Back to the initial page

Reading from the screen becomes easier if you make the sentences shorter. You can do that by narrowing the webpage frame.


Do you know how the British people are portrayed on Dutch TV?

INTRODUCTION

It might to be useful to explain what I mean by "the British people", before I go on, as we are living in confusing times.
By "the British people" I mean the people that like the other European nations belong to the white race;
I mean the people whose values have traditionally been the Christian values, century after century;
I mean the people that for nearly six long years battled the Axis Powers, and suffered dearly for it;
I mean the people that in 1948 got the Nationality Act imposed on it, by which law it was no longer ancestry, but a political decision that would decide whether someone was a Briton (source: BNP);
the people whose rulers never tell them there is such a thing as psychological warfare, how that works and that television is a perfect instrument for it;
the people that have seen thousands of news reports and documentaries about Third World countries, edited in such a way that they create feelings of guilt and shame in white people;
the people that in BBC and Hollywood fiction have seen innumerable scenes in which whites are made to look ridiculous, hateful, racist, underhanded, indecisive in the presence of dignified, caring, tolerant, noble, firm Africans and Asians;
the people that were never consulted about the introduction of the "multicultural society", although they are constantly being told they're living in a democracy, paying their taxes to democrats;
and consequently, the people that were never asked for their explicit approval of the immigration on the unprecedented scale we've seen the last decades, and that only in the last couple of years, are granted the illusion that a public debate about it has begun;
that's the British people I mean.

SHOWN ON DUTCH TV: "HET GROOT-BRITTANNIË VAN..."

Now, broadcasters VPRO in The Netherlands have been airing a series with the (translated) title "The Great Britain of...". 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. The following describes some scenes and remarks I found noteworthy, after that I'll give my comment on them.

Fragment 1
A number of UKIP local candidates and supporters have their say on camera. The interviewed people were all born in the 1950s or earlier, judged by their appearance:
"Most of those who arrive in Italy travel straight through to Britain, because we are a soft touch."
"I am not against people coming to work here, but we also get the murderers, the rapists and the drug addicts."
"When a murderer from abroad marries here, he can't be forced to leave the country because of his human rights."

Fragment 2
At one point, Mr Sanghera says that immigration brought much prosperity to the UK.

Fragment 3
Mr Sanghera has a chat with Simon Heffer, who is a columnist for the Daily Mail. Mr Heffer says there are 2.5 million unemployed people in Britain, and according to him, a lot of the jobless are low-educated whites saying: it's fine with me that the Poles are doing the work.

Fragment 4
Mr Sanghera is talking to a group of Poles, among them a boy of about ten years old. Mr Sanghera tells the Poles that British people are fine with a Pole doing the plumbing, for instance, but that they don't want to face the social consequences. His partners in the conversation wholeheartedly agree with him. He asks the boy whether he would like to return to Poland. The lad is in doubt. Then Mr Sanghera asks him which English football club he is a supporter of. "Arsenal", the boy beamingly replies. "I thought you would", Mr Sanghera says and they both laugh.

Fragment 5
Parts of Enoch Powell's 1968 speech.

Fragment 6
When Mr Sanghera is talking to a number of Sikhs, memory lane is visited. It was once forbidden for bus drivers to wear a turban. The Sikhs say they were however determined to honour their traditions and to make the British public transportation companies bow to their wish to wear their traditional turban. The Sikhs also explained how they made these companies bow - by threatening to set themselves alight, if they didn't get their way.

Fragment 7
In the closing scenes, Mr Sanghera has a cosy chat with East Europeans working at a car wash. They say: "We are doing the job cos English people don't want to work on a Sunday."


Comment 1
Throughout Europe, literally people in their tens of millions share the indignation, the concern of these interviewed people, and I am one of them. Now, I don't know what the average age of the UKIP supporters is. Perhaps that average age lies indeed above the average age of the whole of the British people. But if Mr Sanghera would also have given a number of UKIP sympathizers in their 30s or 20s the opportunity to speak, the programme wouldn't have suggested, as it did now, that the justified grievances and concern of a lot of Britons are actually the complaints of an old and slowly disappearing generation that can't keep up with modern times.

Comment 2
"Immigration brought a lot of prosperity" is a distorting observation. It is true that a lot of foreigners work hard in our countries, but Mr Sanghera forgot to highlight the reality of foreign benefits scroungers, foreign criminals and NHS tourists who were and are going to the UK, and I fail to see what's so prosperous about a country with a national debt of 1,680,000,000,000 pound.

Picture a man visiting a nice colleague at his home for the first time. The host gives him the grand tour through the rooms and the garden, bragging "this costed so much" and "that's worth so much", and the man almost thinks "phew, these people are really loaded". Then, afterwards, the man and his wife drive back to their home and the wife tells that the colleague's wife confided to her in the kitchen they have a debt of 40,000 pound. That man would then think differently of the opulence his colleague was so proud to show, wouldn't he?

Please think of that, next time you hear coalition politicians boast about "the economy, moving in the right direction".

Comment 3
I find Mr Heffer's remark very problematic. I take it that he is saying the same things in the British media as well, not on Dutch TV only, and I think that he, by doing so, is enhancing the following negative ideas within several groups of people in British society:

A high-educated white listening to Mr Heffer might come to think: yes, those low-educated whites are lazy. So I think Mr Heffer's remark is quite divisive. I think it will enlarge the gap between high- and low-educated whites, and that's a pity, because they are still one another's fellow countrymen.

A low-educated unemployed white is honest to God doing his best to get a job, but he sees jobs go to immigrants. When he hears Mr Heffer say this, it might easily make him ignored and angry. So I think Mr Heffer's remark is adding to the frustration of those many low-educated whites who do want to work for their money.

A low-educated white is unemployed and quite happy with it. In his case, Mr Heffer's remark might surprise him a bit, then makes him nod in approval, and laugh. So I think Mr Heffer's remark is not the reprimand that white unemployed lazy people actually need.

A Pole is working for his money in the UK, and he is also listening to Mr Heffer. He then might easily think: yes, those British are too lazy to get a job. So I think Mr Heffer's remark adds to feelings of contempt of foreigners towards the British - in Britain (!)

And, finally, if you are a low-educated, unemployed African or Asian, and lazy as well, you'll notice that Mr Heffer isn't shooting his arrows at you, only at your white "colleagues".

Yes, there are quite a few lazy white people in the UK, The Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, but that hasn't always been the case. Until the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of working-class people in the white nations had a very good work mentality. They wanted to work for their money, and they were proud when they could say after their retirement they'd never been without a day's work. That's the constructive mentality most people shared while rebuilding our countries after World War Two. Even to this day, there are pensioners having a hard time because they are too proud to ask for benefits. Because they are not as "benefits savvy" as a lot of foreigners are, who did not work here for decades. Go ask your parents and grandparents, if you are (much) younger than I am, I'm from 1958, they'll tell you I'm right.

It was only since the 1960s, when the new "liberal progressive" rulers exaggerated the "welfare state" into something idiotic that gave easy benefits to the lazy, to foreigners and to those who made a mess of their lifes by drug abuse and crime, that more and more people began to think: why should I bother working hard, I am crazy. In other words, as from the 1960s we got rulers who corrupted the traditionally very good work mentality of our nations.

And yes, a lot of Poles and other foreigners do work hard in our countries, and I can respect a man leaving his country to earn a better salary elsewhere, but I still think it necessary for them to remigrate too, because it is their own government's first responsibility, not Britain's or Holland's, that they can make a decent living for themselves, as much as it is the responsibility of our governments to see to it that as many of our own people as possible get jobs.

Please re-read Mr Heffer's remark in the above, because I find it such a telling example of what TV is causing, idea-wise. Only one sentence, spoken on television, is already contributing to divisiveness, frustration, misunderstandings, contempt, in one word: confusion, in a society with ever more immigrants in it. Simon Heffer is however entitled to his views, of course.

Comment 4
The "integration" propaganda is really coming into its own in this scene. Isn't sport a wonderful way to "integrate" the newcomers? The Polish boy is already for Arsenal, a British club! Ever more players from the four corners of the globe are already showing their magic on the fields. A perfect model for the rest of society! That's what the likes of Mr Sanghera are eager to advocate and suggest. Regrettably, the strong counterarguments against this "integration" don't find their way to television that easy...

Please don't let the term "integration" fool you. Whenever you hear the old parties and the old media talk about "integration", they actually mean "mixing the original people away on their own soil by continuous immigration".

Comment 5
Enoch Powell's speech contained the words "rivers of blood". That was a choice of words that was immediately seized on by the old media. They namely always refer to it as the "Rivers of blood speech", probably to intimidate the Britons into accepting the multi-ethnic state of affairs as a given. After all, the term evokes the image of horrendous bloodshed as a result of racially inspired violence. The old media never call it the "We must be mad speech". Sounds also quite catchy, "we must be mad". No, it's always the "Rivers of blood speech". That's why I view the standard use of this term by the old media as another example of psychological warfare against the original British people.

Comment 6
A British government worth its salt should have said: these Sikhs have a mentality that the overwhelming majority of the British people find appalling. Imagine, putting yourself to fire! It's horrible. It's totally rubbing against the ways and ethics of our people. So these Sikhs simply don't belong here.

However, the Sikhs did immigrate and they did get their way, so that simply proves the UK was led by a government not worth its salt. (Please, don't get me started about my own governments...)

The important question is: why did and does Britain have such governments? I think it's got everything to do with the outcome of the Second World War. As from 1941, America lent weapons to Britain, heavily pressed in the conflict. America was one of the two winning super powers in 1945. After the victory, America lent Britain an enormous amount of money, as the country was financially ruined by the war. And I think that in return for all of this, some sort of treaty was made between America and Britain that put the latter in a subordinate position*, camouflaged for the British public by the catchphrase "the special relationship".

In geopolitics, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

So when later on, Torahism got the final say over America, all the countries subordinate to America had to follow suit. America was a "melting pot" country, and now the vassal countries also had to become "melting pot" countries. I think that that is the explanation why the European countries had to become "multicultural", as it was called, without any proper consultation or in-depth debate with the indigenous people, and I think that that is the reason why the old parties and old media have always been so doggedly denouncing everyone opposed to it as "racist" and "discriminatory". Why Torahism would want that, is dealt with in chapter 5.14 in part 2 of the main text.

* Becoming an industrial giant as from the 19th century, America had already been viewing the British Empire as a big obstacle for the American industry to gain profitable access to markets worldwide. Before WW2, strategists in Washingon had even been considering the idea of waging a war against the British Empire. I read it in the Mail Online of 22nd September 2011, in the article "War on the 'Red Empire': How America planned for an attack on BRITAIN in 1930 with bombing raids and chemical weapons"

Comment 7
A foreigner of Asian descent is taking sides with other foreigners, of East European descent. They are filmed in cosy chat, chuckling over those lazy Britons, and as far as Mr Sanghera is concerned, the Dutch viewers are welcome to chuckle at home with them.

CONCLUSION

Mr Sanghera's Britain is a country where an increasing number of Asians like himself, Africans, East Europeans and other immigrants, and a decreasing number of real Britons, white Britons that is, are glorified as "the British people of today and tomorrow". That's the country that in 2050 will count more Muslims than Christians, according to the US-based Pew research centre (source: ZDF, April the 3rd). Mr Sanghera's dream people seems to be a mix of nations, already coming into existence fast, a mixed people that will lose touch with British traditions, British history, a people that in the long run won't know where it's coming from, and that won't think of much else than producing and consuming, slaves as they will be of the gods of our times: His Holiness Economy and His Holiness Growth. And to that mixed people, it is perfectly normal to talk about the original British people in a condescending manner. That people, they feel, well, they are already old, aren't they, those nostalgic whites, if they are not lazy. Soon they will die, and their obsolete idea about Great Britain with them...

Writing an article such as this is like trying to unfold an umbrella while standing under the Niagara Falls. The programme I now went into is just one drop of the anti-white, anti-patriotic propaganda that's being poured out over the Europeans, 365 days a year, through all the TV channels, radio channels, from all the film screens, through newspaper headlines and so on.

Everything is done to sow division among the original peoples, to make them forget that the country they inhabited and worked in for many centuries, belongs to them. Television and newspapers do everything to make them even hate that very idea. Everything is done to make the foreigners look better than they are, to portray them as the future of the country. It's the same everywhere, really. You'd be amazed by the similarities if you'd watch Dutch TV or Belgian TV or German TV for a while. The Dutch who want Holland to remain Dutch, the French who want France to remain French, the Germans who want their country to remain German, they are always talked about on television as if there is something wrong with them.

That's what has become of our nations in the past four, five decades, but I remain confident the turn of the tide will once come, so that our nations will refind their selfconfidence, will find the courage to stand up for their own justified longterm self-interest, and I trust that among the people who will demand serious and constructive change, able people will step forward to create the Christian Patriotic parties that our countries need.

These parties will put education about psychological warfare on the political agenda, and measures against it, they will put forward the facts about race and religion that now lay buried under a sea of lies and nonsense, and they will put remigration on the political agenda, to put an end to the current multi-ethnic chaos that, together with the moral decline, is endangering the existence of our nations.

An alliance is needed, of those nations who want to be ruled by their own policy makers, and not by the international banks, not by Brussels, not by the political darlings of the international media.

I am going more extensively into why the remigration should, and how the remigration can be brought about, in chapter 6.6.1 of part 2 of the main text

My ideas about how the world's nations can best live together, can be found at 'Question 4' in Fourteen questions to myself

Please Britain, please wake up.
Europe needs you to.
My own country needs you to.
Your own future needs you to.


Richard Schoot, 4th April 2015




P.S.: Sathnam Sanghera is also entitled to his views, absolutely. Nearly forgot that!


Britain, The Netherlands, the other European countries are in very big trouble, in my opinion, as there are solid reasons to assume theyíve turned into Torahist dictatorships. Itís 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 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 canít 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 peopleís 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. Thatís 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 donít want to see people land in trouble, and resisting malevolent rule has always been a very short road to trouble for peopleís 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 Hitlerís crimes against the Jewish people were abysmal enough to make every sensible and civilized person 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 ĎIt is time to introduce myselfí, 9th June 2005, on the initial page.

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.


                                      
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 7 SHEETS

                                       Back to the initial page