Firstly, as an introduction, my assessment of the present situation.

Those who have the capacities to function well in high places in politics and the media, can be expected to know what's going on in the world. Not in full detail of course, but the broad outlines, the major developments surely. They can be expected to know what the great religions and political ideologies stand for, as these ideas influence the thoughts, words and actions of countless people. Now, one particular religion has become a great taboo in the Western world since 1945, and for perfectly understandable reasons. Hitler's maniacal hatred towards Judaism led to the Holocaust, a unique and massive crime against humanity, and six million Jews, about half of the then Jewish people, lost their lifes as a result of it. That is and will always remain a terrible and memorable event.

The world however has moved on for sixty years since. The texts that originate Judaism (or Torahism, as I prefer to name it) have never changed for one iota, and the Mosaic indoctrination of a part of Jewry is continuing still, posing a threat to the existence and sovereignty of the other peoples, like the Britons and the Netherlanders.

The taboo is nonetheless still existing. Because of the taboo, Torahism has been negatively influencing the Western countries for decades without any public discussion about it. Because of the taboo, its power was able to increase unnoticedly. Because of the taboo, it is very difficult to estimate the actual size of that power and to thwart its strategies and tactics. The taboo is providing Torahism and its legions of non-Jewish helpers with a thick smoke screen.

Now, there is of course the respect owed to the memory of the Holocaust victims and to the feelings of their next of kin. However, politicians, leaders, are morally obliged (if not constitutionally) to do everything to protect their peoples against hostile efforts to subjugate them or worse. I really do wonder sometimes how the politicians we see on the box are reflecting on this, but I want to leave politics aside.

I now want to focus on the BBC. Today's media leaders, like those of the BBC, have a moral obligation (if not statutorily) to warn their viewers against oppressing and destructive forces. After all, these leaders are letting their news presenters and programme makers constantly say the Western countries are freedom-loving democracies.

There is no doubt that the Mosaic doctrine, turning unsuspecting Jewish toddlers into very intelligent Torahists against their own will, is a doctrine of subjugation, exploitation and stealthy genocide. Torahism is immorally deployed intellectual superiority at its most tested. The doctrine is worded in the Painful Passages, from which Jewry never distanced itself. (Many individual Jews have, but the Jews as a people, collectively, have not.)

Now, what I have done after I found out about it, is the following. A lot of circumstantial evidence led me to understand that the influence of Torahism on the West has now reached unprecedented, nation-threatening levels. So I wrote a warning against it, but at the same time I've done my best to explain how the Mosaic indoctrination came about, how it's reproducing itself within Jewry generation after generation, and I have done that, so that my readers come to understand instead of hate the Jews. I am obstructing Moses there, who presumably wanted the Jews to be hated, to weld them together into Mosaic solidarity. And although I am not a Jew myself, and although I was never locked up in a concentration camp, I've tried to write my main text as empathically as I possibly could, out of respect for Hitler's victims. I also made it clear I understand that without the Torah, Christianity would never have existed.

Then, end 2003, early 2004, I e-mailed my text to arguably the most critical of audiences thinkable - academic Britain. To this day however, I have never received a reaction from anyone that undermines my theory or that renders my warning unnecessary, and I've stated I am open to fair criticism several times.

The BBC knows all of this. In January 2004, I sent a letter about my initiative to the then BBC chairman Mr Davies. The BBC didn't confirm the receipt of that letter, but even if I hadn't informed them, they must know about my e-mail action, surely. And what goes for academic Britain, goes for the BBC too. Everyone working for the BBC, its chairman, the governors, the producers, the directors, the researchers, the presenters, the employees, the freelancers, the secretaries and the part-time night porter, they all can send me an e-mail to refute my analysis of the post-1945 West, to contradict my reasonings, to bring forward important facts I didn't mention and so on.

However, I never got an e-mail or letter from any BBC representative either.

But strangely enough, the BBC hasn't yet informed the British people about my initiative, although my initiative aims to warn the British people against a very dangerous doctrine, and although my warning seems to measure up to academic standards. Now, that the BBC is silent about my text, is not even the important thing really. I don't want to narrow this down to something between the BBC and me. The key issue is: you can't think of a single positive reason why the BBC still doesn't inform the public about Torahism and its ill influences on British society. The BBC can't have a good reason to eternally keep silent about something this bad.

I therefore dare say: I have demonstrated that the influence of Torahism on the BBC is large enough for the British people to profoundly worry about it. So whenever the BBC airs a programme or news item on subjects concerning politics, religion and 20th-century history, you must realise it is probably meant to further the Torahist cause by manipulating and disinforming the viewers, rather than to properly, balancedly, inform and educate Britain. It has become quite naive to trust today's BBC, in my view.

Let's now have a close look at the programme I mentioned in the headline. The documentary shows how after a request of the US secret service Harvard scientists drew up a psychological profile of Hitler in 1943 to predict his future behaviour. The documentary is based on 'The mind of Adolf Hitler' by Dr Walter C. Langer, the Harvard psychologist who led the team.

I will first describe the most important sequence of images and texts in this programme and I want to start at the point where a former Hitler aide is interviewed. He worked as an administrator at Hitler's Berghof residence. He tells that his wife often did Hitler's washing, but that neither she nor any of the chambermaids ever found traces of sexual activities in the sheets of Hitler and Eva Braun. Narrator: 'Langer didn't know this at the time, but he did know that Hitler was awkward around women and appeared to be asexual. This reinforced his beliefs that the Führer had something to hide.'

Dr Jerrold Post from the Elliott Business School: 'I think it is important to think of individuals in layers. There is the layer we see on the surface, which for many is all they are seeing and is understood. For many leaders that layer is there to overcompensate for what is missing beneath. For Hitler the magnitude of his weakness led to a drive to psychologically overcome that and he developed this compensatory Messianic self....'

Images of Hitler in a stadium saluting masses of people, and of them hailing him.

Dr Post: '....but again that is a surface picture on top of this empty self beneath, this wounded self, from that rather cruel childhood.' (Hitler was maltreated by his father.)

Narrator: 'But Langer didn't believe that Hitler could keep this weak empty side of his personality permanently hidden. Following his version of Freud, he knew where to look. He expected that it would express itself sexually. He was most interested in Hitler's relationship with his niece, Geli Raubal. There was speculation in the Hitler literature that he was more than just an uncle to the teenager. He couldn't talk to Geli, because she had committed suicide in 1930, apparently following a row with Hitler. But Otto Strasser was close to Hitler and Geli during this period. He was one of the founding members of the Nazi party, along with his brother Gregor, seen here alongside Hitler at a party rally in 1927. But they both fell out with the Führer over the political direction of the party. Hitler later had Gregor murdered and Otto escaped to Canada.'

Images of actors playing Otto Strasser and Langer. The German tells the American that Ms Raubal had confided to him about a sexual perversion of Hitler he made her participate in, which understandably filled her with disgust. (The programme gave full details.)

The documentary makers then show Professor Richard Overy from King's College in London. He tells that the Strasser evidence is hard to judge, as Strasser can't be considered an impartial witness after his collision with Hitler. Professor Overy also says you would need far more evidence to make certain that Strasser's story about Hitler's sexual perversion wasn't just a libellous rumour.

Dr Post appears and he looks at a report: 'What is interesting about Strasser's material is it served to confirm analytic hunches that Langer had. It made sense psychologically.' Dr Post goes on saying that Hitler was actually a desperately weak and fearful man. On the one hand, he argues, Hitler wanted to be sexually humiliated by a woman, because that fulfilled his unconscious wish to capitulate. On the other hand however, Hitler loathed his own desire and struggled against it, by playing the potent leader, thrusted by the power of his will.

Colour images of Hitler moving around among other people. Narrator: 'Langer believed that Hitler found a way to deal with the terrible psychological consequences of his perversion by adapting a political ideology, which was a prevalent and powerful part of mainstream European culture....'

Drawing of a half-naked suffering woman, menaced by a caricatural Bolshevist Jew, amidst fire and havoc, and the line: 'Das jüdische Paradies' (The Jewish paradise)

Narrator: '.....anti-Semitism.'

Images of a poster saying 'Germans, defend yourself against Jewish atrocity propaganda, buy only at German shops'. Images of streets with Jews wearing the Star of David. Images of a shop window with the word 'Jude' painted on it. Under these images, the actor playing Langer says: 'Hitler's outstanding defence mechanism is called projection. It's a technique by which the ego of an individual defends itself against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or characteristics by denying their existence in himself, while attributing them to others. From a psychological point of view, it is not too far-fetched to suppose that as the perversion developed and became more disgusting to Hitler's ego, his demands were disowned and projected upon the Jew.'

Images of the suffering of the prisoners in the Dachau concentration camp. Narrator: 'At this time in 1943, Langer had no idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism would create the horrors of the Holocaust. For Langer, Hitler's hatreds were driven by fear and insecurity. Yet the Führer appeared to possess an almost superhuman self-confidence. The explanation for this apparent contradiction once again lay in Hitler's childhood.'

Picture of Hitler as a baby. The narrator tells that although Hitler was a frail boy, he survived, whereas his three brothers died young. That fact led Dr Langer to an important deduction. The actor playing him tells a colleague Hitler was presumably aware of his mother's fears she might lose him as well. 'In his imaginary way he had probably wondered why the others had died while he continued to live, and it is natural for a child to draw the conclusion that he would be favoured in some way, or that he was chosen to live for a particular purpose, that he was under divine protection.'

Hitler shouts to a stadium: 'Before us lies Germany, in us marches Germany, behind us comes Germany!'
Narrator: 'This is what Freud called the Messiah complex. There is no question that Hitler believed he had Christ-like qualities'.
The stadium shouts: 'Sieg Heil!'
Dr Post takes it from there: 'It is really very important to understand Hitler, the Messiah, Hitler the Saviour. Indeed he relished in people say 'Heil Hitler', the Saviour of the German people, and he identified in fact with Christ. But not with the nurturing loving Christ that we know of, but with Christ the fighter, who had to fight against the Jews to keep from being destroyed'

The documentary then continues to list Langer's predictions of Hitler's later behaviour, as the fortunes of war turned against Nazi Germany. An impressive testimony to his professional skills, Langer correctly predicts the increase of Hitler's neurotic rages, the possibility of an assassination attempt, the Führer's hiding from his people, Germany's total defeat without peace negotations and Hitler's suicide.

Interesting programme, and it all sounded quite plausible. In fact, it sounded so convincing, it's hard to imagine that this documentary was almost certainly made to confuse the viewers. A closer look at its content however, and at things unshown, will demonstrate this.

Firstly, there is the standard omission and its consequences for the entire programme. The BBC is silent about the existence of Torahism. That implies the BBC is also silent about the feelings of the victims of Torahism. Of course it fills people with concern, irritation, anxiety, indignation, anger, once they become aware their nation might be being confused, oppressed, dispossessed and slowly ruined. The BBC is also silent about those who want to oppose Torahism, although anti-Torahist political action is a just, humane, righteous, honest cause. It is not anti-Semitic by definition to defend a people against Torahism. It is not bad to defend a people against something bad, provided the defence agrees with Christian standards.

It is true that non-Jews can become anti-Semites out of pettiness, out of jealousy of successful Jews. It is also true that reasonable anti-Torahist feelings can degenerate into unreasonable anti-Semitism, the hatred towards all the Jews, regardless of how they individually behave. How did the Timewatch makers explain for Hitler's anti-Semitism? They quoted Dr Langer as saying that Hitler defended his self-esteem by projecting his own inner sordidness onto the Jew. Well, that may have been the case.

You can however think of another cause too. Hitler probably had the intelligence and imagination power to fathom the Torahist practices in his times. His indignation over it, his hurted sense of justice, may have grown unusually intense feelings of anti-Semitism in him, or contributed to it. So a cause - I'm not saying the cause - but a cause of Hitler's anti-Semitism was probably his innerly unchecked indignation over Torahism. (I am a bit handicapped here, because I've never read 'Mein Kampf'.) But as the documentary makers were keeping quiet about the Mosaic teachings, it's 'obvious', from their point of view, they haven't investigated this possibility.

It is a well-known fact that Hitler had a great talent for propaganda and mass manipulation. That must have enabled him to understand how other people with that same talent were going about it to pursue their goal. Having the same talent, he probably understood how the editors of the Torahist press of his times, misused their talents to constantly sow dissatisfaction and dissent in order to divide and damage German society. After all, it takes one to know one. Most people can not see through manipulative media techniques. It's like when an accountant and a carpenter look at a piece of furniture. The accountant will only see the object, but the carpenter will immediately see of which wood sort the furniture was made, how solid the joints were made, to which extent the end result was refined and so on, and he will be able to see how the manufacturer went about to make it. In matters of mass communication, most people are like the accountant.

Let's now mark a noteworthy moment in the documentary. It's taking place right after the enacted encounter of former Hitler ally Strasser and his interviewer Langer. Strasser tells Langer Hitler is a pervert. After that, Professor Overy appears. He says that this single statement of a man who is now Hitler's enemy, isn't enough evidence that Hitler indeed was. Then Dr Post appears. He says the Strasser evidence corroborated a suspicion Langer already had. The documentary makers take their story from there. It's Hitler's psychic struggle with his perversion that turned him into an anti-Semite.

Now, try to imagine what would have happened to the story line, if firstly Dr Post had said the Strasser story went well together with Langer's hunches, and then Prof Overy had said only one such a story can't be considered proof. The story line would have found an abrupt end there. It would have been impossible to continue to tell how Hitler's perversion made him an anti-Semite. What did the Timewatch makers do? They showed Prof Overy's opinion and Dr Post's opinion in that particular following order. They didn't produce any further evidence that Strasser had been telling the truth. So it looks like the programme makers wanted Strasser's story to be true, and that they wanted the viewers to believe that Hitler's anti-Semitism was solely caused by his mental troubles.

The makers were silent about another factor that may have contributed to Hitler's anti-Semitism. It has been argued, and not only by tabloids, that Hitler didn't rule out he had a Jewish ancestor. His whole ancestry was a rather complicated and obscure affair, and his resentment of this uncertainty may well have enhanced his hatred of the Jews. Professor George Steiner once told Dutch TV interviewer Wim Kayzer he indeed suspected Hitler to have a Jewish ancestor. Mr Steiner told that at the Jewish cemetery in Budapest, once a city in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, several tombstones are mentioning a name that also occurs in Hitler's ancestry.
(For more information about Professor Steiner: www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth234)

The documentary makers paid attention to Hitler's self-confidence. They portrayed him as a man who considered himself a 20th-century Messiah, acting under divine protection, and who identified with Christ. Now, let's assume that he did. Some things become worth noticing then.

There are several strange twists in the following opinion of Dr Post: 'Hitler identified in fact with Christ. But not with the nurturing loving Christ that we know of, but with Christ the fighter, who had to fight against the Jews to keep from being destroyed'

1. Dr Post was suggesting there you can look at Christ in two ways, and that these ways are at odds with each other. Yet, these two ways aren't conflicting at all. It is precisely because Christ was a nurturing loving man, that he was taking a stance against the Torahist mentality, knowing it to harm the non-Jews.
2. Opposing the Torahist mentality, as Christ did, is quite not the same thing as persecuting the Jews as a people, as human beings, as Hitler did.
3. Fighting with words, as Christ did, in his fierce disputes with the then elite of his people, is something totally different from fighting with tanks, bombers, submarines, rockets and gas chambers, as Hitler did.

Hitler identifying with Christ would only be adding to the conclusion that Hitler was deranged, as the New Testament can by no stretch of the imagination be interpreted as an incitement to turn a civilised nation into a police state full of secret services, informers in every block, intimidating stormtroopers in the streets, torture chambers and concentration camps, nor can the New Testament be viewed as an instruction manual to invade other peoples' countries, bomb their cities, subjugate them, starve them (think of the siege of Leningrad we get to see so many award-winning series about) and so on.

We are now closing in on something important here. Those familiar with mass communication, know that many people are not the most careful of listeners, and that a lot of people are not the most logical of thinkers. So what happens when you hurl sentences like 'Hitler believed he had Christ-like qualities', and 'Hitler identified with Christ', and 'It is very important to understand Hitler, the Messiah' into millions of living-rooms? Many viewers will then think: 'There is something about Christ that appealed to Hitler. There must be something terribly wrong with Christianity'. And many other viewers will think: 'Christians criticising Jews.... they are basically like Hitler, aren't they?'

Now, the documentary makers could easily have prevented such errors from arising. All they had to do was to show a Christian dignitary, like Dr Rowan Williams or Dr John Sentamu, and give him the opportunity to say something like: 'Hitler may have identified with Christ, but Christ absolutely wouldn't have identified with Hitler, had they been contemporaries.' Such an insert would only have cost the makers 10 seconds and it would have straightened things out. It would have been the clarifying thing as well as the polite thing to do.

The makers of this BBC documentary however didn't.
It's far worse than that.
I think I know enough about this to say that Hitler didn't identify with Christ at all.

1. The documentary made me wonder how the NSDAP party felt about Christianity. On a webpage of Yale University, I found the party's programme of 1920. It stated: 'The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any particular confession.' The wording implies there are elements in Christianity the party deemed negative from the outset.

As time went by, these 'negative' elements apparently became dominant in Hitler's opinion of Christianity. That can be deduced from the 'Table Conversations', stenotyped reports of his 1940s monologues to his guests. In there, Hitler was running Christianity down again and again. He looked down on it as a consoling ideology for servant-like peoples, as teachings that weakened the nations, as some sort of communism avant la lettre. I don't know what he wrote about Christianity in 'Mein Kampf', but if he was praising Christianity in there, he was grossly inconsistent, and Hitler's inconsistencies about Christianity don't discredit the faith, to put it mildly.

2. Many enthusiastic Germans in the 1930s indeed viewed him as a godsend, a mistake understandably made, as he achieved some remarkable things for a country that had lost every sense of direction, but you can't blame Christ for mistakes that people made two millennia later.

3. Hitler felt protected by a supernatural presence, but not by the God of Love Christ told us about, but by an entity Hitler used to call 'the Providence'. He is known to have attributed his miraculous survival of the 1944 bomb plot to it.

4. Nazi wartime propaganda sang his praises as the protector of Europe's Christian civilisation, but that was just opportunisticly playing at the feelings of disturbed Europeans, apprehensive of the Stalinist military might, approaching from the East.

5. In April 2005, I read the Dutch translation of 'A year in the Third Reich', written by French philosopher Denis de Rougemont in 1938. Fascinated by what was going on in Nazi Germany, he decided to go live and work there for a year. Mr De Rougemont returned to France a worried man. After listening to what his own countrymen were saying about national-socialism, he wrote:

'(...) And now, let's sound the gullibility of those 'realists' who repeatedly launch this talk: "Not everything is bad that's happening over there. There are very many things we can copy from them". And surely, Hitler has restored order in the streets. He has appeased the employers and workers of Germany. In 1933 the country counted six million jobless people and now, in 1938, there is an urgent demand for workers. The dignity of the nation has been regained. Authority has been re-established. "And we are now guarded from communism", the 'realists' say. And so, many good people believe to have found common ground with the very dictatorships they are condemning on principle. (...) Don't they see that Hitler's order can only exist through harshly, militarily suppressing every free manifestation of the opposite opinion, which in our country still constitute the reality of social life?'

So Denis de Rougemont clearly warned Hitler was realising his successes at the expense of the democratic values. He also believed that by 1938, the Christian faith was the last bulwark of resistance in Germany against Hitler's pseudo-religion of race and nation. The Frenchman had been corresponding with a Nazi student, whom he praised for his efforts to be objective. This student once wrote to him:

'Not only do we reject the hundred different shapes of Christianity, but also Christianity itself. (...) Even those Christians who are cherishing the honest desire to serve the people - there are - have to be fought against, for their aberration is harmful to the people's community and it is unnatural, as its origin lies in a foreign race. What has to be opposed in Christianity are the annoying Jewish stories, the dogma of the original sin (born from the Jewish will to dominate the world), the dualism of soul and body, which is an idea of Jewish descent, the denial of life, the immorality of neighbourly love without a preceding choice, internationalism, and so on'.

This Nazi student repeatedly told De Rougemont that this was the official opinion of the NSDAP and its leader.

6. But above all, it are the countless crimes the Nazis committed against innocent, defenceless people that prove theirs was in fact an anti-Christian ideology. So Hitler may have regarded himself as a great visionary leader saving his nation, but he didn't identify with Christ, contrary to what the BBC has been broadcasting on two consecutive nights.

Not only did Hitler's anti-Semitism lead to the Holocaust, it also troubled the justified cause of resisting Torahism. So what must we Europeans learn from this? What were the factors that turned a young Austrian into Hitler? Probably an unrestrained, fanatical indignation over Torahism. His psyche was possibly struggling with a sexual perversion. He may have hated the idea one of his ancestors was perhaps Jewish. All these factors have led to catastrophes. After WW2, we have been ruled by political parties that even 60 years later, don't tell us anything about Torahism. On the contrary, their policies more and more seem to serve it - another huge wrong. The 20th century, with its extension to date, should therefore teach us several important things. We need better political parties, we must improve democracy (if not restore it), we must enlarge our knowledge of history, so that we'll become better informed voters, and we must learn to place the greatest of demands on our leaders, and on the media that inform us about them. These are all issues we can have wonderful constructive discussions about. (We'll find the upward road, once.) The only obstacle standing between those discussions and today's Europe is the smog-like opinion climate pollution, caused by the old parties and the old media.

Compare this to what the BBC is telling us: 'A rather convincing story had Hitler troubled by a sexual perversion, and that's why Hitler, who thought himself Christ-like by the way, became a genocidal anti-Semite.'

The Timewatch documentary was ill-founded on the usual omission, on other omissions, on a disputable allegation (the Strasser statement) and on a, er, well, mistake (Dr Post: 'Hitler identified with Christ').
The editorial guidelines of the BBC seem to be:
1. Nazism must be pushed into the proximity of Christianity as close as possible.
2. The causes of anti-Semitism in general must be pushed away from Torahism as far as possible.
3. The anti-Semitism of Hitler must be presented as to have been exclusively caused by a sexual perversion.
You can easily judge this yourself by re-reading the fragment above.
This is how today's BBC is contributing to people's understanding of such serious matters as Christianity and national-socialism.

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.

The Timewatch documentary seamlessly fitted in the invasion an evil intention behind which can never be proven. It's an on-going invasion of deceptive images and destructive ideas since the 1960s, every day of the week, launched from the TV studios into countless homes in Britain, in my own country, other countries, an invasion which Mr Cruickshank unfortunately forgot to mention in his 2002 series 'Invasion'.

Finally, please note that Dr Langer's explanation about projection demonstrates some affinity with what I call 'the cheat's hell' in 7.1.2. The Torahist, full of shiftiness and hypocrisy himself, easily falls in the trap of the wrong assumption that other people are just like him.



Richard Schoot, 22nd December 2005

Britain, The Netherlands, Europe are in very big trouble, in my view. Our countries urgently need new political parties, Christian-patriotic parties, and it is very important to know what Torahism is. Please read my main text at www.ibcpp.org.uk
         If you come to agree with my views, please always remember that the only way out is a peaceful and patient way. Not a single foreigner or Jew can be held responsible for the country's present situation. 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 if their anger may cause them to do foolish things.