Back to the
Reading from the screen becomes easier if you make the sentences shorter. You can do that by narrowing the webpage frame.
Why I congratulate the President of Russia on his electoral victory
Our government leaders seem to have a lot of objections against President Putin's Russia, but on balance, I think the country is a force for good rather than for evil in today's world. I view President Putin as a man who is working hard to make his country flourish, and who wants Russia to have good relations with the other countries. He is however determined to ensure that Russia remains her own master, and that's where an unbridgeable gap emerges between his views and the views of the rulers of the West, I think.
Please note, I acknowledge I don't have the same information about Russia and her leader that our governments have. Theirs is a quantity of information, acquired by the talks they have, by their civil servants, their predecessors in office, the ambassadors, the directors of companies that do business with Russia, the governments of allies, the intelligence services, that you and I don't have (assuming you are not a minister of some Western government, of course). So with that reservation, I hope you'll be interested in my comments on some negative stories we hear about Russia, and I will ask for your attention for some viewpoints of President Putin that I find are not getting the appreciation they deserve.
Let's begin with the case that is getting so many Western capitals excited these days: the poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury (UK). That was a dreadful event that also severely harmed the police officer who offered first aid. Until there is proof as to who is or are responsible for this crime, many scenarios are possible.
According to British PM Theresa May, it's the Russian state that's "highly likely" to be responsible. President Putin is denying that and Russian Foreign Secretary Lavrov has pointed out that both Russian and Western media have said that Russia had no reason to kill Mr Skripal. Within days and weeks however, Mrs May saw herself allied by Paris, Berlin, Washington and Brussels. They are all saying: "Yes, highly likely". Well, they could be right. Moscow may have been behind it, and President Putin may not be telling the truth.
But what I don't buy, is the other things the Western politicians are saying. They say that they are seeing "a pattern". What's this pattern they see? The poisoning of Litvinenko by radioactive material in 2006? That's one crime. An appalling crime, absolutely, and a crime that has endangered people who had nothing to do with it, but it is one crime. That's not a pattern.
Furthermore, the Western capitals also say there can't be another plausible explanation. I disagree with that too. I can think of two other scenarios of the Salisbury poisoning.
Mr Skripal was a former double agent. I won't pass a judgement on Mr Skripal himself. According to BBC World, he regretted to have been a double agent. Yet, generally speaking, double agents are people with putrid characters. Can you imagine yourself stealing the wallet of a colleague? Does even the thought startle you? Double agents disadvantage their colleagues, their fellow countrymen, in a far worse way. To win the trust of their new paymasters, they are willing to betray their colleagues, and that betrayal may well result in the death of those people. Men with such characters attract like-minded spirits. So it is possible we are looking at a revenge action carried out by criminals. That's scenario number 2.
There might have been a third party active that wants to see the rift between the West and Russia grow as deep as possible, for whatever underhanded political agenda it has. So that power might have been behind it, speculating that the murder of Litvinenko and President Putin's televized veiled threat towards traitors will make Russia look like the obvious suspect. That's scenario number 3.
Something comparable has happened before, you know. Anna Politkovskaya was an anti-Putin journalist who got tons of friendly media attention in the West. She was murdered, as it turned out, by Kremlin-hating Chechens. They had been hoping that the crime would discredit Moscow in the international opinion.
Like the West's most prominent politicians, the TV makers also want their viewers to see this socalled pattern. TV makers know that many viewers think with their feelings, so to speak. So they interweave the images of the Salisbury case with the images of the dying Litvinenko in his hospital bed, a wretched sight. Many viewers will then fall for the suggestion it's a similar case.
It's just like 2002 and 2003 all over again, when the TV makers interwove the images of the 9/11 attacks with images of Saddam Hussein standing on a balcony, firing a rifle pointed at the sky. That editing strongly suggested he was somehow involved in the terror attacks of 9/11. He wasn't, but that sequence of images made many people suspect that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction hidden somewhere in an Iraqi desert. So the Bush-Blair-invasion in 2003 seemed justified. Those WMD were however never found, for lack of existing. Have you seen a lot of prominent media people get the sack because of their war-mongering innuendo? I haven't. They keep out of range, while numerous civilians and soldiers got killed or lead destroyed lives as a result of that war.
Speaking of Washington, have you noticed how President Trump has changed his mind on Russia, in the past two years? A benevolent attitude towards Russia in 2016, but a cold, if not hostile attitude now. I've seen him many times on TV in 2016, during the election campaign. I've heard him say many times that he and Putin might get along well, that America and Russia could sort their problems out. In January 2017, the month of his inauguration, he tweeted that only fools would believe that good relations with Russia are a bad thing. Such was his benevolence towards Russia, that PM Theresa May found it necessary to warn him not to get too close to Moscow (source: ZDF, 27th January 2017). Mind you, this was one year before the Salisbury incident. From where this hostility?
In those days, I saw on Russia Today TV and on Pravdareport.com how Russia took heart from the positive attitude of Trump as a candidate, how the Kremlin was hoping that with a President Trump in the White House, Russian-American relations would improve, and that the difficult Obama period, with its many steeply rising irritations to and fro, would be a thing of the past.
And now, just over a year later? Now, Mr Trump almost seemed embarrassed when it leaked out he had congratulated Mr Putin. Now, President Trump is teaming up with these renowned detectives in London, Berlin and Paris. He's teaming up now with this Inspector Morse Alliance (Theresa Morse, Angela Morse, Emmanuel Morse), the alliance that doesn't need proof to know who the guilty one is, by which I am only insulting the conscientious inspector of the TV series. Later on, other countries, as well as NATO and the EU, joint ranks and on March the 26th, they have ordered the biggest collective expulsion of Russian diplomats ever. Moscow reacted likewise.
It is ironic that the countries who are now parroting Theresa May's "highly likely", are the same countries that have judiciary systems in which the worst thugs walk out of the courtroom laughing, if the public prosecutor can't put anything forward more substantial than "highly likely".
Where has Trump's benevolence gone? Because it has gone. He recently introduced America's new strategy for the coming years. He then called Russia and China 'rival powers', much to the anger of Moscow and Beijing. Does that strategy move us to a more peaceful world, to a world with more international co-operation to tackle global problems? I don't think so. President Trump will raise the U.S. defence budget, already the world's biggest by far, and he announced the development of a new kind of smaller nuclear weapons. Does America really need that? Does the world really need America to do that? No, it doesn't, does it? President Trump recently sent anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. Will that bring a durable peace in East Ukraine any closer? I don't think so.
Anyone with an inkling of understanding of the Russian feelings knows how hurtful it must be for them to realize that on the same territory that costed them oceans of blood to reconquer in WW2, now the most sophisticated weapons are placed, aimed eastwards again.
Over to another subject: MH17. We Dutch and other nations might have a serious problem with Russia, because there are indications that in July 2014, the MH17 passenger plane was destroyed by a Russian anti-aircraft crew. That plane had 193 Dutch nationals and 105 other people on board, when it flew over the war zone in Ukraine and was struck by a ground-to-air missile.
Yet I have already seen how that is being politicized too, to the disadvantage of Russia. Twice, I've now heard representatives of the Stichting MH17 say on Dutch TV that the passengers were "murdered". Murder however presupposes the intention, the deliberate plan to kill. How can they tell that a Russian anti-aircraft crew were thinking: "Look, a civilian airplane with 300 innocent people, let's kill them!"
If the MH17 was indeed destroyed by Russians, the possibility that it was done inadvertently, by an anti-aircraft unit that mistook the MH17 for a hostile military aircraft, seems more likely in my opinion, but that's guesswork.
This is what I mean by politicizing: the MH17 disaster takes place. Hundreds and hundreds of people suddenly find themselves mourning a terrible loss. My country is deeply affected by the fateful event; I walked along in the silent march in Amsterdam that summer to express my sympathy and indignation. An organization is founded, the Stichting MH17, to look after the interests of the bereft. Then, that organization gets in contact with politicians, there are talks where no TV camera is present, and after that, representatives of the Stichting MH17 start talking about "murder" on Russia's part, and many viewers, impressed by the tragedy, will then easily copy that and say: "Yes, they were murdered".
The use of the word "murder" however is premature. That's why I see this as another example of Russia being portrayed more negatively than the facts justify. It's however also true that it took Russia a long time to owe up to the fact that the devastation had been caused by a Russian-made Buk missile, and that was very annoying.
The BBC's John Sweeney also indirectly accused Russia of having shot down 300 innocent people intentionally.
In February 2017, he was interviewing Geert Wilders (PVV) for Newsnight. At one point, Mr Sweeney asked: "What is the biggest cause by terror of the loss of Dutch lives in the last few years?" Mr Wilders, assuming he meant Islamic terrorism, answered: "Well, we were lucky not to have had the kind of attacks that for instance Germany, Belgium, France, even the United Kingdom with the London attacks had." Mr Sweeney then replied: "I was thinking about MH17". He went on emphasizing the high number of Dutch victims, their innocence and about Putin's Russia being the prime suspect.
So by using the word "terror", Mr Sweeney meant to say that the killing of 300 innocent air travellers was as deliberate an act as the massacres carried out by Islamic terrorists. That's not objective journalism, my dear friends of the BBC, that's inciting the viewers in the UK, The Netherlands and other countries against Russia.
Mr Wilders told Mr Sweeney to wait for the prosecutor who is still working on the case.
The Russian state is said to wage a desinformation war, an underground cyberwar against the West, against Europe, America. The New York Times of January the 1st, 2017, had an article titled 'These are the ads Russia bought on Facebook'. Arousing Facebook messages under a false flag like these have been called the cause of, for instance, a tumultuous anti-Islam demonstration in Texas, I believe. Time and again I've seen TV reports about a building in St. Petersburg, where a considerable number of employees are allegedly busy trolling the Western internet forums. I've seen it on British TV, Dutch TV, German TV, Belgian TV, American TV. The overall goal of these stealthy online actions is said to sow distrust and division in the West, to spark unrest, to create confusion.
Now, the easiest thing for me to say is: "If it's confusion Western politicians and media are worrying about, how come they never talk about those who are specialized in it for 3,500 years?"
That would be the relatively easy thing to say, but I won't. In the first place, because I am already saying similar things elsewhere on this site. In the second place, because it would distract from the possibility-likelihood-certainty (have your pick), that the Russian state is engaged in this sort of thing. Now, let's assume that it indeed is. That would then call for a condemnation and for counter-measures, but I would also say: "Who can assure me, who can assure the other Dutch, who can assure the other Western nations, that the Western governments aren't doing exactly the same thing in Russia? Also via the internet? Also via the social media? Also trying to drive a wedge between the Russian citizens and their authorities?"
We in the West are not the good guys of the movies.
Don't take it from me, listen to President Trump instead.
The earlier, the more peaceful President Trump, I mean.
On February the 7th, 2017, I saw he had been interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, then still working for Fox News. At one point, O'Reilly lashed out at President Putin, saying: "He's a killer!" Do you know what the answer of President Trump was? Mr Trump quietly said: "You think our country is so innocent?" That was a moment of self-reflective honesty I respect President Trump for. I mean, I've seen U.S. presidents on the box for more than fourty years now, but I can't recall having ever seen a comparable moment of presidential candour.
When it comes to Russian-Western relations, we Westerners are worse than the media are depicting us, I think, and the Russians and their president are better than the media are depicting them. Our focus should be on the depicters for a change, on those in charge of the old media, finally.
Those in charge of the media, largely determine how many of us think and feel about political ideas, about politicians, about other countries. That gives the media chiefs a very big political power, and it has to be emphasized that it is a power that is unchecked by democratic scrutiny.
If these media chiefs decide among themselves to wage a psychological war against a political idea, or against one person, or a group of people, or an institution, or a country, they can do so unhampered in our current system. I think of that as a serious, if not dangerous shortcoming in today's concept of democracy. Please be aware that a psychological war can deteriorate into a real 'physical' war, into a Third World War even.
One of the secrets of successful psychological warfare is that many people worry more about the evil the media show to them, than worry about the evil the media don't show to them. Most people want to see good prevail over evil. Those who rule the media know that, so that gives the media the long-lasting possibility to manipulate our thoughts and feelings, and thus our political preferences.
Some examples. Are a million Iraqi children being starved by the lengthy boycott of the 1990s? Don't show their bodies on TV, and the average Westerner will not worry about it. Has one child of an illegal migrant drowned and does it lie on a beach, face down in the sand, a heartbreaking sight? Repeat those images of that one child a hundred times on TV, and millions of Westerners in many nations will get upset, and listen benevolently to pleas for more immigration. Are Muslim immigrants using cars and lorries to crush innocent pedestrians to death, or to cripple them for the rest of their lives? The victims have hundreds of relatives who can tell moving stories about the loss and the suffering. Don't show these relatives and their stories on TV, and millions of people will continue to think rosier about Islam than some basic knowledge of the Koran justifies.
Elsewhere on this website you'll find an abundancy of indications as to which people are in control of the old media in the West.
There is an artificial whiff around all these anti-Russian sentiments on TV. When a good opportunity occurs to decrease the tensions, neither the Western politicians nor the Western media seize upon it. In October 2016, the then UK's Defence Secretary said Russia had been meddling to influence the outcome of a referendum in my country. So I wrote letters to Cabinet members, to the parliamentary party leaders and to the media to propose they'd ask the British minister for his evidence. I got it in writing from two ministers that the Dutch government didn't have any indications of such meddling. (You'll find links to the letters on the initial page.) Earlier, political party D66 got the same answer from the Cabinet. Yet nothing was done with this information. No minister, no MP, no reporter undertook action to publicly contradict the allegation of the British minister.
Why not? Why did no Dutch minister say something like: "We share the concerns of our British allies about Russia's behaviour in almost every respect, but in this one case, the British Cabinet is mistaken." Apparently, the tensions can't be allowed to decrease.... Why is that?
And good heavens, what to say about some remarks of Britain's ministers of late? After an MP assumed that Mr Putin wants to use the FIFA World Cup tournament in Russia for PR reasons in the same way Hitler used the Berlin Olympics, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson found the comparison "certainly right". The UK's Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, compared the internetters allegedly trolling for Moscow's sake, to the propagandists of Nazi Germany. The British cabinet is obviously looking for trouble with 146 million Russians in one go. The whole of Russia will find such comparisons utterly offensive, I think, including the 30% who voted for the other candidates competing against Mr Putin.
So on the whole, I am seeing this eagerness of the Western countries to increase the tensions with Russia, and I am more suspicious of that eagerness than of Russia's allegedly "divisive" and "threatening" and "sinister" intentions, adjectives you often come across in the Western media.
In the following, I want to highlight a number of President Putin's positions which I view as very positive.
President Putin has clearly distanced himself from the terror that Stalin, as the Communist dictator, inflicted on the peoples of the Soviet Union. In October 2017, a memorial for Stalin's countless victims was unveiled in Moscow, called: the Wall of Sorrow. To express their respect, President Putin and Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church laid flowers and observed a minute of silence. In his speech, Mr Putin said that the terrible past is not to be deleted from the national memory and that it can't be justified in any way (source: NOS). Mr Putin has also distanced himself from Lenin, the founder of the USSR, several times. That leaves no room for misunderstandings: President Putin has denounced the Communist past and he views the Russian Orthodox Church as the spiritual and moral beacon of his nation for the present and for the future.
Speaking of Stalin, it has to be acknowledged though that he, for all his mercilessness and power revelry, deserves credit for his role in the anti-Hitler alliance, and that was quite a formidable role. Three quarters of the Third Reich's troops and weapons went to the Eastern Front. In the summer of 1941, both the American and British intelligence services expected the Red Army to succumb to the invading Wehrmacht within a few months time, just like the German High Command itself, but the Red Army didn't collapse, despite mindboggling losses, and in fact managed to deliver Hitler his first major defeat in the war on land, during the Battle of Moscow in December of that year. To boost the fighting spirit of the country, Stalin remained in Moscow, although the city was in danger of being captured by the German armies. Vital parts of the Soviet government were already being transferred further eastwards. Surely, the leaders of the USSR and Russia who succeeded the Georgian must have been thinking respectfully and gratefully of Stalin as the country's wartime leader, and I find that perfectly understandable.
In December 2013, President Putin said in a speech to Russia's Federal Assembly that the West doesn't distinguish good from bad anymore, and I think he's right. The West is undeniably in a phase that's marked by a profound moral crisis. Everything "goes" these days, and should be allowed to "go", and the few who want to speak out against it, are either ignored or quickly labelled as "bigoted", "oldfashioned", "judgemental", "homophobic", "hypocritical", "intolerant" and so on. Oddly enough, it are not our own politicians who point out this moral crisis to our nations, nor do they ever criticize the labellers, who are always welcome in the TV studios, either as talkshow guests or as wellpaid presenters.
The wisdom of thousands of years about moral issues, conveyed from the Christian clergy to the people, seems to have become something useless, something of another planet, something hostile and hateful even, as if the very many generations of Europeans before us, who respected that wisdom and based their lives on it, were all dumb people. It's the other way around, I fear: we have become the dumb people, morally speaking, since the 1960s. (Degrees of this dumbness may vary per individual of course.) The dear price we Westerners are now paying for that, is the loss of traditional family life, the declining birth rates of the white nations (I am racially aware), the increase of loneliness, the increase of people with addictions, the increase of people with mental health issues.
Mr Putin has warned against the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, arguing it would only lead to instability there. The facts have proven him right. After the death of Khadaffi, Libya turned into a chaos without a strong central government. The country became therefore a transit route for the masses of illegal migrants heading for Europe, coming from the African nations below Libya. At the time, President Putin told of his amazement over the ease with which NATO was intervening, violating all international agreements.
Mr Putin finds it important to personally inform the Westerners about Russia's viewpoints. He isn't hiding from Western journalism; on the contrary. He let himself ask thorny questions by film director Oliver Stone for days on end, which resulted in a two-hour programme on the National Geographic Channel, and he has frequently given interviews to the big networks in America and other Western media.
In one of those interviews, President Putin said something very unusual. It took place in an interview by Megyn Kelly of NBC News. The interview was recorded in Russia on the 1st and 2nd of March of this year. The question was who might have been meddling in the U.S. elections of 2016. President Putin repeated once more it wasn't done on the orders of the Russian state. They might have been Russians, but he couldn't care less, he said, as they are 146 millions Russians. The main thing he wanted the American people to know was that, if it had been Russians, they hadn't been interfering on the Kremlin's instructions. Mr Putin then came to think aloud about the other possibilities: "Maybe they are not even Russians, but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked," he said.
I consider this a watershed moment. In striking contrast to the government leaders of the West, President Putin was saying aloud what has become the most pressing taboo in the West since 1945. According to him, Jews who have the nationality of the country they live in, can be responsible - not 'are', but 'can' - can be responsible for negative actions that harm the interests of the nation they live in, and/or of other nations. I know enough about Torahism to say that that was a very important and in fact very courageous thing for him to say.
Now, it hasn't been given much media attention, but if it had, millions of Westerners would immediately condemn this remark as anti-Semitic, brainwashed as we are to view even the slightest criticism of Jewry as anti-Semitism.
It is however the brainwashing by "our" media that is the real problem. Not the facts. The facts justify Vladimir Putin's remark. The facts are that for 3,500 years, there is such a thing as Torahist indoctrination of Jews by Jews going on, in a sect-like environment in every country in which they live, and that indoctrination is making them behave negatively towards the non-Jews. The trouble is they are doing it in such a deceitfully clever and patient way, many people are clueless to grasp what's actually going on.
The Anti Defamation League is a Jewish organization in America that claims to monitor anti-Semitic incidents and developments and to alert against it. The ADL has issued a very disapproving statement in response to Mr Putin's remark, but I have my own opinion about that statement.
I've read two website articles about this. The Jerusalem Post of March the 11th: 'ADL condemns Putin’s suggestion that Jews may have meddled in U.S. election', and The Washington Post of March the 11th: 'Putin condemned for saying Jews may have manipulated U.S. election'.
So now that we have established that....
....hey hey hey, wait a minute, wait a minute....
Could THIS be it?
Might this be the cause of the Russia-defaming stories the old media are stuffing our ears with?
Might this be the reason why so many Western countries are treating Russia as a pariah now?
Believe it or not, but the great untold story about Russia in our times is that the country refuses to submit to Torahism. Now, let me see.... talking to America, via NBC, the Kremlin leader has now publicly shown he's aware of Jewry's dark side.... but Heaven knows how many times he has only hinted against it, in the years behind us.... cautiously, in such a way that the general public didn't notice it, but the addressees, Torahist Jews, damned well.... but contrary to his hopes, they didn't hold their horses, but stepped their anti-Russian intriguing up instead, so much so that Mr Putin has now begun to become more explicit, by means of this NBC interview.... that certainly must have added fuel to the flames, in Torahism's perception.... hence: the deliberate upscaling of the Salisbury poisoning to a new Cold War....
It's only my assumption, I can't prove any of this.
It's plausible however, I think.
I don't applaud at everything Russian, and I don't like everything I see happen in the Russian media either. Let me refer to something I wrote on October the 24th, 2017, on the initial page, and there is more. I've seen several articles on Pravdareport.com that spoke derogatorily of the people I belong to, and on March the 21st, Russia Today had a TV programme about "the rise of the UK's far right". It showed tattooed neo-Nazis yelling, an interview with someone who began to stumble over his words when asked for his opinion of Hitler, and no-one gave a definition of what that actually is, "far right".
Such scenes may well undermine the selfconfidence of white people, in my opinion; I mean those decent white people who don't want to be associated with neo-Nazism, but who sincerely worry about the future of their people, imperiled by the ongoing immigration. I saw no difference whatsoever between that RT programme and the comparable TV reports of the West; it was just as annoying.
But like I said in the beginning, on balance I believe that President Putin's Russia is a force for good in the world, and I find that Russia deserves to be treated with respect, with benevolent neutrality, I already wrote that in 2005 by the way, in 'Fourteen questions to myself'. So that's why I, from this place, congratulate President Vladimir Putin on his third and biggest ever electoral victory, and I wish him all the wisdom and strength he may need during his next term in the Kremlin. He's obviously a man of extraordinary qualities, a man others can learn a lot from.
I also send him my condolences over the tragic loss of lives, most of them young lives, caused by the fire in Kemerovo.
President Putin has clearly spoken out for world peace rather than for stepping up the arms race. On May the 9th, 2015, German newspaper Die Zeit had a report that I translate as follows:
Putin demands worldwide security system without military blocs
At the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union's victory over Hitler's Germany, Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin spoke out in favour of a worldwide security system without military blocs. In a speech on Moscow's Red Square, the Russian president criticized what he called the ever more frequent violations of the principles of the post-1945 world order in the past decades. A system would be necessary that guarantees equal safety for all states. Only then peace and quiet on the planet could be safeguarded, Putin said.
(Original headline of the article: Putin fordert weltweites Sicherheitssystem ohne militärische Blöcke)
It sounds like a good idea, but I haven't seen Western government leaders pick it up, and get in contact with Russia to work this idea out. Maybe you have seen the presentation of Russia's new weapons that Mr Putin gave on March the 1st. On that occasion, he explained his motive for doing so: "No-one wanted to listen to us, so listen to this now." The Western unwillingness to make global security arrangements is the deafness that he means, I think.
I should be more precise here: the unwillingness of the rulers of the West.
Richard Schoot, 30th March 2018 (with
corrections on 4th April 2018)
The Western countries are in very big trouble, in my opinion, as there are solid reasons to assume they’ve turned into Torahist dictatorships. It’s very important to know what Torahism is. Please read
my main text
If you come to agree with my views, please remember that the only way out is a patient and peaceful way. Not a single person can be held solely responsible for the present situation. It looks like we are ruled by people who actually can’t help themselves they are misleaders, and we are letting them mislead us on and on.
Avoid confrontations that can easily turn overheated. Don't react to provocations. Please don't view the avoiding as cowardice. It isn't. Be strong, be calm and calm down others, before their anger causes them to do foolish things.
Our countries urgently need new political parties, Christian Patriotic parties, and so the more people will get to know about this initiative, the greater the chance some true, constructive change in politics will ever come about.
So your drawing this website to other people’s attention would be very welcome, but now a warning is due. Since the 2013 revelations about the secret surveillance of our e-mails, phonecalls and internet surfing, sending an e-mail or calling someone up has become something you should think twice about. That’s the bitter and disgusting reality the Western world descended into, in the past half of a century, despite the sacrifice of nearly a hundred million lives in two world wars, and despite the huge defence costs it took to hold our own against Communism.
So I am a bit between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, I don’t want to see people land in trouble, and resisting malevolent rule has always been a very short road to trouble for people’s personal lives.
Yet on the other hand my initiative needs people to spread the word about this website, because the old media ignore it, and not for noble reasons, I fear.
If you are in a dilemma, my best advice to you would be to pray, and to ask God to help you choose between passivity and activism.
In my article
Suppose, the reversal takes place next week. Then what?, as well as in the main text, I am exploring how the political change can be brought about, once the nations have become aware of Torahism.
Torahism is the forgotten evil in politics. It is forgotten because the Nazis were terribly aware of it, and Hitler’s crimes against the Jewish people were abysmal enough to make everyone with a heart ignore Torahism, let alone criticize it. That however created a unique window of opportunity for Torahism, and it is most probably exploiting that to the full, from the 1960s to the present day.
I sent my digital book to the academic world of Great Britain instead of my own country, for the reasons I put forward in the text ‘It is time to introduce myself’, 9th June 2005, 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 12 SHEETS
Back to the