectly normal. The old parties never came together with the man in the street to take his justified annoyance about that seriously.
         The old parties unilaterally decided that convicted foreigners didn't have to leave the country after their detention. These parties never got together with the indigenous people to ask them for their opinion about that.
         For decades, the old parties haven't been willing to oblige foreigners to learn English, because these parties were afraid that minority leaders and the old media would call them 'neo-colonialist'. Yet, no politician sat ever down together with the British people to hear them rightly observe that people who don't speak English, can't participate in society, so that Britons have to pay the price, thanks to spineless politicians who are strangers to common sense and who want to soothe minority bigmouths.
         And why is it that media people and politicians are almost becoming jubilant about the foreigners who do well? 'The Muslim girls are doing great at colleges and universities', they keep on exclaiming for instance. But what is so special about foreigners doing their best? I know many do and I respect them, but that's not the point right now. This has always been a country in which it was considered normal to do your best, at school and at your job, and no-one made a fuss about it, and rightfully so.
         The idea that all races and peoples should mix is unacceptable, so long as those in authority don't get together with the original peoples and tell them publicly, candidly that that mixing is the goal they are aiming at, if it is, and so long as they don't offer the nations involved the chance to vote for or against it. I would vote against it for all the reasons I mentioned in my main text. If only the peoples of Europe knew that that insane idea is probably the driving force behind all the immigration and multicultural propaganda....

I take serious offence at even remotely being compared to the fanatics who bombed those trains in Madrid, or to the Moroccan Muslim who shot Dutch film director Theo van Gogh and then sliced his throat, in the streets of Amsterdam in broad daylight. They are murderers. I am trying to change things democratically.
         I have a counterquestion for you: in every debate on these issues, prominent people always say that "setting groups of people against each other should be avoided". It is becoming a cliché, thanks to the old media. But why is it then that the old media keep silent about the world's oldest instructions to set people against each other, namely the Painful Passages? Another inconsistency - why has the phrase "Women's Liberation", coined in the 1960s, never been extensively exposed as a phrase that is setting groups of people against each other, namely women against men? It's a very malicious expression in my view. Until the 60s, there was a general consensus that men and women ought to be there for each other, supporting each other in marriage, in prosperity as well as in adversity. But then came the clamorous heralds of "Women's Lib", getting lots of air time from the Western broadcasting companies. What does the phrase "Women's Lib" do? Words conduct ideas into people's minds, and these words conduct the polluting and divisive ideas that marriage is a prison, that a wife is a detainee and that her husband is the warder.
         The current concern over "setting groups of people against each other" is thus a rather selective concern, and I am worried by the selectiveness.

My text ought to be read as a supplement to the content of the old media. I am emphasising the differences, because the old media are down-playing and neglecting them. Let's take Islam for example. The old media offer us a continuous flow of contradictory opinions on the positive and negative sides of Islam. That only enhances the confusion about the nature and goals of that religion. Torahism is never investigated by the old media at all.

Many benevolent people claim that every religion says positive things about tolerance and respect, but that position effectively boils down to distortion by omission. Through the Painful Passages, Moses posthumously fills the hearts of the Torahists with the fear of a wrathful god and he orders them to exercise all the opposites of tolerance and respect towards the non-Jews.
         Looking at Islam, Muhammed teaches the Muslims to form a brotherhood, regardless of borders, and he is presenting the origination and spreading of Islam as a struggle of good against bad, to which struggle every Muslim has to contribute. Muhammed absolutely doesn't want his followers to muster any respect for nations that are wallowing in pseudo-intellectual atheism, mass spiritual emptiness, materialism, binge drinking, addictions, churches backing homosexual priests, the shameless filth that laughably calls itself 'comedy' and so on. Muslims don't laugh with a US president who in election time comicly pretends to look for weapons of mass destruction in his own office, a 'joke' that took 55,000 Iraqi lifes in the making.
         So that's why Muslim leaders in Western countries need to do psychological splits all the time. You can see it on television. When representatives of Muslim organisations are invited to debates on social and moral issues, you can often see how they must try carefully to choose their words. On the one hand they are trying to keep in line with the liberal-progressive dictates on 'pluriformity, tolerance and respect'. If they don't, they risk getting labelled 'extremists' or 'fundamentalists' by the old media, and they might imperil the government's subsidies for their organisations, and the nice jobs they have. On the other hand however, they are well aware that the Muslims are watching them too, and they don't want to alienate themselves from their brothers in faith either, who behind closed doors are loathing the West. I have no indications they loathe the Western welfare states too, by the way.
         Considering the previous, all the talk about 'integration' is pointless and thus confusing. 'Integration' is merely a posh word for 'mixing away the nations'. The present West is not something Muslims ever really want to be an integral part of. If they say they do, they are either not true Muslims or Muslims using hypocrisy as tactics, which the Koran allows them to do.
         Even the many well-meaning Muslims, listening to what are called moderate imams, and who truely believe they don't condemn short-sighted Westerners with a self-damaging lifestyle, saying they respect them, are likely to experience a change of heart, once they notice that the Muslims are gradually becoming the majority in the neighbourhood, the town, and, in the long run, in the country. The ideas that were sown in them firstly, during their upbringing, namely that Allah's rule should prevail everywhere, will then again emerge and spark their actions.
         I feel sympathy for a number of things in Islam, and I believe in a future in which a revitalised Christian Europe and the Islamic world can peacefully and constructively coexist, but, again, some unpleasant things need to be said, since the mass media and those in authority never do.

The words of Christ, finally, teach us thoroughly to investigate in ourselves what we truely mean by beautiful words like 'tolerance', 'respect', 'freedom' and 'democracy', before we speak these words in public. At an earlier stage and on a higher level, Christ even asks us to scrutinise ourselves for which motives we want to participate in politics, before we actually do. If one joins discussions on the high level of religious and political ideas, one pretends that the country will only move in the right direction, if one's views get materialised. That's quite a responsibility one is then facing. I am well aware that this goes for me too, if not: especially.

It is a beautiful story and it inspires me too, but I disagree with your interpretation of it. We have to look at the moment when he taught this. Christ wasn't addressing groups of Christian Europeans arguing over how the peoples of this world can best live together. He wasn't taking sides in the issue of 'should multi-ethnic Britain go on being multi-ethnic, or is mass repatriation the best choice for the country's future?'
         On the day he told this parable, he was telling it other Jews, and it was a stunning, shocking thing to say. Until then, the Jews used to look after their fellow Jews only and the occasional stranger, just like their holy texts are teaching them. But then appears Christ and by telling the parable of the good Samaritan, he provokes his Jewish audience in two ways. Not only does he point out that even a Jewish priest can fail his duty to look after a wounded Jew, Christ goes as far as saying that a despised non-Jew can be more compassionate, can have nobler feelings than a Jew. A non-Jew, yes, even a Samaritan for crying out loud, can stand closer to God than a Jew. Christ said: being a Jew doesn't automatically mean that you are morally superior over the non-Jews, and that was a revolutionary, upsetting message to hear for people living by the Mosaic standards.
         In today's terms: Christ turned against Torahist racism there.
         That said, I want to add that I respect everyone else's interpretation of this parable.

The story of the good Samaritan is an impressive indication of the spiritual development of Christ. He grew up with the omnipresent belief that God is HaShem, the God of Jewish supremacy, who wants the Jews to show neighbourly love to their own people only, but he is now beginning to see God as the God Who cares for all the peoples, and Who wants us humans to do the same. Not only Jews towards other Jews, but also Jews towards non-Jews, non-Jews towards Jews, and non-Jews towards other non-Jews. This parable, among other occasions, thus marks the awe-inspiring and irreversible renewal that Christ has introduced. It marks a spiritual wall so to speak, it marks where Moses's view on God, Jews and non-Jews ends, and where the Christian message originates, and from where it has been inspiring people all over the world ever since. God is the God of Love for all mankind, and the good Samaritan was acting in that spirit, perhaps without reflecting on it, simply doing what his heart told him to do.

Now, talking politics, the Christian message finds an important translation in the concept of 'the brotherhood of man'. The civilised idea is that one day, 'alle Menschen werden Brüder', 'all humans will be brothers'.
         That idea can be realised in two ways. You can say: look, this is planet Earth, due to some Miracle it is inhabited by mankind, manifesting itself in many hundreds of peoples, most of them living in their own countries, or in regions within those countries, and things will work out best if these peoples and tribes are living together in a Christian way, that is: treating one another like they want to be treated themselves, caring for each other like fellow nations should. So if a people are stricken by famine or a tsunami or an earthquake, the other peoples help. If one people violently suppress another people for materialist goals, they should stop doing so and find reasonable ways to make it up. If a people recently became independent, and have difficulties building or maintaining an infrastructure, the former colonising people help. If one people feel irritated by the pressure another people are mounting on them, they should try to find out what the cause of the trouble might be, by talking. If a people find it difficult, if not impossible, to govern themselves in a way that ensures security and basic care for all, the other peoples must think of ways to help, making the well-being of the common people in that country their priority, provided the needy indicate they want the foreign help. If a people become aggressive and start attacking another people, a defensive war becomes unavoidable, but the attacked people should wage that war for the goal of undoing the aggression only, not for destroying the attacking people. Future generations of both peoples must be able to reconcile. A number of peoples will always do well, but they should never become arrogant, and a number of peoples will always do not so well, but they should never blame other peoples for it.

You can also say: look, this is planet Earth, due to some Miracle it is inhabited by mankind, manifesting itself in many hundreds of peoples, most of them living in their own countries, or in regions within those countries, and things will work out best if we stop looking at each other as men and women belonging to this or that race, this or that people, this or that belief. The Christian way is to view mankind as six billion individuals, and the desired brotherhood of man will only come into effect if everybody feels free to migrate to whichever country he or she wants.
         Now, this is a new idea, since the world's peoples always used to live in countries of their own, but it is really the better idea, because the 20th century produced two horrific world wars, caused by nationalism, lack of empathy and superiority delusions, and these evil causes are inextricably bound up with the existence of clearly distinct races, peoples and regions of faith. So lasting peace in Europe can only be ensured if we stop thinking in terms of colour, nation, belief and borders. We must simply begin to view each other as individuals doing and saying good things, or as individuals doing and saying bad things. That is what really matters, not that you or your parents came from England, Holland, Poland, Turkey, Algeria, Nigeria, Pakistan, Albania or elsewhere.
         Now, let's pass elaborate anti-racism and anti-discrimination laws for this goal, and let's realise this brotherhood of man in Europe by means of the European Union. Within one or two centuries all Europeans will no longer belong to one particular race or people, all Europeans will then have a coffee-coloured skin, and this part of the world will live in peace forever.

So you can think of two Christian concepts of the brotherhood of man. The logical democratic course of action is then to go to the peoples of Europe with these concepts. A government can present both cases in parliament, and both options can also be exposed, investigated, talked through on television and in the newpapers, so that the public are well-informed. From a democratic point of view, the peoples of Europe must be made fully aware of both main ideas. They must be able to reflect on the long-term advantages and disadvantages of both options. The next stage of the appropriate course of action is then to enable the people to express how they think about it. They should be able to choose this or that concept. They should be able to vote on it, because in a democracy, it is up to a people sovereignly to decide which path is the best for their own future.

What I now strongly resent, is that all these things should have taken place, but never actually did.

Only the second option got all the attention of the old media, and all sorts of support of the old parties in the past fourty years. Both these powers however are constantly saying that we Europeans are living in democracies. That doesn't add up. It's even worse, the political support for the second option is often unfair, the original peoples of Europe have to give in all the time, and those who object are quickly labelled with all sorts of nasty terms. And it is, among other things, this undemocratic decision-making, it is the one-sided propaganda, it is the name calling, the systematic insults, it is the broad injustice the Europeans are confronted with, that justify to doubt the noblesse of the driving ideas behind the EU, and we have to realise that Europe may well pass the point of no return within ten or twenty years. The European peoples are now unknowingly losing their say over their own future.

Let me give a specific example of something I resent. In September 2000, I read a newspaper that had printed a joint statement, written by prime minister Mr Blair, Dutch prime minister Mr Kok, German chancellor Mr Schröder and Swedish prime minister Mr Persson. They wrote that after the Cold War, progressive politics had been liberated from old dogmas, they honoured the possibilities of globalisation, they described the successes of their renewed progressive politics and they mentioned the challenges they believed the world and the EU are facing. There is a lot in that statement worth going into, but we are now talking about multiculturalism, so let's focus on the following. They wrote: '(...) In the second place, we have to strengthen our civil society. Social organisations act as a buffer against a patronising government and against the unchecked power of the market. The underlying values have to be clear: an open society in which no-one is shut out and that is based on responsibilities as well as rights. There will be those who will try to misuse the movements among the population that come with globalisation, to sow fear and hatred. We are determined to take a hard line against anti-Semitism, racism and hate towards foreigners. (...)'

I don't like the tone of this, to say the least. Mr Blair, Mr Kok, Mr Persson and Mr Schröder are all entitled to have their own views on a better world, and I will always hold on to that, but they should not come to me and say: 'You have other ideas about migration movements than we have, so you hate non-Europeans', or: 'You are criticising Hebrew texts, so you hate Jews'.

No, I don't, it's exactly the other way around. In my view, the Enlightenment amounted to some progress, but it also enhanced intellectual conceitedness that has led to very much trouble. But I want to look ahead. To find a better future for ourselves, I want a second Enlightenment to clarify much of today's confusion on very important social and political subjects. That second Enlightenment can now be realised with the aid of internet. The old parties and opinion leaders can now be asked the unraveling questions which the old media never put to them, and the old media can now be asked questions about the questions they do ask. Every strange or nonsensical argument in the public debate can now be exposed as such, and the nation's opinion climate will benefit from it step by step.

Let me give an example of where we all would benefit from a bit of enlightening. The BBC knows there is such a thing as Torahism, and Mr Blair, Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy know there is such a thing as Torahism. All most probably know there is now a warning against Torahism circulating in fourty UK universities, a warning that has left thousands of academics speechless. However, I have not yet heard a BBC interviewer say to any of these three gentlemen: 'Strange that the three of you never warn the people against Torahism. It would make you so trustworthy, especially now there is an election coming and all'. And I have not yet heard any of the three ask Mr Frost or Mr Paxman: 'Strange that your lot never report on Torahism. Wasn't there something written about independence in the BBC charter?' Anti-Semitism in Europe is rising, polls and research have it. Israeli President Mr Katsav recently warned against dangerous doctrines at a ceremony in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Why don't Mr Blair, Mr Howard, Mr Kennedy invite, let's say, 7,400 academics to a conference, to mobilise Britain against rising anti-Semitism? Surely, political Britain doesn't feel reluctant to be in one room with academic Britain? Am I sounding ironical now? I think Britain could use a second Enlightenment indeed, and not only Britain, I am afraid.

The earlier question is of course: if you, the interviewer, are genuinely worrying about rewriting history, you should firstly investigate the history that has already been rewritten in the past fourty years for dark reasons, then thoroughly interview the writers and publishers about it, and only after that come to me, a powerless man, with the same question. To give an example of the practices in the past decades: none of the history books I had at grammar school paid attention to the political effects of a particular dangerous doctrine that begins with a T.

What we need is a more neutral opinion climate than what we have now. We should have an opinion climate in which, for instance, historians can feel free to investigate all facts, exchange their interpretations and views and contribute to a description of history that is as politically neutral as possible. Only that approach of writing history will truely serve the education of present and future generations.

Now, about David Irving, I haven't read any of Mr Irving's books, and even if I had, I could not value them for what they are worth, because I am not a historian myself.
         I have mentioned Mr Irving for the following reason. In early 2002, I e-mailed him to draw his attention to my Antifa.net contributions. I haven't saved that e-mail, but it contained something like: 'Please note, my sending this e-mail to you does not mean I endorse your views. The old media have called you a 'Holocaust denier' many times. If you are, I disagree with you, because I believe that the Holocaust has taken place. If the old media are lying about you, I wish you luck in fighting their smear campaign'. Mr Irving then replied that he didn't deny that the Holocaust had taken place, but that he was trying to debunk the current descriptions of it. He wrote he wanted to expose the what he called 'bunkum' part of it. So Mr Irving recognises there has been a Holocaust. How he can combine this recognition with his 1994 statement there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz, is up to him to explain, not me.
         Now, six millions Jews were murdered by the Nazis. That is a catastrophic crime. Mr Irving doesn't deny the Shoah has happened, but he questions a number of aspects of what is being told about it after the war. In my opinion, the question then presenting itself is: where do some people find the bloody nerve to tell the newspapers Mr Irving is a 'Holocaust denier', and subsequently, where do these media find the bloody nerve to run such stories, blackening him in the eyes of millions of people? Such foul actions tarnish the memory of those who were murdered and damage a man's reputation. So far for Mr Irving, with whom I don't have any connections.

In our days, one can often see that history is distorted in a propagandistic manner to serve contemporary politics, and I am against it. Two examples: a couple of weeks ago I saw an interview with film director Oliver Stone, promoting his movie about Alexander the Great. Mr Stone said, quoted freely: 'Alexander's army had a mixed ethnic composition. East and West started trading. Alexander was the first globalist'.
         I can't look into Mr Stone's head, but I think he said it to enhance the idea that globalisation is something good, because even such a great figure as Alexander was already engaged in it. Another example. When the TV series 'Great Britons' was screened, Michael Portillo made the case for Queen Elizabeth I, who lived from 1533 to 1603. In this programme, Mr Portillo as a voice-over spoke some sentences, while we were seeing images of a street, crowded with whites, negroes and Asians, some of these images close-ups of the non-whites. He said: 'I feel that the tolerance and diversity on which so many British people pride themselves, have their origin in Elizabeth's personal values of mercy and compassion, her belief that is was for God rather than governance to stand in judgement over how people lead their lives'.
         In my opinion, Mr Portillo meant to suggest that Queen Elizabeth I would have endorsed 'multicultural' Britain, something Mr Portillo can not know, simply because Queen Elizabeth I lived four centuries before 'multicultural' Britain came about.

One of the regimes that were the most notorious for rewriting history for propagandistic purposes was of course the communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union. I once saw two nearly identical photos, which both were used by the communist media. On the first picture you saw a group of officials pose, among them secretary-general Brezhnev and Czechoslovakian party leader Dubcek. The latter however fell into disfavour after trying to materialise some views of his own in 1968. After his removal, the Eastern Bloc media used the same photo again, but the state censors had erased Mr Dubcek out of the picture, overlooking a piece of Mr Dubcek's shoe somewhere in the shadow.

History must be rewritten however in case new facts emerge, or when telling facts isn't blocked by a taboo anymore, and we have to be aware that a taboo can be created and sustained artificially.
         Every time British state archives lift the embargo on certain documents, and newly revealed facts shed a different light on affairs, a part of history has to be rewritten. That's normal practice, in other countries too. I guess that a lot of Russian schoolbooks had to be rewritten, after Moscow in 1990 admitted that it were the communists, and not the Nazis, who had murdered the thousands of prominent Poles whose bodies were found near Katyn in 1943, a fact which Kremlin leaders had been straightfacedly lying about during two generations.
         And yes, post-war history is always written by the conquerors and it will always be biased for that reason, and that is understandable, because the victorious powers have suffered a great loss of life to get there, and people are bound to be profoundly shocked over death and devastation for a long time. It's logical that in such a mood, the historians will not exhaust themselves in looking at the war from the enemy's point of view, and tell the people all about it. Yet, there will always come a time that the desirability of more neutrally describing history outweighs the caution owed to the sensitivities of the survivors and the next of kin of the war victims. That seems harsh, but it basically isn't, because only a good and widespread understanding of history will contribute to preventing war.
         Now, considering the highly delicate matter of the history of Hitler's Third Reich, I am seeing three reasons to plea for an unbiased review: a reason of justice, a reason of political necessity and a reason of education.

The historic search for this review doesn't diminish in the least the disgust towards the Nazi mentality and the tremendous, inexcusable, unforgettable crimes it led to. To give an example of something I was abhorred by myself: in 2000, I visited the memorial site of Dachau concentration camp, and among the things that impressed me, was a big blowup of a letter in the main building there. In that letter, a Nazi medical professor wrote to the SS in Berlin he needed another hundred 'Mensch-ähnliche Wesens' ('humanlike beings') to continue his ghastly experiments. No need to comment on this.

Hitler - may that name be cursed eternally - misused the trust the Germans put in him. He parasitised on good German virtues, like diligence, loyalty, a sense of honour, a strong sense of duty and responsibility, the appreciation of good craftmanship, self-disciplin. Hitler willingly appealed to man's beastly instincts. He deliberately wanted to debase the Germans into a predator people to make his own insane dream come true, 'a monolithic Germanic Empire', and, probably thinking of himself as God, he found killing millions of Jews, Poles, Russians and others an acceptable price to achieve it.

So leaving the position of 'everything about Hitler is evil' will never lead to anything further than saying: 'Hitler did some good things, but they compensate by no stretch of the imagination for his genocidal crimes'. The plea for such a perspective shift will understandably arouse suspicions. People might react: 'Oh yes, let's see, so in phase 1 it is 'everything about Hitler is evil', then comes phase 2: 'Hitler did some good things, but they don't even remotely compensate for his genocidal crimes', and then of course, somewhere in 2015, comes phase 3: 'Hitler really did many good things, and without approving of it, the genocide becomes something very understandable', a reasoning that carried through will become phase 4 in 2025: 'Hitler was the greatest Aryan hero of all time after all!' It goes without saying that such suspicions should be addressed in a spirit of understanding and reassurance.

First, the reason of justice. We have to ask ourselves new questions. Why did millions of Germans vote for Hitler? And, the question that is just as important, why did those millions of Germans stop voting for the other parties? You can never separate these two questions. You can't blame a people for wanting a good government. Why did the spirit of the Weimar Republic never really win the souls of the Germans? Is there a relation between Torahism and the rise of national-socialism? Why didn't the Germans engage in a massive uprising in the 1930s, while the regime was openly turning into a dictatorship more and more? Why did the Germans keep on fighting decidedly in 1943, 1944 and 1945? The Allied bombing of German cities was carried out in order to break German morale. Why did it hold, notwithstanding the excessive violence of the bombings? 'How could they ever stand it?', an Allied airforce commander sighed on a Time cover in 1944.
         Now, the effectiveness of the propaganda is a part of the answer, and the fear of being sent to a concentration camp is another part of the answer, the Gestapo and the SD were the notorious instruments of a police state, but these parts of an answer don't constitute the entire answer, in my view.
         The missing part of the answer is to be found in the recognition that Hitler did some important things tens of millions of working class Germans appreciated. That aspect of the Third Reich is underexposed in my view. The perspective from which the old media usually report on the Reich, is the perspective of the Jews, the writers, the dadaists, the cubists, the upper middle class. There were also tens of millions of other Germans, feeling quite hopeless and abandoned in 1930, 1931.
         The German people are nowadays supposed to think that everything their parents and grandparents worked hard and bleeded for, was entirely, totally wrong. I think it would be unjust never to nuance that image of the past.

A more compelling reason is the necessity to deal with rising neo-Nazism. The present taboos on the ill influences of Torahism and on the good things Hitler did, create a very undesirable opportunity for neo-Nazis. They can now say to jobless youths: 'Mainstream politicians never tell you this and that, and that's because they're afraid you will get inspired by the great ideas and achievements of the Führer!' That propaganda space is a political reality right now. Neo-Nazis using that opportunity is a reality right now. And the dark role the internet is playing there, is a reality. The internet enables neo-Nazis to foster an underground culture which especially the young find attractive.

Paradoxical as it may seem, neo-Nazism can only be entirely neutralised by telling the entire truth about Torahism and Nazism. That's why historians should feel free to investigate and tell the yet untold story about, for instance, what Torahism did to Germany from, let's say, 1914 to 1941. Mark my words: not for the purpose of then gradually removing the books on the Nazi crimes from libraries and bookstores, but for the purpose of putting the new books next to the old ones on the shelves, so that future generations get the complete story, and that amounts to the education argument.

The concern over neo-Nazism has become acute after the NPD gained seats in the parliament of Saxony in 2004, another extremist party being successful too, in Brandenburg. The NPD MPs recently committed political vandalism by refusing to join the other representatives in their minute of silence to commemorate the Holocaust victims.
         In November 2004, I saw an interview in the old media with several leading figures of the NPD. The interview contained some information I did not yet know. Some quotes:
         Parliamentary party chairman Mr Apfel: 'I think of the multicultural society as a big danger to our country. Looking at recent events in Holland [the murder of Theo van Gogh], a spiral of violence is very likely to come about, in Germany too.'
         A certain Mr Heise: 'Germany has had many great statesmen, and I would call Adolf Hitler one of the greatest men of the previous millennium.'
         Mr Apfel about Mr Heise: 'He is a man of value who can make young people enthusiastic about issues that matter to the German nation. He knows how to appeal to the young, and because the young are the basis of the future of our people, we national-democrats are battling for the youth to join us.' Mr Apfel showed a CD called 'Keep it white' of the band 'Notwehr' ('Self-defence'): 'They are stressing that the white peoples should engage in a self-defensive battle, that all the white peoples of culture should unite shoulder to shoulder against the masses of non-whites, especially from Africa and Asia'....

....yes, I do, but things and people aren't always what they look like. But please, let me continue to quote Mr Apfel. He showed another CD of the same band, German soldiers on the cover: 'Here we have 'Heroes of their times'. On a musical level too, we have to keep the spirit of our fathers, grandfathers, Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS upright, and pass it on to the young, we have to because that information is no longer provided for by our schools.'
         And finally, Mr Apfel, standing next to a picture of Wehrmacht soldiers: 'We can take pride in these soldiers, who did nothing else than obey orders and fight for Germany and Europe in a war of self-defence against the Bolshevist threat from the East, and it is a disgrace that the idealism of the German youth of the 1940s is now being dragged through the mire by today's politicians.'

So these NPD leaders don't rule out massive violence. They are portraying non-whites as enemies. They admire Hitler. And they tell a lie when they say that Nazi Germany fought a self-defensive war in the East. The neo-Nazis don't say that in 1937, Hitler met with the German High Command and gave instructions to prepare for an offensive war within a couple of years. They don't acknowledge that Hitler was obsessed by his wish to conquer other peoples' territories. 'The land is there for him who takes it', he was once filmed saying. They don't say that before the German armies surprisingly invaded the USSR, Hitler told his commanders to view the nearing war as a war in which all codes of chivalry were to be neglected.

So to solve its problems, Germany should never rely on the NPD. Having said that, I repeat that the question why increasing numbers of Germans do vote for the NPD, can't be separated from the equally important question why increasing numbers of Germans stop putting their trust in the SPD, CDU, FDP and other parties. After the electoral success of the NPD and the commemoration incident, these parties started accusing one another over who is to blame for the causes that grow NPD support. Mr Spiegel, the chairman of Germany's Jewish council, then said: 'Not the democratic parties are to blame for this, but the NPD voters.' Apparently, Mr Spiegel doesn't want the ruling parties to be criticised, Mr Spiegel shows no interest in the causes of growing disappointment in today's politics and he is lumping all the NPD voters together with neo-Nazism. I wonder why.

Political problems don't disappear by denying them, and more and more Germans are probably worrying about the rising unemployment, now at a record level since the Great Depression, about the rise of crime, the ease with which East European criminals can travel West, the on-going ethnic mixing, the Islamisation of the cities, things like that. Concerns that 'populists want to exploit', as it is usually called in our times.

No, I don't. I have made it perfectly clear, right from the outset, that it is a good thing that Hitler has been defeated. That implies that I am rating the Allied powers higher on the scale of ethics than Nazi Germany, without forgetting that comrade Koba was a merciless tyrant too. I wonder whether his successors have removed all his portraits from the inside walls of the Kremlin buildings. I pay tribute to all the Allied soldiers who lost their lifes, but I don't despise the average German soldier either. I have visited military cemeteries in Normandy, both Allied and German, and I regretted the loss of life on both sides. At the German cemetery, I saw the tombstones of the Horsts and the Heinzes, born in 1926, 1927, 1928. Should I think bad of them, 6-year-olds when Hitler took power, 12-year-olds when their country went to war, 17-year-olds when they died in Normandy? I don't.

I am seeing a similarity and several differences, but firstly, I want to say that I am not talking about 'some TV programmes and films', as you do know very well, I am talking about disconcerting characteristics in the content of the old media over the past fourty years. I am, among other things, focusing on the sort of distorting questions you've just asked.
         The differences first. The inner drive of the Nazi towards those he hates differs from that of the Torahist. The Torahist Jew can hardly be blamed for feeling this iron urge in him that makes him say and do Torahist things. It was implanted in him beyond his own choice. The Mosaic indoctrination reads: 'You Jews will either succeed in the way I am ordering you, or you Jews will perish'. Moses left nothing in between. The Torahist is fed with nothing else than a Torahist conscience as from early childhood. On the other hand, Hitler and the then German mighty have deliberately, as intelligent grown-ups, developed and shared an ideology of arrogance and aggression. The Nazi intentionally wanted to suppress what was left of a Christian conscience in him.

It's utterly obvious that their methods differ. The gas chambers must always be remembered as a horror in a league of its own. Not only the gas chambers and the mass shootings, but also all the steps in national-socialist society that led to the genocide. The anti-Jewish hate in the media of Goebbels, the measures that increasingly limited the Jewish freedom of movement, the visible isolation of all Jews through the yellow Star of David they had to wear, the manhunts, the deportations.

In my view however, it is also possible to commit genocide through prolonged psychological warfare using all the media available. The perpetrators deploy a combination of several of their characteristics as a strategic weapon to destroy all the ideas and values the targeted people need in order to secure their place in the world. These characteristics are: superior intelligence, a superior knowledge of man, creativity, inner hardness, resoluteness, impertinence, bluff and patience.
         First, they seize control over the old media. That control enables the perpetrators to determine the content of films, TV series, soaps, documentaries, commercials, clips, CDs, news programmes, newspapers, books and so on. They see to it that the content is packed with misleading ideas. These deceptive ideas are cleverly concealed in positively sounding terms, in interview questions and in countless TV and film scenes that are playing on the viewers' emotions. It's all very cleverly done, it requires a trained eye to detect these false ideas.
         The goal of this psychological war is to set the unsuspecting people against the good ideas that have always been working well for their society. The deceptive ideas are said to be good for 'progress, emancipation, pluriformity, the modernity, freedom and tolerance', so that people don't become suspicious, but the intruding ideas effectively ruin respect for male and female qualities, ruin respect for life and sexuality, ruin family life, destroy the national self-esteem, destroy the nation's identity, encourage rude behaviour, make the young curious about self-damaging behaviour and encourage people to lie to themselves and to others. The misleaders destroy taboos that are salutary and grow taboos that blind the targeted people to dangers. The perpetrators spread a whole vocabulary to intimidate potential opponents and to make the people feel insecure. So the TV viewers, radio listeners and newspaper readers are bombarded with terms like 'old-fashioned, conservative, reactionary, sexist, macho, racist, fascist, discriminatory, bigot, hateful, populist, xenophobic, homophobic, intolerant'.
         In case an upsetting event takes place that could wake up the people, the perpetrators fabricate and repeat the shortest lie from A to B. Situation A is what the public are believing now, situation B is what the public must believe next.
         As decades go by, the constant flow of these ideas into the millions of living-rooms negatively influences more and more people. People inadvertently copy the 'progressive' vocabulary and the malicious ideas carried in it. Men and women find it harder to build stable relationships. Fewer children are born, fewer than the minimum that is required to secure the size of the population. The mental development of the children that are born, is ravaged by countless confrontations with violence and obscenities and by the bad examples of the adults around them. Massive immigration leads to ethnic fragmentation and to the slow disappearing of the original people.
         An increasing number of people will feel there is something perilous going on in society, but they don't see leaders who understand them. They don't find the right words to articulate their concerns. They don't know how to organise themselves. Their unhappiness and loneliness grow, and they try to find solace in drinking too much, eating too much, buying too much, locking themselves up with their favourite music, using drugs, driving like a madman and other forms of escapism. The number of people with mental problems increases.
         And as a result of all the aforementioned processes, the targeted people begin slowly to pine away, and that will ultimately result in a very unhappy end, unless that people become aware of what is actually going on in time.

I have now put forward the theory that the Torahists are the perpetrators of such a psychological war since the 1960s, a psychological war that is anti-European, anti-white male, anti-Christian, anti-everything. Indirectly, it's anti-Jewish too. However, the intention to commit Anglocide and Eurocide through this way can never be proven, simply because you can not prove what those in charge of the old media are thinking while producing their films, books, clips, commercials and so on.

The Nazi mentality towards the Jews shows important differences from the Torahist mentality towards the non-Jews. Both ways of thinking have nevertheless one thing in common. Both serve death on a very large scale. If all Europeans become coffee-coloured in the 21st or 22nd century under Torahist rule, there won't be a people left that feel Italian, or that feel French, or that feel Irish. Their cultures will have died then. Millions of abortions would almost certainly not have taken place in Europe, had it not been for the old media pushing forward phoney values at the expense of the Christian values. And that's why I think it is right to use the terms 'Anglocide' and 'Eurocide' by analogy with 'Judeocide'.

I am certainly not a loner in this. To give an example: Malaysian prime minister Dr Mahathir publicly stated that the Jews are ruling the world by proxy. In his opinion, the Jews invented democracy, socialism, communism and human rights to climb to the top. Dr Mahathir said so at an Islamic conference in October 2003. Try to put yourself in his place for a moment: a man has reached a position in life so high, that it enables him to look behind the wall of manipulation, built from TV screens and frontpages, he is able to see how things in the real world are fitting together, and then, knowing that the world press is watching him, he shows he is aware of the Torahist factor. I find that is a great and very admirable thing to do. A whole different league of courage than the anonimous heroism I'm now practising.

I can't detect a question in there. I am trying to be as pro-Semitic as I can. I have written a pro-Semitic text. No slip of the tongue that.

There are so many problems one would almost become a pessimist. The maltreatment of the Earth, the job drain from the West to the East, the misery in Africa.... Or take the monstrous debts of America for instance. A true economic timebomb. Hasn't the world learnt anything from the 1929 crash? 'That can never happen again', the wiseguys always say. I don't believe them. Then, the pressure that America's rulers are mounting on Russia, and the down-imaging of President Putin in the Western media. The Russians don't need me to tell this, but if this goes on, it will only create problems, solve none. Let me air some things that annoy me. The down-imaging. The BBC shows a street interview with a Moscovite woman. She expresses her sympathy for Mr Putin. Studio voice: 'Another Russian woman who is favouring Mr Putin over democracy.' In Beslan, lunatic terrorists murdered hundreds of people, among them 160 children, a stunning crime. Western news presenter asks a studio guest: 'How do the Russians keep up with a government that allows hundreds of their people to get killed?' CNN screens images of the Bratislava summit press conference. Studio voice: 'Mr Putin is trying to look presidential next to Mr Bush'. What good can such insults lead to?

President Bush and secretary of state Dr Rice pretend they can tell what Russia must do. Must! You can't talk to the Russians like that. They are a great people. The victory over Nazi Germany is for 75% a Soviet victory. Soviet armies have won battles American armies would have lost. Go ask West Point. Not Hollywood. The Russians have left a bitter century behind them, leaving aside some highlights like the successes in space and the Olympic medals. Two world wars, a civil war, huge famines, revolution, organised distrust, decades of stagnation, but it didn't break them. The Russian people may now perhaps seek to reconnect with the best ideas of happier Christian centuries. Why don't America and the old media appreciate that? Has this something to do with the whereabouts of Mr Khodorkovsky? Or with 'make their kings bow'?
         The Russians deserve the West to respect them, to look at them with benevolent neutrality. If I may humbly and politely advise The Leader Who Was Never Elected By The Free World, I'd suggest that he puts Mr Sharansky's book 'The case for democracy' aside for a while, and starts reading 'People and powers', that was written by Helmut Schmidt, West Germany's chancellor from 1974 to 1982. In this book, Mr Schmidt describes the talks he had with Soviet officials, amidst all the tensions of the Cold War, and the great difficulties around the nuclear arms limitations talks. What impressed me, was Mr Schmidt's attitude in this. Constantly looking at the problems from the Soviet viewpoint, without forgetting the West's, constantly aware of the terrible impact the war had had on the USSR, constantly mustering the self-control to talk in a businesslike manner with the power that was condoning the wall through his nation's capital. An inspiring book.

I am sure the tide will turn for the better some day. The reversal will come. Mankind hasn't been created for all the wrongs in the West to last forever. The underhandedness, the hypocrisy, the manipulation, the short-sighted pleasure-seeking, the greed, the cynicism, the institutionalised coldness, the political cowardice, the sneaky contempt for everything noble, honourable and modest, the worship of the boasters, the flaunters and the self-satisfied, the arrogant stupidity growing profusely, the nauseating, really scandalous references to the Holocaust to make Europeans feel bad when they object to the ethnic mixing forced upon them, the saddening combination of good intentions and wrong ideas in so many people, the speculating on people's guilelessness, the gloating over people's powerlessness to change things that worry them, all these scourges of our times will once lose their high status, and we will rediscover the wisest and most loving things that have been said.

Stopping and rolling back Torahism is becoming a necessity, in my opinion. Their hunger for ever more power knows no boundaries. Their insatiability is one of the things that never cease to amaze me, but then again, it fits perfectly in the Mosaic inner urge. The Torahists teach themselves to fight for every millimetre of progress, their progress that is, in whichever country they live, no matter how long it takes to conquer that millimetre, be it a law that has to changed, be it an influential troublemaker that has to be removed or what. Subsequently, every millimetre of Torahist advance that has been achieved, is used as a bridgehead, a stepping stone, for yet another millimetre.
         They are both patient and determined. In 19th-century Britain, it took them four decades to gain their first seat in the House of Commons. It took them so long, because time and again the consecutive Jewish candidate MPs refused to swear the Christian oath that was obligatory in those days. The House witnessed the embarrassing scene of that refusal and the candidate leaving several times, but finally gave in and the first Jewish MP took his seat. 'We persist until the others bow', that's how they train themselves to behave.
         And so, in the long run, the millimetres become centimetres, centimetres become decimetres, decimetres metres and so on. And now that we've landed at the beginning of the 21st century, indications are their influence is quite impressive, but it does not satisfy them, they are taking it too far and therefore something will happen that will spark the necessary countermovement. Through me, through someone else, that doesn't matter. The facts I've listed in section 9.2 aren't altered in any way by the peculiarities or vulnerabilities of those who want to warn against those facts and, well, maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think that a growing number of people are realising that the future of Europe is now what counts most.

The first step is that the public have to become conscious of what's going on. There is a big 'but' though. When a man finds out he is being deceived, he is likely to become angry. So when large parts of the public will agree that Britain has probably been manipulated this bad, that long, for such ill purposes.... the authorities may get a hard time to maintain order. I on my part intend indefatigably to do everything I can, to help calm people down. I will persist in stressing that law and order must be respected, come what may, irrespective of who is prime minister.
         The only revolution I am after, is a public awareness revolution.
         Once things are quietened down, it is time for the second step: demanding a public discussion on the editorial and creative guidelines of the BBC, and demanding the BBC to report on the Torahist influence on the country, so that people get the real complete picture. After all, this would accord with the BBC's own boasting, wouldn't it? They recently broadcast trailers of 'Panorama' and 'Whistleblower', promising to 'uncover what's really going on'. The hypocrisy of these people.... if hypocrisy were a fluid, I would place buckets beneath my television set to keep the carpet dry.

I belief that the nations have a deep-rooted inner longing for true fairness, true justice, true humanity, true peace, true truths. When ruling elites deviate from that longing too much and too long, a correction is bound to occur. In George Orwell's '1984', the belief in this mechanism feeds the hopes of main character Winston Smith in a dialogue with his torturer, a high-ranking party official who is sure that the ruling Engsoc party has constructed the perfect eternal dictatorship. That book remains a sound warning against totalitarianism. Winston Smith and his country Oceania are products of fiction of course, but the Painful Passages are non-fiction. You know, it's almost physics. Action evokes reaction. Torahist action evokes anti-Torahist reaction. It always will.
         And an anti-Torahist movement within Jewry is also likely to come into being, one day. Moses has burdened the Jewish people with an impossible ambition, probably for the sake of relieving his own frustrations.
         Moses wants mankind's most intelligent 0.3% to regard the other 99.7% as creatures whose wishes and pursuit of happiness don't matter. That's why Torahism is a human tragedy.
         The Mosaic mentality is divisive and dangerous. Jews can figure that out too. Words like 'confusion, expel, dispossess, ruin' have a negative ring to them in Hebrew too, surely. So one day, a charismatic Jew or Jewess will step forward and say to the others: 'What on earth have we actually been learning, this past 3,500 years? Which tremendous insanity has this Moses been brainwashing us Jews to misuse our intelligence and creativity for? We Jews can have a good life in this world and live in harmony with the other peoples at the same time. We don't need the Christian belief to figure that one out.' It may take 200 years, it may be tomorrow afternoon, but that visionary Jewish leader will once appear.

I am not a Nazi. The 'stealth' part is true, I hope to explain the reason why later. Hopefully, that answers your manipulative remark that has no question mark.
         I am not a Nazi, I have never been a Nazi, nor am I intending ever to become one, regardless of the outcome of my initiative. I know that I am not a Nazi, so what else can I say? Countless people may distrust me, but at the end of the day, I am the only one who knows for sure whether or not I am a Nazi, and I know I am not, and that is good enough for me, it helps me cope with the distrust.
         I wish well for all races and peoples, not only my own race, not only my own people. I am trying to be a Christian, so I am trying to be pro-mankind. Pro-life.
         I am a democrat. I am longing for an excellent democracy that teaches the people to rule themselves well. I believe in a democracy that understands that a country's finest law isn't found on paper, because the finest legislator is one's conscience. An overall public morale like we had in the 1950s and before, characterised by the unwritten law saying 'one does not do such things' is a thing of priceless value. I want a democracy with reliable and sensible media so that people can quickly discover whether they've accidentally chosen the wrong lot. I believe a democracy should be more and can be more than an arrangement that enables an interest group to do whatever they like, disadvantaging or even threatening the entire nation.
         I don't have a dictatorial frame of mind. I believe a people should always be able to choose a government that is actually bad for them, and to oust a government that is actually good for them. If I am not able to make other people share my views on good and bad, then that's my bad luck. I am accepting that risk. I am in this so long as I believe things can be improved democratically, otherwise I don't want to be in it any longer.

I believe in the free exchange of well-thought arguments in a constructive atmosphere. In fact, one of my motives to begin this is my concern over the abundancy of nonsensical arguments in today's sourish atmosphere. Hardly anyone of the so-called elites seems to be interested in the truth anymore. In the 2005 West, the truth has become an extremist.
         People need politicians to search for the truth. When politicians avoid the searching, they make wrong decisions that will hurt the interests of tens of millions of powerless people. It's as simple as that. I'm not claiming that I know what the truth is, I seem to be ignorant of a lot of things, but I dare say that I am searching for the truth. If only one person had sent me an e-mail pointing out 'this reasoning of yours leads to this danger', or 'you apparently don't know that important fact, so that reasoning has zero value', I would have published that e-mail rightaway. My reputation is of no importance in comparison to the seriousness of the subjects at hand and the sensitivities that surround them, I am well aware of that. Yet, I never got such a mail.

What I do get, are hints. Negative hints in the old media. I am not a paranoiac, but I am not blind or deaf either. If the negative hints are inspired by genuine concern, I want to say to those people: if you watch my every step, if you don't give me the benefit of the doubt, I'll understand that. However, if the hints are meant to pre-emptively incite opinion leaders against me to protect sordid interests, remember this: the more groundless indirect accusations, the fouler the innuendo, the stronger my conviction there's something fundamentally wrong in the West, the stronger my determination to change it, the more energy I get to carry on.

You're welcome. Oh, before you switch off your recorder, I want to add something.

I am quite sure God loves us all.

Richard, 9th April 2005