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 or by opening and locking the column of favourites and history.

Britain faces the threat of Anglocide

Britain and the other European nations might perish in what looks like a lengthy psychological war. How to survive in a Christian-patriotic manner.



This is an address to all the people who want the best for Britain and the world. The text deals with subjects of the highest importance, considering the future of our country. Chances are you'll find the contents unbelievable, shocking, insulting, lunatic, pathetic and so on. Few taboos will be left untouched. But please, don't delete this text. Safe it in any case, please, even if you strongly disagree. It won't amaze me if years go by before you share my vision, if ever. It took me decades to develop it. Were you born in the 1960s or later? Please show this text to your parents and grandparents. Why? The pamphlet describes some serious social-cultural deteriorations since the 1960s. Maybe you can't fully oversee them because of your age. But elder persons can. You may need their memory to value this text for what it is worth.

This text is being e-mailed by the writer at random, to people working in Britain's universities and colleges to begin with, so your receiving it has nothing to do with whatever you have said or written. The writer does not know you. All famous persons mentioned in this text don't know I will mention them. I don't know anyone of them personally. For the time being I can't specify some of the sources I mention. This explains for the vague descriptions like 'a prominent politician' you'll come across every now and then. I hope the day will come the circumstances allow me to give you full details. Sometimes a generalisation became unavoidable. For instance: when I speak about 'the British people', I don't mean to be disrespectful towards the English, Scottish and Welsh nation.

I will try to make you aware of a great danger. If I succeed, you will see it too and therefore a warning is in place before you read on. Seeing a danger makes a man feel lonely among the many who don't see it. That's not an easy life. So if you prefer the comfort of ignorance, please stop reading now.

This text ought to be read as a supplement to the information offered to you by the old media. With 'old media' I mean television, newspapers, books and so on, the media of the pre-internet era. You'll find a table of contents at the end.


....why telly entertainment has become so vulgar in the last thirty years? .... why we have a government that stamps out cattle instead of drug trafficking? ...why crime figures are soaring? ...why victims are No. 2 and criminals No. 1?... why traditional Christian values are fading away? ...why our whole life seem to revolve around buying and working more and more? .... why non-whites are allowed to migrate into Britain in increasing numbers since the 1960s? ....why you are maybe thinking I am a racist right now?....why soul-polluting pornography has spread over the country like an ink spot since the 1960s?....why less and less British families seem to be stable, why divorce and having extramarital children seem to become 'normal' things? ....why London built itself a city hall that looks like a huge drunken egg? .... have you ever thought: 'I did some pretty wild things when I was young, but today's youngsters really amaze me'?.... why things like raising your children with a steady hand, are being made suspicious? ....why Labour has so much difficulty in delivering on schools and hospitals?....why the Tories are becoming Labour look-alikes more and more? ....why you have the feeling that the politicians of the old parties don't understand you, and why you don't understand them anymore? ....why the old media never confront our politicians with the aforementioned developments persistently? Have you ever noticed that TV interviewers regularly ask questions that are beside the point? Have you ever wondered why TV interviewers don't ask the questions you'd ask? In this text I will try to investigate the causes with you and what can possibly be done about it.


I believe in the existence of God, that is to say in an uncomprehensible, loving and cosmic self-consciousness

The coming into being of mankind, that is to say the on the planet Earth occurring, evolving, self-conscious, intelligent, creative and conscientious form of life, is a deed of love of God. In a universe that for the overwhelmingly major part is extremely hostile towards life, we are allowed to live.

In my opinion we therefore owe God humility and gratitude, which we have to express by our thoughts, by our plans, by our words and by our actions. We have the duty to answer to our conscience. Towards our fellow men we owe neighbourly love.

It is neither merit nor failure that one is born as the person he or she is, regardless of racial, ethnic and genetical qualities, as we are all born unasked for.

Each human life can be a gift to the world. Each human life carries a huge opportunity in it. It symbolizes a unique chance. Looking at my talents, weaknesses and shortcomings, living means for me trying to find the answer to the question: "What am I doing with my life? Am I making the most of it? Is my life a source of joy for other people? Or was the gift of life thrown away on me?"

Britain is a part of the Western world. I believe that since 1968 wrong ideas have become dominant in that world and I want to resist these wrong ideas in a non-violent struggle. I want to fight ideas and choices, not human beings. I want to promote better ideas and I will try to win my fellow men for these better ideas by means of patient persuasion.

Love heals. Hate damages not only the hated, but the hater as well. The American novelist Henry Longfellow once wrote: 'If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we would find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.'


Thoughts and feelings precede our actions. Please let me illustrate this statement with some examples. An everyday example for starters. Have a look in your fridge. You'll see food and beverages. How did they get there? They got into your home because you went to the shop or the supermarket and thought things like: 'I like this, I need this, I can afford this, I always take these.' So you had the thoughts first, then your hand reached out for the products, you paid for them and took them home. And now, if you open the refrigerator door, you can see how these foods and beverages form a part of the world around you. A minute part, but still. And your thoughts (your taste, your buying habits, your ideas about good housekeeping) preceded this mini-shaping of the world around you.

Now, have a look at the fridge itself. Isn't it a fantastic invention? How came the world of refrigerators into being? Because a long time ago, people desired to keep products in cold storage without the cumbersome handling of ice blocks. So all over the world engineers worked and tried and experimented until at the beginning of the 20th century, one of them, I don't know his name, built a prototype that was suitable for mass production. So the desire for easy cold storage, some fine technical ideas and a manufacturer's recognition that cooling devices would sell in great numbers, in short a combination of three mental processes, stood at the beginning of the advance of the fridge in millions of households.

Now speaking of 'households', why are you living in a house anyway? Because the longing for a shelter, a place of warmth, privacy and protection, is ingrained in our minds. Even nomadic peoples have tents. Our longing for a nice home originates numerous of our actions. We take out mortgages or pay rent, we paint, saw, paper, re-paper, decorate and redecorate. No matter how often we change our rooms (televised or not), our need for a home remains unchanged. Because of that need, our homes are a very important part of the total world around us.

The street in which you are living, arose in people's heads some day too. The decision of your local council, maybe centuries ago, to build a new district. The pondering of an urban developer, looking at a blank sheet of paper, then drawing his first sketches. Politicians judging the final plan, discussing it, realizing 'it is okay', then approving it. The skills and the willingness to work of hundreds of paviours, bricklayers, concrete workers, carpenters, painters and other professionals. All mental processes, preceding action and creation.

The same sequence applies for other important aspects of life. Think of your job, if you have one. The things you are good at, the things your mind can grasp, your wish to earn a honest living, your ability to cooperate with other people, the level of your ambition, all these things determine the choice of your job and how you perform in it.

If you are married, you know what a great impact marriage has on life. How did it all begin? By what went on in your heart, when you met your wife or husband for the first time, or when you began to know her or him better. Your marriage may have led to the miraculous formation of new human life: your children, having little new universes of feelings and thoughts of their own. You and I have once been children ourselves. You and I wouldn't have existed if our parents hadn't met and felt nothing for one another. It boggles the mind to realize that this applies for the billions of human beings who lived, live and will live. Love - the most awe-inspiring creative force by far.

Let's return to our thoughts, including those we aren't even aware of. Our convictions, ideas, wishes, beliefs, certainties and uncertainties. They can be influenced, or even come into being, by what we see, hear and read. By learning about other people's ideas, for instance. History shows that some men have uttered such powerful ideas, that these have influenced the minds of millions of people and subsequently, their deeds. Let's have a look at two of these ideas. They are totally opposite, but they had and have an enormous impact on our thinking and therefore on the world around us.


It's many years ago, but I can still remember my amazement when I heard about this command the first time. 'But don't you become vulnerable by loving your enemy? Will he not laugh right in your face and do you harm?' Now, I believe I understand the wonderful thoughts behind it. Christ noticed that much enmity isn't based on deep-rooted and justified indignation, caused by the evil actions of others. Much hostility is based on the indoctrination of children by their parents. Much enmity is based on the unwillingness to see the other side as men and women with their own strong feelings about what's right and wrong, with their own rather convincing stories, substantiating their point of view. Animosity can be traced back to misunderstandings, to feelings of insecurity, to herd instincts, to plain indifference, to irresponsible leadership, to sheer stupidity sometimes. In short, much enmity is based on mental laziness.

So, Christ probably figured, as hate and wars cause so much misery and pain, the least we can do to prevent it, is trying to put ourselves in the other side's position first. Difficult as it may seem, despite of the courage it may require, at least we can try to look at things through their eyes. And even the effort will have positive results. He who tries, may discover that the subjects, his associates tend to skip over with a shrug, mean an awful lot to the other side. He may discover the fallacies, circulating at his own side. He may discover the lies, circulating at his own side. And by discussing his new insights with his friends, he may suddenly find out that some of them have strange reasons for maintaining the hostility, reasons he never heard about before and put events in an entirely different light. He will anyhow get a better understanding of the core of the enmity, which is a necessary step for the ending of it. And his effort will have more results than he assumes.

For his enemies have been watching his effort too.

And among them, there are undoubtedly men and women of goodwill, just like him, and they will be impressed by his example, maybe feeling ashamed because they've always thought of his side as a force of absolute darkness. So his example can originate a similar truth and peace finding initiative over there, separating the serious arguments from the phoney ones, separating the sincere supporters from the underhanded ones.

And even if an armed conflict breaks out, Christ's command retains its benign influence. By treating our wounded enemies well, we can show to them as well as to ourselves we are better than beasts. After the ending of hostilities, the former prisoner of war will tell his children about his stay in the foreign hospital, recollecting some nurse's good cares, and by doing so, he helps to prevent that a next generation is contaminated with hatred.

By saying 'Love your enemies' Christ displayed a great insight into human character, but he didn't deny anyone his right to self-defence. On the contrary. By urging us to do everything to understand our foes, to reach out to them, to investigate the justness or our own cause thoroughly, for instance by discussing our opponents' criticism in a fair debate, his words strengthen our determination unmistakably, if a struggle with the malicious core of the opposite side has become inevitable. And even in the thick of that battle, Christ's words are a reminder of the fact that even malicious people can change their mind any moment, in which case we have to offer them a chance to prove the sincerity of their newly acquired benevolence, and cease hostilities afterwards.

It is not true that all good things in human behaviour trace back to Christ, but I am sure that 'Love your enemies' has contributed much to, among others, the origin of chivalrous virtues, to the foundation of philanthropical institutions like the International Red Cross and to the making of laws concerning methods of warfare and treatment of prisoners of war.

To those readers who, if this were a dialogue, would immediately expand on the many cruel wars in the name of Christianity, I'd like to say I'll come to that later.

By the way, don't you agree there is something magical about words? 'Love your enemies'. Three words. The man who said them first, lived two thousands years ago. Yet, as long as we read and write and say these words, from Matthew 5:44, we can marvel at the inspiring wisdom they convey.

And now, we'll make a giant leap to another idea, located at the other far end of the moral spectrum. Putting the next idea in the vicinity of the previous one, almost feels like blasphemy. But it is precisely this grinding contrast that helps us realize at which peaks and abysses the human mind can land.


During World War Two, Henrietta von Schirach, the wife of the Hitlerjugend leader, visited Hitler in his Berchtesgaden residence one day, as she had done many times before. In the presence of his other guests, she told him about a raid of German soldiers she witnessed in Amsterdam, rounding up Jewish families. She worried what would happen to them. Her questions made Hitler furious. 'Why should you care about the Jews in Holland?', he exclaimed and he left for his room immediately. Mrs Von Schirach was never to be invited again. She had come too close, revealing by her candour that Hitler kept a terrible secret.

Whenever the conversation turned to Jewry, anti-Semitism blurred Hitler's mind completely. Hitler didn't even think of the Jews as human beings, capable of discerning good from bad. In his opinion all Jews belonged to a subhuman species, predestined to do evil. In the 'Tischgespraeche' (Table Conversations) he said he regarded himself as the Robert Koch of politics. Nobel laureate Robert Koch was the first scientist who isolated several disease-causing bacteriae. Hitler was convinced that all Jews were born liars, cheaters, swindlers, thieves and murderers, and that if you digged long enough, you'd find that all the troubles in the world were being caused by Jews.

The tragic thing is that his hatred wouldn't have had the well-known disastrous results, if he hadn't had some remarkable talents as well. Without a wealthy family or social network to boost his political career, he managed to become the absolute ruler of a great European nation by a formidable inner thrust and great propagandist and rhetorical gifts. By his charismatic personality, many times described as hypnotizing by those who met him, he dwarfed men of the finest breeding, generals, diplomats, captains of industry, and one feels reluctant to admit that he managed to boost the German economy against all predictions, giving jobs, social improvement, hope and respect to millions of German workers, farmers and their families, who had every reason to feel let down by the politicians of the Weimar republic. But Hitler's positive qualities, which we admire without hesitation if found in other persons, amount to little compared to his horrifying ruthlessness, his megolamania, his fanaticism, his total indifference to the death and suffering of millions, including Germans, and his truely insane view on the significance of his actions for the world's future.

Add to this the advanced technology of the time. Radio and film were relatively new media in the 1930s and 1940s. They offered the Nazi dictatorship unprecedented powerful instruments of mass indoctrination. Public life in Germany came to a standstill when the Fuehrer's voice was heard on the radio and on the loudspeakers in the streets and in factory halls. Cleverly directed films made cinema audiences share the dream Hitler envisaged for them. If only they followed him obediently, worked hard and endured hardship, a Reich of happiness would come into reach, with prosperity, living space and even world dominion for a thousand years to come. At the same time, the German people were being indoctrinated with feelings of hate. In fact, no medium was put aside to spread and whip up anti-Semitism. Newspapers, magazines, film, radio, posters, leaflets, books, school books, banners above the streets, signs at shops, theatres, parks and city limits, even children's board games. All these mind-moulding activities amplified hate where it existed already and originated hate where it did not exist before.

Advanced technology in another field marked Hitler's years. The on-going development of the tank, the dive bomber and battlefield communications gave the Second World War a totally different appearance than the static 1914-1918 conflict. Introducing Blitzkrieg tactics, that made the most out of the new weapons, the German army stunned the world by conquering almost the whole of Europe within two years, subjecting most of the European nations and the European Jews to the Nazi dictatorship.

And so, the Holocaust, or Shoah, one of the worst crimes in history, was caused by, among other things, the hate of a merciless dictator, the innovating ideas of military engineers, the mighty influence of unscrupulous propagandists and the obedience, the capacities and the will to perform of the desinformed German people. Desinformed? Yes. The existence of the death camps was a state secret. During their public appearances, the Nazi leaders dropped a hint at the very most. The lower-echelon leaders were not earlier informed than in October 1943 and Himmler urged them to keep silent about it.

National-socialism was inextricably bound up with Germany's frame of mind after the First World War and Hitler's personal qualities. It imploded after his suicide in 1945 and a serious comeback of this godless doctrine seems unlikely. Nevertheless, in today's Europe, where thugs set fire to synagogues again and where cowards spray swastikas on Jewish tombstones, I think it's everyone's duty to resist neo-Nazism. Let our protests be heard wherever people talk about 'the' Jews in negative terms continuously. Let anti-Semitic offences be punished swiftly and firmly. Let's monitor if neo-Nazi movements are gaining social weight. And let's reflect upon the opinion of Mr E. Zuroff, managing director of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Vienna. In June 2002 he said: 'The presence of millions of frustrated immigrants who don't want to integrate in Western societies and who are fascinated by Islamic fundamentalism, form a threat, not only to the Jews, but to the entire social order of Europe as well.'


We've seen that powerful ideas can influence the thoughts and acts of millions of people. So if we want to understand early-21st-century Britain, why it is what it is, we need to take a closer look at the mainstream ideas of this time, at society's core values. Which current ideas influence our thoughts and acts? Which dominant opinions in society make it harder or easier for us to do things? And which taboos hamper us to deviate from everybody else's opinions? In the following I will list a number of these prevailing ideas and I will deliberately use a familiar tone of voice to describe them. This familiar tone of voice doesn't necessarily imply that I am a supporter of these values. I am a professional writer. I can pick any tone I like.


Before the contraception pill was introduced, girls could end up knocked up with an undesired child any moment. Think of all the disastrous marriages in the old days, caused by unplanned pregnancies! For the women who want to have careers, the pill meant nothing less but a liberation. Thanks to the pill, women can plan to have babies in a life phase of their own choice.

It has been a long and hard way for them, but finally, gays came out of the closet. A civilised society like ours doesn't make a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. We've left Victorian hypocrisy far behind us.

Sex education on school and in TV programs is beneficial for our youth. It prevents the spreading of AIDS and other sex-related diseases. It prevents teenage pregnancies. It's good young boys and girls know what sex is all about. Let's educate them about all the aspects before they find themselves entangled in an embarrassing situation.

The availability of pornography isn't that much of a problem. As far as teenagers consume it, it is just a phase they are going through. And one can hardly tell adults what they should do or shouldn't do, right? Britain is a free country, and as long as the liberties of one person don't obstruct the liberties of someone else, there is no problem. What would be the use of closing sex-shops anyhow? The internet supplies naughty stuff in abundancy! Moreover, there is such a thing as tasteful, even artistic pornography. Let the few clergymen who want to forbid it, mind their own sex scandals first!


Nowadays it is perfectly normal for girls to study and make a career. After all, women have the same right to display their talents as men. Traditional marriage has always been an obstacle for them, but modern times brought women a self-confidence that can't be suppressed anymore. They flourish, wherever society welcomes their talents. In fact, strong feminine qualities like empathy and a desire for harmony, have improved the work climate, leading to better results for the company or organisation involved. The emancipation of women has put an end to the taboo on divorce as well, freeing numerous women from miserable marriages in which male fossiles called the shots. The more childcare, the better. And pregnant women decide themselves whether they have an abortion.


Although the emotions of crime victims are perfectly understandable, we must realize there are no simple solutions for the fight against crime. The 'law & order' approach won't work. We have to look into the backgrounds thoroughly. Social deprivation is an important cause. Poor housing conditions and juvenile unemployment, for instance. Furthermore, much crime is drugs-related. If Britain would relax drugs laws, and give drugs to addicts under supervision, crime figures would decrease because the addicts would not have to steal in order to pay for their drugs. Besides, compulsory rehab programmes won't help. People have to want to do it. Lack of understanding for their cultural backgrounds makes many young immigrants feel isolated from British society. For them, crime can be the only way to be successful and gain status in their group. Let's educate British police about their way of life for a better mutual understanding. Tough on crime OK, but for heaven's sake, let's not turn Britain into a police state. Let's be honest, neither of us is a saint, now are we? Haven't you ever paid less tax than you should have? Ignored traffic lights? Taken away something at the office? Aren't we all criminals, more or less?


What a fabulous time we live in! It is a time of broadening horizons and fainting borders. Your supermarket offers you delicacies from all over the world. We fly to other countries for our jobs with the same ease our parents caught the bus. The skin colour of the British is increasingly changing from the predictable boring white to exotic tones. Television shows us world events without delay. Internet and e-mail connect everything with everybody. We are becoming global citizens and, from a historical standpoint, this is quite a natural development. Human settlements became villages, villages became big cities, city-states melted together into nation-states, and now, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ideological controversy behind it, the nations are amalgamating into one challenging world community. Nationalism, sordid source of cruel wars, has unmasked itself as a backward attitude forever, illustrated once more by the 1990s atrocities in the Balkans. If we give time and reason a chance, the European Union will become a colourful, multicultural, sparkling, mighty economic bloc, ready to compete with the United States of America. And only the European Union can solve the problems the separate nations can't cope with anymore on their own.


Racism divides. Racism humiliates. Racism dehumanizes. Racism is murderous. Racism sucks. The racist state of mind must disappear or our world will never know lasting peace. Different skin colours don't make us different human beings. People are all the same, wherever they live. Think of all the misery, caused by racism. Genocide of the original peoples in North and South America. Centuries of slavery, leaving their traumatic mark on the slaves' descendants to this very day. Blunt empire-building by massive exploitation of the non-Western peoples. And, of course, the absolute low in racist crimes: the Holocaust.

Now, one might expect mankind has learnt a lesson or two in the meantime, but racism still exists and, one has to admit, it is widespread behind the white cliffs of Dover. Racism hovers around in the streets of Oldham, Bradford and other cities. It erects an invisible wall between a white employer and a black applicant. It can carry a bobby's helmet. Racism whispers disgusting thoughts in the minds of Britons, when they find out their new neighbours are from the Caribbean. But Britain has definitely become a nation for many nationalities and, in order to build a harmonious society, tolerance must be a cornerstone and discrimination must be ousted. Now, everyday's experiences show that a part of racism disappears when young people grow up together and work together. So integration will be successfull if we raise our children in mixed classes, and if we teach newly arrived immigrants our language. Furthermore, we have to acknowledge that positive discrimination can be very helpful to improve the chances of the ethnic minorities. At the same time, the really thick-skulled racists leave us no other choice but to prosecute them.


In the old days, when the state interfered with just about everything, just about everything went wrong or very slowly due to cumbersome bureaucracy. Privatisation has improved all that. The introduction of market forces improves public services and gives the people more choice. The more public services come in private care, the better it is for our national economy. Privatisation goes hand in hand with globalisation, encouraging man's entrepreneurial spirit all over the world. Or, as former President Bush once put it, the father of George W.: 'I believe in this new world order. Twenty years from now we'll have more peace, more democracy, more free trade, more open markets.'


In the decades to come, millions of immigrants from Africa and Asia will create a new existence for themselves in Britain and other European countries. That is just the way it is. And why not? Let's listen to President George W. Bush who said: 'Immigration is what made America great'. We need immigration to expand our work force, so companies can initiate new activities. We need the immigration of young workers. They will compensate for the ageing of the current population. Allowing immigration is our humanitarian duty. Harbouring asylum seekers is not enough. European governments shouldn't hamper further immigration for fear of electoral success of right-wing populist parties. Building Fortress Europe is both impossible and undesirable. On the contrary, the rich countries have to offer everybody the opportunity to share in their wealth.


When British forces participated in the 1999 Kosovo conflict, Prime Minister Tony Blair called it 'Britain's first unselfish war', if memory serves me right. And yes, we can take pride in that intervention. Serbian President Milosevic ordered the astonishing violation of human rights, as his troops dispelled hundreds of thousands of Albanians, living in Kosovo. We have seen their terrible misdoings with our own eyes, watching television. It became clear that respect for human rights should be the most important motive in politics. The West has to pay much attention, has to support wholeheartedly those brave human rights activists who oppose dictatorships. Especially the terror attacks of 11th September 2001 give the West the moral right to intervene militarily if rogue states support terror, violate human rights or threaten civilisation in another way.


Until the 18th century, the European monarchs and the church, their interests closely knit, decided whatever they liked, expecting their nations merely to obey. But a growing number of intellectuals resented that energetically. Their influence became so big, a whole new spiritual movement arose, known as the Enlightenment, ushering in the Age of Reason. God was declared dead, science was bound to replace religion completely, the nations should not be governed by some tyrannic despot and his corrupt establishment, but by themselves and, a reasonable creature, man was perfectly able to create heaven on earth himself. And so the Enlightenment resulted ultimately in the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917. The slogan of those who tore down the Bastille prison still echoes today: 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité' (liberty, equality, brotherhood) and many a modern standard has its roots in the Enlightenment. Equal rights for everyone. Democracy. The individual's right of self-determination. Tolerance. The separation of church and state. And freedom of course.


Here ends my selection and positive description of our current core values. Now, what is the influence of these rather familiar ideas on our minds? How do they affect our doings? Well, of course it is impossible for me to answer these questions, as no man knows the motives of everyone else. So the following is partly based on my personal observations. Maybe you'll recognize it, maybe not.


In the office of a marketing company an attractive young woman fancies a married man, who shares a room with another colleague. She enters the room frequently. The three of them have some good laughs, and one day she starts hinting at making a date. The colleague then says: 'But he is a married man, what are you up to?' She answers: 'But that doesn't matter nowadays, now does it?' And her remark encourages the married man to give her a call a few days later. A young man and his girlfriend visit a birthday party. In the presence of everybody, the lad starts revealing intimate details about her without much ado. 'Well, she is a slow starter, but once she's turned on, things get pretty hot!', the embarrassed girl of course not knowing in which direction to look. A single woman in her 30s, successful in her work, is being asked by her friends how her recent relation is developing. 'It's over. He was making trouble about this-and-that, so I told him to leave', her eyes and her tone of voice expressing that she can stand less and less the peculiarities of her successive partners. Two little girls of 7 and 6 years old are playing with dolls. The younger says: 'Every baby starts as a very tiny puppet in your belly.' The other girl says: 'Yes, but it can be removed from there.' A young man, working at a cafetaria, seems to be Mr Right for a fourteen-year-old girl across the street. Once he has noticed that, he tells her: 'Okay, I'll be your boy-friend. But you must see your GP first and ask him for the pill, because I had sex with my last girlfriend too.' She is absolutely delighted and runs back to her home in order to tell her mother about the joyful event. Two married women are talking about the pleasures of life at the camping site. Then, one of them astonishes the other by telling that she and her husband watch pornographic movies in the tent at night, together with friends. 'But how about your daughter?' 'Well, I think she is too young right now, but when she becomes sixteen, I wouldn't mind if she joins us watching them.' Later on, the surprised woman confides to a friend that she was especially amazed because she always thought of the woman as a person with whom you could discuss matters in a reasonable and intelligent manner. The gays have come out of the closet, as it is being described, and that has created a society in which I, a heterosexual, have been approached by homosexuals several times now, just in the streets, in broad daylight, and I find it disgusting.

Many of us have come to think of sex as a commodity they are entitled to. Making love is shifting from the bodily expression of mutual love to a deed of selfish satisfaction more and more. Men increasingly lack the patience to court a woman. Women tend to give in pretty fast. Is there still an office left in Britain where people can have lunch together for ten minutes without a sexual insinuation? Married men approach their wife's girlfriends. Many husbands lie and cheat, showing no consideration at all for their wife's feelings. Many women feel no inhibition to blackmail their partner by denying them sex if things don't happen their way. Thrilled as they are by perverted ideas, husbands want their wifes to perform strange things in the bedroom. And all these wrongs lead to men and women losing the love and respect they used to feel. Lovers once, they are becoming strangers to one another. Divorce rates are increasing. For many divorced women, sex is becoming a tool of despair to catch a partner. Their fear for loneliness makes them forget that easy sex never gains the respect of decent blokes, but attracts egoists and cads. We are giving our youth, tomorrow's Britain that is, a lousy example. Our children grow up with the idea that sex is a pastime, if not a must. Sixteen-year-old virgins are doubting whether something is wrong with them. How many teenage girls do you know who can still blush? Teenage abortion rates are increasing: 35,000 in 1996, 40,000 in 2001. Just try to imagine the colossal emotional misery, the damaged lifes behind these cold figures. Sexually transmitted diseases doubled between 1995 and 2000, according to the Public Health Service. In my view, the breakdown of the taboo on sexuality hasn't elevated us. And it hasn't liberated us. It has degraded us.


In more and more families wives are treating their husbands as wimps. They are ignoring their husbands' opinions. They are belittling them in company. I think that that has something to do with the growing insecurity of men in general. The average woman loves a man, not a wimp. The female body offers the man great pleasure. But when she is giving that sexual pleasure to a softie, she starts to disparage him, because she unconsciously feels that a softie isn't really worth of her bodily pleasure. And she may genuinely believe that she appreciates her modern husband, and she may well consider herself emancipated, somewhere deep down in her soul she'd rather be giving the joys of sex to a man she can have more respect for. She begins to look down on her soft-willed husband, because he makes her feel cheap. (I warned you I would write shocking things, so no complaints now please.)

We are accustomed to calling working women 'independent'. Independent of what? She is very dependent on her boss. And on the shareholders' decisions behind him. But this so-called 'independency' originates the idea that young men and women are individuals living only for their own sake instead of founders of future families. In the silence of their thoughts, a lot of working married women are thinking: 'I can always leave him. I am able to support myself'. In case of a marital crisis, this idea can quicken her decision to divorce, and a crisis may occur in every marriage. The notion of 'independent women' has its undermining effect on the husband's mind as well. It diminishes the sense of responsibility he should feel for his wife and children. It has become easier for British men to say 'goodbye' in the back of their minds first, then loud and clear in the next row. So society's opinion climate causes an almost invisible hairline crack in every marriage, enlarging the chance it breaks up in times of tension. The same opinion climate has nourished the misguiding idea that marriage and living together are identical.

The desire for having a career first has lead to a growing percentage of women being pregnant at a relatively older age than the generations before them. That regretfully enhances the chance of problematic births and even miscarriages. The larger age gap aggravates the important task of bringing up, because decent raising with involvement demands much energy, and older parents have less energy than young ones. In addition to this, a larger difference in age troubles the mutual understanding between the generations.

The so-called emancipation of women is corroding family life. The average British family is smaller than say in the 1950s, because women have fewer children or no children at all. The whole idea of a caring housewife, being around when the children come home from school, running a fine household that makes her husband feel welcome and at ease after a day's work, has become obsolete, if not ridiculous in the eyes of many. Of course, for many a family the woman's income is a plain financial necessity. But it is also true that many working women bring their young children to childcare in order to make money for luxury goods and fancy holidays.

Because they want both a career and children, many women lead very exhausting lifes. During daytime, they don't find the rest they need and in the bedroom, they have no energy left for sex, depriving themselves from the intimacy they actually can't do without, and leaving their disappointed husband alone with feelings of frustration and bodily unrest. And the irony of it all is that working mothers don't perform very well in either of their activities. It is virtually impossible to do two important things right at the same time.

The increase of two-earner families is contributing to a Britain that denies its youth the parental attention for its feelings and development. What has always been one of the most precious moments in the daily life of a family? Evening dinner. Mother, father, the children, gathered around at the table, enjoying some honest cooking together, telling each other the stories of the day, the children listening how their adventures and ideas relate to the life experience of their parents, the parents fascinated and amused by their children's exploration voyage, maybe touched because it reminds them of their own, and enriching their children's minds by explaining how they can try to be good people, how life's traps can best be avoided and how some puzzling events and remarks in the outside world must be interpreted, by putting these in a larger perspective. All this makes the family an excellent breeding ground for independent thinking.

But isn't this microwave era an educational disaster then, since so many children don't find a mother at home when they arrive, but a note in the kitchen? 'If my parents show no interest in what I have to tell, they're probably not interested in what I am doing either' seems to be the way of thinking of an increasing number of our children. They find phoney security in a group of kindred spirits, invariably dominated by some 'funny' wiseguys, and off they go on the path of vandalism and crime.

The mass influx of women into the nation's working areas has mixed the traditional men's world and the traditional women's world, a factor that together with the 'sexual revolution', is boosting promiscuity and adultery and is therefore also contributing to the decay of family life.


For decades now, the motives of the criminal have been glossed over, and I think that this glossing over has been one of the factors that has stimulated crime. When stories about unhappy childhoods, alcoholic fathers, leaking roofs and unemployment are accepted as excuses, criminals are tempted to lie to themselves. The feelings of guilt and shame they ought to have, will gradually move to the background. They will be inclined to give in to feelings of self-pity, to blaming their mates or society, to nonsensical excuses, and other denial of their own responsibilities. I've seen criminals complaining that their criminal records stigmatized them, forgetting it was up to themselves to avoid getting a criminal record in the first place. And because of this negative mindset, they fall back to old habits easier. Many of them develop an insolent, haughty attitude, displaying disgusting rudeness in traffic and towards neighbours, while they laugh at those who work for their money.

Exaggerated understanding for the criminal's motives has other negative effects. People who had unhappy childhoods too, but didn't become burglars and robbers, feel neglected, if not insulted. It undermines the willingness to work among those who live in unfavourable conditions. The lenient approach has softened our police force, which process has in turn alienated the police from the citizens. In many cases, threatened people expect effective police action, but get social worker's stories instead. But we are already getting more than enough social worker's stories from the social workers themselves. (I am not blaming the ordinary copper here, I am hinting at the invisible persons who devise police trainings and the politicians who sustain these experts with our money.)

Soaring crime yields a society in which we get the feeling we can't trust other people anymore. We feel abandoned by the local councils and the government. Crime has even a degenerating effect on a growing number of robbed people. They start to steal or fence things themselves, understandably but oddly compensating for their own misfortune.


Most people I know are looking with a mixture of incomprehension and powerlessness at the disintegration of British society which is the result of globalisation and privatisation. Numerous British companies have been taken over by global concerns. Public utilities are being sold out, although in a moral sense, they were the co-property of the millions of British households that paid water and energy bills, bus and train tickets and taxes for decades. The privatisation of British Rail didn't do much good for maintenance and quality, to put it mildly. In 2002 the shares of a Sussex waterworks jumped from an Enron-related company in America to a firm in Malaysia. Who will be the next owner? The Uzbek maffia? These developments enlarge the feelings of alienation in society. National scale companies contribute to the nation's social fabric, because the shareholders, managers, researchers, sales executives and other employees form a social network more or less, in which people know the persons behind the quarterly or annual figures. But because of the globalisation, this rather important social function of the business community is eroding. The gap between workers and company owners is widening. The gap between products and company owners is widening. In the meanwhile, the pressure to generate more profit is mounting. We have witnessed the invasion of the managers, translating all good things that people can do for each other, care, education, compassion, into cold figures that must rise or fall. Wherever you look in corporate Britain, holding companies are pressing their firms harder, chief executives are pressing their managers harder, the managers are pressing the workers harder. Mergers and reorganisations are creating a permanent atmosphere of restlessness.

Enlarging profits for the few, and not enlarging knowledge for mankind, is directing academic life more and more. Former bulwarks of independent scientific research and overall reflection, the pressure on universities is mounting to become factories spitting out one-issue professionals, educated on a need-to-know-basis. So we are becoming well-trained workhorses with blinkers on more and more.

Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher was right promoting privatisation in 1979 Britain, we had too static an economy back then, but in my opinion, things have got way out of hand since. She started a lorry that has no brakes, so it seems. The emphasis on globalisation is scouring off our national self-awareness. Slowly but surely, there is this general feeling coming up that caring about British interests is something old-fashioned at best, and something suspicious at worst. Don't think these deteriorations are exclusively British, the same thing is going on everywhere in the West. All over the world capitalism is depraving into a faster and faster whirling, bigger and bigger whirlpool, devouring labour, energy and raw materials, just for the profits of a smaller and smaller number of merging mega companies, doing whatever they like, out of reach of any form of democratic control whatsoever. We are witnessing how megacapitalism is corrupting those who have great responsibilities. In 2002 America, the pensions of numerous workers melted away because of the colossal administrative frauds of managers who tried to save their bonuses, anticipating disappointing company results. Let me quote George Soros here. His currency speculations destabilized the pound sterling in 1992. That makes him an insider sure enough. In his book 'The crisis of global capitalism', he wrote: 'Today's market fundamentalism poses a bigger threat than the totalitarian ideologies.' (Examples of totalitarian ideologies are communism, fascism and national-socialism.)


The fear of being called a racist, has a huge influence on the opinions and behaviour of today's Briton. Again some personal observations: a nurse, working in a hospital, is assigned with drawing up the work schedules. But she hesitates to put the name of a non-white colleague of hers at weekend or evening duties, for she is afraid that the colleague will go to the chief nurse, accusing her of 'discrimination'. In fact, the white nurse has been told by other non-whites they learnt this trick from their parents. 'If you ever feel put at a disadvantage at your work, just start complaining you are being discriminated by your white colleagues, it will do wonders for you'.

A man, walking in the countryside, gets to talking to another man, a churchgoing man. The immigration in the past decades becomes the topic. The latter at first shows reluctance when he notices that the former is concerned about the increasing number of foreigners in Britain. Initially the Christian speaks to him in a somewhat pedantic fashion. 'But surely, everyone has a right to prosperity? It is only natural the immigrants try to escape the misery in the Third World...' But the man sticks to his indignation about the fact that foreign criminals aren't put out immediately, and he repeats he thinks it's simply unjust that immigrants get free housing and social benefits, and that foreigners abuse the NHS. The churchgoer then comes round, as if the firmness of the other has peeled off a surface opinion, subsequently displaying even more bitterness about the government's wrongs than his companion.

In an underground carriage, supervisors once arrested a negro pickpocket. The passengers then started to accuse the very supervisors who were protecting them, of racism!

Left-wing intellectuals, once sincerely convinced of the correctness of their multicultural ideals, begin to doubt these now, as reality stubbornly refuses to match earlier Utopian expectations. They know they try to fool themselves when they ignore news reports about the disproportionate large share of negroes in gun-related crimes or the extorsion practices of asylum abusers. These progressive intellectuals attend 'multicultural discussion forums', where all the talk seldom leads to clear conclusions. There, they catch themselves listening to the muddled arguments of conceited non-whites with much more benevolence than they do when the speakers are conceited white scatterbrains.

Lots of immigrants and their descendants perform well in their jobs and are friendly neighbours, but there are also lots of foreigners who think it's perfectly normal to ignore us with arrogant faces in our own country, to talk loudly in shops and other public places in a language we don't understand, to spit on our streets, to play loud music in the middle of the night, to throw their garbage over the balcony fence, to misuse our social system and to commit crime.

But strangely enough, many of us hesitate to criticise it. And those who do, start saying 'I am not a racist' nine times out of ten. Someone told me he witnessed a strange shift of opinion in other people while discussing these matters. 'When you talk with them in private, they agree the immigration has got out of hand. But when we talk about it in a larger company, five or six people or so, they surprisingly subscribe to the political correct views.' Apparently, many Britons feel an invisible yet great pressure that hampers them to speak freely on subjects related to non-white immigrants. Because many of us feel intimidated. Many of us feel fear.

The results of these mental developments are clearly visible. I'll name a few. In order to escape the degeneration of their own neighbourhoods, an increasing number of Britons buy a house in suburbia. So those immigrants who already have a negative atttitude, feel reinforced in it, because they see Britons fleeing their own towns, while the Britons get into debts. Good souls, we have been watching how the non-British share of the London population has increased to 50% or so now. Especially in urban areas, British children don't get the level of education they could have got, if the learning pace in the classrooms wouldn't be slowed down by the children of the immigrants. Maybe incited by the frustration of their parents, some youngsters, their self-control decreased by poor upbringing, addictions and a violence-dominated youth 'culture', attack perfectly innocent negroes and Asians. There is much confusion and discord, even within families, about the question what is racism and what isn't. But it is that same discord that strengthens the assertiveness of minority leaders, seeking to enlarge their power. Remember the banner text on the Finsbury mosque on the first anniversary of 11th September? 'Islam is the future for Britain'.

The prevailing 'antiracist' opinion climate has banished two vital question to the brackish soil of forbidden thoughts. Firstly, the immigrants' share of Britain's population is now 9% and we are not supposed to make a comment. But if we are not allowed to worry about that 9%, we will not be allowed to worry either when the percentage has grown to 19%, 39%, and 59%. The average non-white mother has more children than the average white. Secondly, although it was candidly discussed by previous British generations, no-one in his right mind now dares to comment on inter-ethnic and interracial relationships. Is that a problem then? Not on an individual scale, no. As everyone is a reflection of God, everyone has the same right to live, to love and to be happy, whether his grandparents are all from the same country or from four different countries. And no law should ever forbid two people to fall in love.

But now, let's zoom out from the micro scale of two individuals to the macro scale of a nation. And let's zoom out from the relatively short life of one couple to the giant life span of the nation. Then, ethnic and racial mixing does originate a very serious problem indeed, if it takes place on a broad scale over a longer period of time. For slowly but surely, unnoticed by many, the original population will forget about its national identity, its spiritual roots, its culture. It will forget about its core-being. It will feel less and less connected with its history books in the library or bookstore. Its influential playwrights and thinkers, its most respected leaders, its wartime heroes will become strangers belonging to an obscure past, to whom no-one will refer anymore. The nation will forget how it once coped with periods of deep trouble. How it reached its peaks. How to compare its leaders throughout the centuries. Together with its identity, the original people will lose its national spirit. Its desire to be independent. Its urge to be its own master. The mixed people will find it harder to distinguish the sense from the nonsense in their politicians' reasonings. It will swallow slick chat the sooner and therefore, become increasingly vulnerable for malign rule.

But this subject, a risk former British leadership has always been aware of, is blockaded by a huge taboo nowadays, as Tory MP Mr Townend found out in April 2001. He warned: 'We are becoming a mongrel race' and all hell broke loose. I don't like the word 'mongrel', but I believe his warning was justified. And in the meantime, the number of mixed relationships increases. The number of people of mixed descent increases, no offence intended.


The end of the Cold War in 1989-1991 seemed to herald an epoch of world peace and harmony. But a decade later, people simply don't understand why there is so much war talk and why Britain is fighting wars for fuzzy causes. Fuzzy causes? Yes, and I am not even referring to the war against Iraq now. An example. Since the 1950s, the Pyongyang police state is tyrannizing millions of North-Koreans, but Western leaders were silent about it for five decades. In the 1990s, tens of thousands of Algerians were horribly murdered by organized fanatics, but presidents and prime ministers didn't move. Hundreds of thousands of Ruandese were massacred in 1994, but in the West, no televised pleads for military intervention were heard. This silence was the same when millions of Congolese were killed in the civil war that ended in 2002. But in 1999, Britain had to bomb Serbia all of a sudden, because 'the human rights of the Kosovo-Albanians were being violated'. Aren't the North-Koreans human? Aren't the Algerians human? Aren't the Ruandese human? Aren't the Congolese human? So there is something seriously wrong with that war's justification. When moral indignation is selective, it is acted. Many of us don't know what to think when the government says that 'war can be unavoidable'. Should a UN mandate be the decisive criterion? Should we simply have faith in the Prime Minister's judgement? 'Right or wrong, my country' and all that?


The current strong emphasis on individual liberties has yielded more variety in life styles, but unfortunately, many of the newly gained life styles are disguises of soft or indirect national self-destruction. A growing number of people feel attracted to homosexual or bisexual experimenting, because there is such a thing as homosexuality out of thrill-seeking. Subsequently, a growing part of these experimenters will be left by their dismayed partners, leading to more divorces, or they will never enter into a heterosexual relationship at all, adapting to a permanent way of life as a homosexual, contributing to the decline of the nation's birth rates. (Mind you, I am not talking here about our fellow men and women who are born homosexuals.)

Abortion brings about much more unhappiness than many of us perhaps think. A woman once talked about the abortion she underwent in the late 1970s. She confided she is frequently thinking: 'My child would have been so-and-so-many-years-old now', her eyes and voice filled with a lifelong melancholic curiosity about a human being that wasn't allowed to be.

A growing number of men and women wants a child but not a partner. Unintentionally but effectively, they disturb the emotional development of their child. It won't get the best possible example of how a husband and a wife, supporting each other, are dealing with life's challenges and difficulties. But children need that example, a fact that also gets little attention in today's discussion about the adoption rights of homosexuals. Getting thoroughly acquainted with both the male and the female approach of life enriches the child's mind in a way a same-sex approach never can.

More and more fellow countrymen are wasting their lives with addictions. Those among them who have children, are 'teaching' them that life is something difficult you can escape from, in stead of teaching them that, in general, life is an array of opportunities and challenges, that life is there to be encountered with inner strength and optimism, that life is there to be enjoyed.

Furthermore, the big attention for the individual's rights is at the expense of the necessary attention for people's duties and responsibilities. A big shame fourty years ago, many young men nowadays feel no inhibition to abandon their pregnant girl-friends. The same people who immediately kick up a row at their work if they notice they got paid less that month, due to some administrative error, find it perfectly normal to deal with their private affairs in their boss's time.

The intensely advocated right of self-determination is even culminating in the loud call for 'the right to die'. If the supporters of euthanasia get their way, that will be undoubtedly welcomed by those who unbearably suffer from incurable diseases. But at the same time, a road will open up for society at the end of which people with psychic problems will demand the 'right' of euthanasia too, ignoring the possibility that their problems may be temporary. At the end of the day, this country could be overcome by an ominous spirit in which the not really incurable and the lonely elderly will be killed by deliberate neglect in nursing homes that are troubled by waiting lists and stressed personnel. And if you agree with me that man can be a rather nasty animal, you'll also agree that heirs can be nasty animals.

But the dominating emphasis on individual rights finds itself a companion in the powerful emphasis on tolerance. This 'tolerance' commandment doesn't only influence ethnic questions. It is also fostering an opinion climate in which people hesitate to warn their fellow men if these are about to turn into life's descending roads. Positive criticism is being quickly misinterpreted as meddlesomeness, a wise word as old-fashioned, a good advice as paternalist, a world view as obsolete. Britain's grandparents are sorry to observe that their life experience isn't appreciated. Some of them comply with present values, maybe wary of losing touch with their children and grandchildren. Others even begin to doubt their own memory. Wasn't our country less obsessed by consumerism and egoistic pleasure-seeking when they were young? Didn't people have a stronger sense of responsibility? A stronger sense of duty? More loyalty? Weren't people more gentle back then, despite hardships and scarcity? Wasn't there a consensus not to let your family down in times of marital problems? Was life in decades gone by really founded on mistakes and misconceptions? The doubtful differ from those who have been keeping track of the social deteriorations very well. Many of the latter are so frustrated by Britain's decline, they get angry sometimes. Others prefer to keep silent in company more and more. They are withdrawing into themselves with feelings of resignation, finding some comfort in the conversation with people of the same mind and generation. Regretfully, their numbers are steadily decreasing, a natural process that is slowly turning Britain into an amnesia patient.

5.2.8  SUMMARY

Summarizing the aforementioned developments:

In the Western world, with its predator capitalism and enormous business scandals, 'globalisation' and 'privatisation' are the two words that accompany perhaps the most shameless wallowing ever in man's worst flaw - greed.

Ours is a society in which all the requirements for a lasting stabile marriage, like honesty, loyalty, fidelity, respect, care, forgiveness, are fading away in people's minds, making room for egoism, self-indulgence and inner hardening. We are forgetting that it is only the presence of a caring mother and wife that turns four cold walls into a home. We are forgetting that a healthy family life is the cradle of tomorrow's Britain.

In today's Britain, whatever social relations you are looking at, be it at work, in the family or in the community, the individual is increasingly inclined to 'take' from the others and decreasingly inclined to 'give' to the others.

In the course of 40 years, the 'racism' pressure has had a stunning effect on our collective attitude. British self-assuredness (yes, arrogance often), that once made us a people others reckoned with all over the world, has shrunk to a shyness that prevents us to speak up for ourselves in our own country if necessary. But if we don't stand up for ourselves, we're in deep, deep trouble, because nobody else will do it for us.

Crime and its huge effects on the victim's minds are diminishing goodheartedness, gentleness, mutual trust, the indispensable feeling of safety, the trust in our leadership. Crime is on the other hand boosting distrust, anxiety, fear, feelings of alienation, feelings of isolation, think of the many elderly who don't dare to leave their homes at night. In short, crime is seriously diminishing Britain's joy of life.

There is no clarity about the necessity of British war participation. Those who oppose war, have this feeling of absolute powerlessness. And in the meantime, our country is stumbling from one war to the next, inflicting death upon other nations, enhancing the chance that one day, we will suffer terrible losses ourselves.

What are we looking at, actually?

Less self-disciplin.
Less reflection.
Less confidence.
Less trust.
Less respect.
Less respect for life.
Less decency.
Less good examples.
Less happy childhoods.
Less love.
Less stabile marriages.
Less British children.
Less life.
Less peace.
Less future.
More greed.
More addictions.
More indifference.
More crime and vandalism.
More aggression.
More disruption.
More uprooting.
More divorces.
More abortions.
More bad examples.
More uncertainty.
More foreign children.
More alienation.
More lonely people.
More misery.
More hate.
More war.
More death.

There is no such thing as a perfect society and I am sure many readers will think I am far too much pessimistic, but in my view, the aforementioned trends are undeniable and if they continue, they will go on aggravating and enhancing each other. All initiated or amplified by the values of our time, the 'liberal' or 'progressive' values. Yes, the 1968 values are liberal values alright, because they give us all the liberty we need - to rot. They are progressive values indeed, because they accelerate our progress month after month, year after year - in the direction of the abyss. The abyss of the soft and silent dying of the English, Scottish and Welsh nation. In a strange way, today's core values are conflicting with the very laws of life every nation has to observe in order to maintain itself and to flourish.


Naturally, the very important question then arises where these current values come from anyhow. What is the main source of the dominant principles in our country? If you agree that the ideas in section 5.1 are sounding familiar, the answer is obvious. These ideas are being intensely spread by the old media: television, movies, radio, newspapers, newsmagazines, school books and more. In this text, I'll concentrate on television and film, because the combination of vision, sound, music and voice-overs makes them the media with the biggest impact on our minds. First, let's have a look at how films and several sorts of television programmes are being made.


Every time when the newsreader of the BBC appears on the screen in millions of living-rooms, he'll present the work of a relatively small number of people. Day after day the BBC news editors are making a selection from the countless foreseen and unforeseen events that take place all over the world. They get their information about these events from different sources. My incomplete list begins with the services of the few big international news agencies like Reuters and Associated Press. These agencies are providing their clients with TV reports about some 50 items on a daily basis. The BBC news editors also get information from their own correspondents, stationed in Britain and many other countries. From the moment of their arrival, these correspondents start building a social network in the host country. It is their job to get acquainted with politicians, colleague journalists, artists, lawyers, scientists, businessmen. They talk with taxi drivers and other sources of interesting information. These correspondents are working together with camera teams in order to make TV reports. The London news desk also gets footage from TV reporters who immediately travelled to the locations of newsworthy events. Furthermore, the news desk gets press releases and phonecalls from the PR officers of companies, institutions and interest groups.

After selecting the news, the BBC news editors prepare the raw material to make it fit for broadcasting. The editors discuss which people they will invite to tell the public more about the items, try to get in contact with them, and interview them in their homes or in the studio. The film material is being cut carefully. Some fragments pass the exam, others disappear in the dustbin. The editors and the newsreader are writing texts to introduce, to comment and to round off the news items. A senior editor or executive editor sees to it that all words and images are geared to one another according to the prevailing editorial guidelines. And please, pay special attention to the following sentence: these editorial guidelines determine which and how events and politicians will be presented to us. After the senior editor's approval, the news programme is being televised.

Current affairs programmes like 'Newsnight' and 'Breakfast with Frost' spend more time at the main topics of the day. The interviews with the people whose words and deeds are considered newsworthy, are longer. Before the programme is recorded and aired, the editors and the presenter think thoroughly about the questions that, in their view, need to be asked. If a politician is invited, the interviewer might ask questions that highlite either his successes or his failures. He or she might ask questions about the consistencies or inconsistencies in the standpoints of the guest. Sympathetic questions that indicate the interviewer's understanding for the politician's problems. Stiff questions that show no interest in his difficulties at all. Suggestive questions which cast doubt on the politician's competence or intention. Neutral fact-finding questions. Easy questions that are fun to answer. Surprise questions, going right against the mood of the conversation so far. Questions that display respect, even admiration for the politician's wisdom, courage, stamina and steadfastness. Or questions revealing amazement, even aversion, to the politician's folly, his recklessness, stubbornness and obsessions. Questions with overtones of 'one should not' or 'you ought to', these are the questions that suggest there is only one decent answer possible. Biased questions that create a certain atmosphere around the politician and his points of view, pleasant or unpleasant. Or unbiased questions the answers to which enlarge the viewers' factual knowledge. The interviewer can help us to judge a politician correctly and to learn about all facets of a certain political question, or the interviewer can try to pull our thoughts in a direction he has fixed beforehand. His questions are forming the viewer's opinion as much as the answers. Questions can generate or influence ideas.

Every film, including the award winning blockbusters which attract millions of spectators, starts as an idea of one person who is convinced there is glory and money in it and, if he has no money himself, who is able to convince sponsors. If the funds are raised, a director is selected, actresses and actors are engaged, a production crew is hired, studios and special facilities are rented and the work commences. Now, films may deal with such divergent subjects as adventure, crime, love affairs, war, sinking ocean steamers or running mummies, but as far as the production is concerned, they all have certain things in common. All dialogues, actions and descriptions of the scenery originate in the mind of someone who resembles me at this moment: an individual sitting in a quiet place, thinking and typing. Once completed, the script is on the agenda in meetings with influential or decision-taking people who discuss it and propose alterations, not seldom in an emotional atmosphere. Finding the right locations, getting permits, building the scenery demand a lot of time and energy. The actual filming is always a time-consuming process, in which a hundred things must be OK before the camera can even roll. It may take days of stress to shoot a 1-minute scene. Furthermore, every film is the laborious result of cutting many miles of celluloid with painstaking precision. All films need good promotion, otherwise no-one shows up in the cinema. And if the film turns out to be a hit, its producers make a lot of money and, again, a multi-million audience are watching the work of a small number of people, whose names appear in the credits at the end.

TV sitcoms, soaps and detectives are also the products of creative people. 'The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air', 'EastEnders', 'Sex & The City', 'The Bold & The Beautiful', 'Dalziel & Pascoe', in earlier years 'All In The Family', 'M.A.S.H', 'Morse', 'Dynasty', 'Cheers' and 'The A-Team' are but a few titles from a heap. What do the TV series have in common? The number of the most prominent actors never seem to exceed a maximum of seven, eight. Apparently, fifty years of experience have learnt the TV producers that a larger number makes it difficult for the public to remember who is who. Using their imagination and insight into the human mind, the producers make up several characters, each of them having a clearly distinct personality that becomes recognisable for the audience as the series sinks in. For the duration of the TV series, the scriptwriters make sure that the lines they produce fit each character well. There is always at least one fixed location (a living-room, a bar, a town, an office or even a van). Long-running soaps feature several parallel story lines the dramatic peaks of which take place just before the commercial break or the episode's end. The TV series are made in such a skilful way, a lot of viewers start believing the characters are real persons. (Just watch an episode of 'EastEnders' together with a fan of that series, ask the fan a question about Phil or another character, and listen carefully to the tone of voice of her or his reply.) Successful series make a lot of money for their producers. And again, very many people are passively undergoing the work of a few.

I deliberately emphasised the words 'the many who are looking at the work of a few' in the previous paragraphs, because most of us don't realize that's exactly what's happening while we are watching TV or a film. On the contrary, the average viewer feels lonely during many scenes and interviews on the screen. Let me illustrate this. Have you ever felt embarrassed by an obscene remark, made by an actor in a TV series? I know I have. But this embarrassment gives me the feeling that I and some people in my surroundings are the only ones who feel embarrassed. Why is that? Because a laughing audience were heard after the obscene moment. Because my newspaper only writes positive stories about that particular TV series. Because my TV guide does the same. Because there are so many obscene remarks and scenes in all kinds of TV series and films. Because it doesn't seem to bother Whitehall. So I get this lonely feeling, although millions of Britons and other Westerners must have the same feeling. The clue is that we, the passive viewers, are not aware of our huge numbers.

On the other hand, the people who are making these TV series and write positive articles about them are relatively very few in number. But their influence is huge, because only their words and only their opinions are being multiplied by means of the printing press and the lorries distributing millions of printed papers and magazines throughout the country. Only their words and only their opinions are being multiplied by means of television transmitters that send the signals of the interview or series into millions of households. When, for instance, two men are mistaken about the causes of crime, while talking about it in a park, nobody but themselves gets confused. But when the same two men are talking about it in a BBC studio, their wrong views are relayed to millions of viewers. And that means that in millions of houses, people's opinion forming on the causes of crime is negatively influenced by the mistakes of only two men, especially when these men are eloquent and especially when comparable nonsense is repeated day after day, year after year in all kinds of media.

We like to think of ourselves as people who are perfectly able to distinguish the rubbish from the facts, as people whose values and beliefs can't be changed by words and images from the old media, even if it is a prolonged and multi-media stream of words and images, consistently corroborating one set of ideas, while consistently weakening another set of ideas. But I think it is only human to have a better image of ourselves than who and what we actually are. And even if you and I are convinced our deepest principles can't be touched by televised influences, even if you and I truely believe that we have a helicopter view on events and social changes, that is not to say that our fellow countrymen have the same mental firmness as well. Just listen how often the reasonings in the old media are echoing the next day in the conversations of the people around you. We must not underestimate the idea-shaping force of television, film, books and so on. Governments don't. We all know how important 'spin' is for the present government. In 2002 the US Congress earmarked 240 million dollar for tailormade broadcasts 'to reconstruct the Arab mind', as BBC World phrased it. In the same year, Israel set up an Arab-speaking broadcasting station to influence the opinion climate in that part of the world. The anchorman of CBS Evening News, Dan Rather is a prominent TV personality in the United States. In May 2002 he said: 'Those who control the images, control the public opinion'.

Let's compare the influence of words and images with wind and water. When we go out for an evening stroll in the summer, we enjoy a soft breeze and when we are thirsty, a glass of cool water gives us relief. But it are the same friendly wind and water that, in North America, literally pulverized millions and millions of tons of solid rock, ultimately creating the Grand Canyon.

The old media only show you the things unknown people want you to see. Those in charge of the old media, a minute minority, can indeed create the illusion that their opinions are the opinions of the majority, or that only their opinions are decent and the most sensible. And it is Britain's opinion climate that precedes political decisions. And it are Britain's political decisions that determine Britain's future.


Now, watching the old media, not only do I believe they are a source of wrong ideas, I think there are other quite disturbing aspects too:

In the first place, an on-going hardening can be seen in the scenes and the plots of films and series. If you can remember TV series like 'Lucille Ball' and 'Coronation Street', you'll probably agree that today's series contain far more moments of fear, obscenity, treason, verbal aggression and violence. In comparison with the comic books I read in the 1970s, today's comic books are confronting their young readers with gruesome nightmares, drug addictions, even suicide.

In the second place, an overall fixation on bad news can be noticed in the news programmes. In the rare case a BBC reporter is telling good news, his final sentence usually has a negative tone of voice. 'This went well for him, but how long will his luck last?' or 'Although this problem has been solved now, an even bigger problem is already closing in', negative turns like that. The great disadvantage of the overexposure of things going wrong, is that more and more viewers turn away from news programmes, seeking entertainment at other channels. As a result of this, more and more people are losing interest in the world we're living in. Their factual knowledge will diminish, which will make it harder for them to judge politics on their merits. 'I don't want to have anything to do with politics', many of them are saying, 'they are all the same'. But they are forgetting that politics still have everything to do with us.

In the third place, the old media seem to blur our view of the past, as if they want us to like the present. Please mark my words while you are reading the newspaper or watching TV. People saying that the Britain of a few decades ago was a happier country, are scorningly described as frightened little people, as people who feel insecure because they can't keep pace with social changes, as nostalgic people idolizing Little England, as nagging fossiles longing for an England that has already vanished a long time ago. In the printed press, you'll frequently find stories beginning with lines like: "What must become of our country? Our youths are cheeky, people are ill-mannered and theft is soaring, according to Pharaoh Amonhutep, complaining to his counsellors in Egypt, 2400 BC. It only goes to show that complaints about declining morale and rising crime are ageless etc. etc." TV broadcasters like to show us footage from the recent past, putting the corny melody of a music hall piano beneath it, or the funny honking sound of a slapstick movie oldtimer. It ridicules the images we see, the images of stable families, tidy streets, polite people. These condescending practices distract Britain's attention from the deteriorations of the past decades, and this distraction is carried out by the very institutions that ought to neutrally inform us about these deteriorations: the old media.

In the fourth place, there is this remarkable omnipresence of the liberal-progressive ideas in the old media of the entire Western world. Newspapers all over Europe are lavishly sprinkling their stories with terms like 'globalisation', 'individualization', 'the necessity of migration', 'human rights', 'emancipation', 'racism' and 'populist parties exploiting xenophobic sentiments'. You can easily check this yourself with the aid of the internet search engine Just type in 'newspapers english edition', followed by your country of choice. A list of that country's main newspapers will then appear. Now if you read the leading articles in these foreign papers for some time, many reasonings and phrases in their stories will ring a bell. I find that the resemblance with our papers is striking. Or compare the contents of our newspapers with American TV series. Whenever, for instance, homosexuality is the subject, both sorts of media strongly suggest you are not supposed to look upon heterosexuality as the preferable behaviour. Yet, British newspapers and American TV series are being produced at a mutual distance the size of an ocean.

In the fifth place, the old media have an attitude problem. Let me explain this. It are the old media themselves that regularly show great concern about the negative influence of the old media - of the non-Western world, that is. During the 1996, 2000 and 2003 election campaigns in Russia, the Western media accused the Russian media of a pro-Yeltsin and pro-Putin partiality respectively. The Western media have reproached the Georgian media with demonizing the Chechens. British newspapers and opinion magazines are frequently describing Arab newspapers as meek government instruments. But in sharp contrast with all this accusing and reproaching stands the fact that the British old media never account for their own editorial guidelines. Programmes like 'Points of view' only scratch the surface a bit. The old media are like a man who taps you on the shoulder all the time and says: 'Look over there! Look at Kabul! Baghdad! Brussels! Downing Street! Wall Street! The President has said this! The Prime Minister has said that! Now let's see what's going on at Roland Garros!' But the old media never say: 'Now, have a look at us for a change. This is who we are. This is what we think. This is how we got our positions. This is why we report on these items and not on those items. This is why we report on these items with this particular tone of voice and this particular editing. This is why we ask these questions. This is why we never ask those questions.' So a noteworthy unbalance is visible in the old media's attitude. Eager for criticising the non-Western media, yet averse to self-criticism. Reluctant to expose themselves. It isn't fair.

But the sixth place has been reserved for the most peculiar aspect in my opinion. Most so-called liberal-progressive values became dominant in the old media around the same time, late 1960s, early 1970s. A strange coincidence, as these values refer to entirely different chapters of life. Opinions on social subjects can change of course. A long fostered mainstream idea may prove to have undesirable effects in daily life after all, and independent scientific progress yields better insights. However, merely from a statistical point of view, it's very unlikely that a society's fundamental values prove to be wrong all of them in the same decade. Yet, from the 1960s onwards, all traditional ideas concerning sexual morality, marriage, education, self-discipline, race, national identity and the fight against crime were declared obsolete and came under attack in the old media.


These and other observations have led me to a suspicion of such a terrible nature that I feel ashamed of writing it down, but I have to. I believe it is as good as certain that the old media are spreading destructive ideas on purpose. It seems to me that the British media are deliberately harming the long-term interests of the British people.

Now, I am full aware that this is an enormous and very grave accusation. In fact, I can vividly imagine that you'll think there is something wrong with me, that I have a sick mind myself instead of the media people. Do I have a sick mind? I think not, but that is no proof. I won't appear as my own solicitor in this case. But leaving aside the question as to whether I have a sick mind or not, fact is there are of course (other) people with sick minds (as well). So even if I have a paranoid mind, that doesn't rule out the possibility there are sick minds active in Britain's old media.

But let's return to my suspicion now. What I am presenting to you, is the serious possibility that the old media are engaged in a subversive warfare against the British people. Now, the concept of subversive warfare is not new. And we don't have to travel to the other end of the world to find a historical example of it. Britain itself has once orchestrated undermining activities to subjugate a people. There was a time Britain intentionally smuggled opium into China in order to break the resistance and the spirit of the Chinese people. Not exactly our finest hour that. Another colonial empire was involved in the same scandalous racket as well: Holland, surprise, surprise. During the colonisation of America, it happened that Indian tribes got as much alcohol from the Westerners as they could swallow, only to be massacred a little later, while they were drunk.

A more recent strategy for slowly destroying a people was allegedly written by John Foster Dulles, American Secretary of State in the 1950s. He was one of the strategists behind the Cold War with the Soviet Union, a state with more than 100 peoples within its borders at the time. He is reported to have written in 1945:

'After we have spread chaos in the Soviet Union, we shall stealthily exchange their own values for fake values and we shall let them believe in those fake values. We will find our supporters and allies in Russia itself. Scene after scene, the grandiose tragedy of the ruin of the toughest people on earth will unfold before our eyes. We will witness the definitive, irreversible extinguishing of its self-awareness. We will delete the social significance of Russian art and literature in stages. We will deprive the artists of their desire to research and portray the emotional processes which take place deeply in the people's masses. On the contrary, literature, film and theatre will depict and extol the lowest of human feelings. Wherever possible, we'll support phoney artists who will ram the cult of sex, violence, sadism, betrayal, in short every immoral conduct, into people's heads. In civil service, we shall create chaos and turn things into a shambles. Unnoticed but energetically and constantly, we will contribute to civil servants adopting a headstrong and corrupt attitude without principles. Honesty and decency will become ridiculous things no-one cares about anymore, they will become remnants of a forgotten past. Caddish and loutish behaviour, lies and deceit, drunkenness and drug addictions, fear of one another, treason, nationalism, enmity between the Soviet peoples and especially hatred towards the Russian people - all this we shall cunningly and secretly cultivate, all this will bloom. Only a few will guess or even understand what's going on. But we'll manoeuvre those persons into a helpless position, we'll make them the laughing stock of the country, we'll find excuses to gossip about them and we'll find ways to publicly brand them as society's trash. We shall drag through the mire and annihilate the very foundations of morality. We'll keep putting our hopes in the Russian youth: we shall demoralize and pervert it, we'll make it degenerate.'

This plan was attributed to the US minister in a 1998 essay of Aleksandr Zinoviev, a former professor from Moscow. Mr Zinoviev went to the West a dissident in the 1970s. His sympathy for the so-called ordinary Russians inspired him to criticise both Soviet totalitarianism and the megacapitalist takeover during the Yeltsin years. Although I have no reason to doubt his integrity, I've tried to find another source to confirm his quotation, but I haven't found any.

Nonetheless, this strategy for psychological warfare sheds light on something very awful. Malevolent peoples not only can harm other peoples by means of the physical violence of bomber planes and concentration camps, but also by means of psychological aggression, by means of systematical and organized underhandedness, carried out over a longer period of time. Besides war, persecution and mass murder, this is also a scheme which the darkest corners of the human mind can dream up in order to weaken or ruin other peoples.


The question then arises: 'But if television and the other media are indeed being misused to harm the British people, who then are behind this? And why are they doing it? In whose interest might it be?' Well, I can't give you a list with names and addresses, because I can't know what an individual media leader is thinking while he gives the go-ahead for an undermining newspaper story or TV script. I can't prove the existence of malicious motives, in case a mediacrat has them.

But I do know there is a connection between the old media and an influential book the author of which is inciting his readers to confuse other people. The book literally says 'confusion'. Now, before paying attention to this book, let's investigate how a nation can be confused by means of the old media.


Every nation has its own particular strengths and weaknesses, its opportunities, challenges and threats in any stage of its existence. And to deal with it, the nation wonders: 'What's the best we can do?' Now, let's indicate all the phoney values and all the ineffective, futile, deceptive, makeshift and other bad ideas, measures and laws with the collective term 'Method-5'. And let's call all the solid values and all the good, effective, time-honoured ideas, measures and laws with the collective term 'Method-7'. That sounds rather abstract, but this approach is helpful to keep my explanation as politically neutral as possible. Now, let's have a look at the first confusing trick:

By giving massive attention to a certain event or series of events, the media controllers are creating the suggestion that most people are considering these events to be the most important issue indeed. (i)

A way of fogging the viewers is constantly confronting them with conflicting arguments over a longer period of time in many news shows, instead of thoroughly exploring one argument at the time, then move on to the next argument and so on. (ii)

The media-controlling confuser constantly presents a problematic situation as a normal situation, suggesting there is no need for a discussion about a solution in the first place. A method for this misleading portrayal of the present is to talk about it in a tone of voice as if all reasonable people already agreed a long time ago that this situation is the best for everyone. A refinement: every now and then a Method-7 supporter is portrayed as a troublemaker who is a threat to the so-called normal situation. (iii)

If the problem can't be ignored any longer, the malevolent media director sees to it that only the supporters of Method-5 are invited to the studio. The Method-7 supporters simply don't get the opportunity to pass on their ideas to the TV audience. After the discussion, a hypocritical presenter may even tell the public they've been watching a stimulating spicy debate in which all standpoints could be heard. (iv)

A variation. Every now and then, a supporter of Method-7 is invited to the studio too, but the interviewer is clearly a supporter of Method-5 himself. He interrupts his guest all the time, so the TV audience don't get a chance to reflect on the pro-Method-7-arguments in ease. While his guest tries to make his case, the interviewer's face expresses utter disbelief, cynicism, amusement, even pity. The ill-informed and easy impressionable among the viewers will then get the feeling there's something wrong with Method-7, that it is ridiculous or pathetic or way out of date. (v)

An interviewer seeking to confuse his audience, might resort to putting words in someone's mouth. He won't ask: 'What ought to be done, in your opinion?', but questions like: 'So Method-5 is the best thing to do, in your opinion?' (vi)

Malevolent media controllers may be denying that the problem is a problem for decades, and then suddenly turn round and say that the problem has become so big, we all should learn to live with it, since the problem can't be solved anymore. (vii)

The interviewer might suddenly accuse his guest of hidden personal interests. The public, until that moment trusting the Method-7 guest to have sincere motives, will then feel suspicious about him. Even if he manages to give a firm convincing answer right away, his credibility will have been corroded in the eyes of many a viewer. (viii)

A prejudiced interviewer can start hammering on flaws in the guest's career, suggesting that his support for Method-7 is not based on a honest conviction or a well-founded analysis, but on frustration and rancour. (ix)

The confuser's news programme contains a succession of six, seven short street interviews. First, we get to see some people advocating Method-7, then some people promoting Method-5. That seems balanced, but the last remark in such a succession has the biggest influencing impact on the average viewer. (x)

Attending grave matters, a dishonest interviewer can ask a Method-5 politician all the questions the worried viewers would ask, suggesting that he, the interviewer, understands the concern in many a British living-room. But then, he allows the politician to get away with wishy-washy answers. The interview must remain superficial. The interviewer will not dig deeply into this politician's motivation and principles. (xi)

Both a Method-7 and a Method-5 supporter are being interviewed. But the former is interviewed on tape at home, while the latter gets an invitation to come to the studio. Firstly, both the presenter and his guest have a look at the recorded interview with the Method-7 man. The Method-5 man gives his comment thereafter. In this way, the 7-supporter can't react to what the other person is saying, whereas the 5-supporter can start his story with saying things like 'I must say, I find his comment typical for the lack of subtlety at the 7-side' or 'Regretfully, again no fresh arguments to be found there'. (xii)

In their questions, partial interviewers will persistently emphasize the responsibilities, duties, inconsistencies and failures of the Method-7-supporters, and they will persistently disguise the responsibilities, duties, inconsistencies and failures of the Method-5-supporters. The other way around: in their questions, the interviewers will persistently disguise the rights, difficulties and correct predictions of the 7-people, but persistently emphasize the rights, difficulties and correct predictions of the 5-people. (xiii)

A TV presenter with malign intentions can try to increase the viewers' support for Method-5 indirectly. In his report or questions to a studio guest, he will weave things like: 'According to many people, Method-5 would be the best choice now'. In this way, he can't be accused of supporting Method-5 directly. He'd say: 'I was just referring to other people, some experts I know'. This effective trick, which is played many times, has yet another result. Suppose, 2% of the population are in favour of Method-5, and 30% are in favour in Method-7. He can then confuse those 30% by referring to the 2% as the 'many people who prefer Method-5'. He isn't even lying then, because 2% of the population are about 1.2 million people, and yes, you can call that 'many people' alright. So by this choice of words, the confusing interviewer is creating a virtual, non-existing majority in every living-room where people watch him. In this way, he is weakening the inner conviction of 18 million people, namely the 30% preferring Method-7, because he doesn't mention their preference at all. (xiv)

Another trick is attacking the choice of words of the 7-side to distract the viewers' attention from the content. Suppose, a Method-7 and a Method-5 politician are debating in a studio. The 5-man says something untrue or distorting. The 7-man starts to refute the allegation. A malevolent interviewer will then undermine his reply by criticising his choice of words. Any choice of words can be criticised. If his words are friendly, the interviewer can say: 'Why, your refutation sounds rather feeble, doesn't it?' But if the 7-supporter choses strong words, the interviewer, faking amazement, will say: 'Why, what's the use of lashing out like this? We'll get nowhere this way' As a result, the content of the 7-refutation gets ignored and many viewers will believe the 7-side's case isn't very strong. (xv)

A frequently applied trick is wrapping a surprise accusation in a 'why' question. Such a malicious question throws the interviewed person off balance immediately. Man in the street: 'I don't understand why the government is doing so much for Method-5 people, they are really overdoing it' - Interviewer: 'Why do you hate Method-5 people?' Now, picture the interviewed person. He gives his opinion, which is perhaps shared by many others in his surroundings. He is feeling somewhat intimidated by the TV crew, one of them carrying a stick with a large muffled microphone, another one with a big TV camera on his shoulder, and the interviewer, who keeps a microphone under his nose and probably looks at him with piercing eyes. 'Why do you hate Method-5 people?'. In this way, the interviewer is insolently suggesting that the interviewed man must be a hateful person. It's both confusing and intimidating. (xvi)

Backhanded interviewers may secretly prepare their interviews with Method-5 politicians. Before the programme, he tells the politician which questions he will ask, so that the latter can prepare his answers. (xvii)

Another anti-7 media ploy is attacking the Method-7 studio guest off guard. This is accomplished by pampering him before the programme is on the air. Once the guest has arrived at the studio, the insincere interviewer will do everything to make him feel comfortable. He will ask if the guest could find his way to the studio easily. He will worry if his guest is hungry. He will confess that he needs the guest's expertise for a private matter, so he submissively asks him if it's OK to continue their conversation after the interview. So at the moment the programme begins, the Method-7 man expects it will be a relaxed nice interview with a nice host, only to realize he has been fooled while he unsteadily tries to deflect an array of vicious questions, coming from the treacherous interviewer, whose eyes are now exposing his true nature, visible to the guest only. (xviii)

In case a spectacular event strongly corroborates the Method-7 viewpoint, a malevolent interviewer might try the following. He contacts the person who was involved in that event and he offers him a TV interview, but only if this person signs an exclusivity contract, in which he promises he will only talk about the event with that particular broadcasting company. He signs the contract. He is interviewed on videotape. The interviewer then decides not to air the tape. The person involved can't contact other media because of the contract and the public will never know they were deprived of a convincing interview in favour of Method-7. (xix)

What are the most important pieces of text in a newspaper? It are the headlines. Newspapers have a special man for writing them. The headline compresses the content of the story to a few words, abling the reader, whose eyes are scanning every new page in a split-second, to decide whether he should read it or not. Malevolent newspaper owners take care that the headlines are mostly worded in such a way, that the reader gets the feeling he ought to take sides with the Method-5 supporters. (xx)

In the communication industries, the pictures of children, animals and marriages are well-known for their reader-enchanting powers. So if newspaper owners and TV makers want to confuse you, their newspapers and programmes will often be enriched with Method-5 related children. (xxi)

The mediacrat who wants to dupe the public, misuses the fact that even the best possible solution for a problem, has relatively minor disadvantages. This is true for all solutions in all countries of all times. So if he wants to discredit the better Method-7, he'll magnify these disadvantages to grotesque wrongs which immerse a number of people in blatant injustice. For instance, he'll order the production of documentaries focusing on these disadvantages. A well-chosen title raises doubts about Method-7 from the outset: 'Method-7. The end of an era?' You'll see long interviews with those who are disadvantaged (or just claim they are). The images tear your heart out. The music accompanying these images is composed by some depressing German synthesizer band. The narrator's voice is marked by deep concern and indignation. Experts are interviewed. The pro-Method-5-expert says things like: 'There is this growing desire in our country for an unprejudiced investigation of the benefits of Method-5' and the interviewer doesn't ask him to prove the existence of that growing desire. The pro-Method-7-expert says things like: 'Method-7 has done good work for our country for ages', the interviewer replying: 'Why are you so afraid for an independent debate on this?', cornering him in a defensive position. (xxii)

The long-term advantages of Method-7 are hardly mentioned or kept silent year after year, so that most people will forget about it in the long run. Its disadvantages are amplified and misused in awkward questions to its supporters. The few meagre advantages of Method-5 are exaggerated, by giving much endearing media attention to the few who benefit from it. Method-5's great disadvantages are played down, denied or simply laughed away. Some of them are even presented as an advantage. The many who suffer by Method-5 are never interviewed or attacked. (xxiii)

Another scheme to confuse us coheres with the fact that for nearly every idea, no matter how ill-considered, unwise or bizarre it is, eloquent and well-bred advocates can be found. It is a statistical phenomenon that goes for every country. So the dishonest media man gives the eloquent fools lots of attention, hoping his well-meaning nonsense will confuse many of us. Televised panel discussions, full-page newspaper interviews, magazine stories with stylish photography, radio programmes about him and his music of choice, the works. (xxiv)

The media manipulator gives lots of print space and air time to Method-7 renegades. There's something energetic about some renegades. They constantly want to prove to the outside world that this time, they know they are right. So sitting in the studio, they shake their heads while another guest, still believing in Method-7, explains how he sees things. Later on, after the broadcast, he will have some good laughs with his new Method-5 friends, who watched the show carefully, some of them maybe still wondering whether he really belongs to their side now. (xxv)

An obscuring programme can be made by showing the metamorphosis of a Method-7 supporter into a Method-5 supporter. Initially, the man or woman says all kinds of things most living-rooms wholeheartedly agree with. Yet, the presenter works on him. He will invite him to a Method-5 people's place for instance. There, slowly but unmistakably, in an atmosphere of fraternization, the TV audience will be confronted with the reversal of the once strong opinions of the 7-man. He will speak assentingly about the arguments he never realized before. He will change his mind in front of numerous TV spectators and these will be the effects on them: the Method-5 side will feel victorious. The neutral part will incline to Method-5. A part of the 7-supporters will make the same reversal. Another part of them, once rightly convinced of the superiority of Method-7, will start having doubts. The remainder of the 7-supporters will feel deserted. (xxvi)

The confuser gratefully uses the fact that among the Method-7-supporters, there are always some people who, in all sincerity, erroneously interpret the basic principles of Method-7 in such a way, that their opinions effectively reinforce Method-5. Some of them may even come to mistake Method-5 for Method-7. The media misuser will give him a lot of attention in order to create and worsen dissent within the Method-7 elite and to undermine the persuasion of its supporters. (xxvii)

When the nation's opinion climate slowly begins to shift from the traditional positive attitude towards Method-7 to the new-found 'wisdoms' of Method-5, an almost predictable shift of attitude will take place in the minds of some who've always belonged to the Method-7 side. Every elite has its own opportunists. They are the people who've always expressed their sympathy for Method-7 for the sake of formality, but who've actually been more interested in the nice jobs and positions that came with it. And once they are noticing, earlier than others, that the days of Method-7 are numbered and that the Method-5 era is about to move in its place, they cautiously begin to move too.

The confusers' taperecorders and notepads are already waiting patiently:

'Everybody knows I've never participated in tabooizing Method-5' & 'Apparently, there is far more common ground between Method-7 and Method-5 than most of us always assumed' & 'Despite our political differences, my personal friendship with John Five goes back a long time' & 'I believe that in these times, Method-5 is more 7-ive than Method-7 has been itself in ages' & 'I beg your pardon?! Twenty years ago I was among the first to acknowledge that some of the main ideas of Method-5 were worthwhile discussing!' And once their slippery opinions have been published, the interviewer makes an appointment with a genuine Method-7 advocate, confronts him with the so-called mind-changer, asks him non-stop partial questions and thus creates a virtual 2-against-1 situation. For the less steadfast among the readers of this and similar interviews, the Method-7 arguments start to look more and more obsolete. (xxviii)

Even if the mistaken and the opportunists are but a tiny minority, the systematical overexposure and up-imaging of their mind-shift will contribute to the origin of cracks and damage in the once solid Method-7 building. The confuser will misuse their opinions as acid drops to make a hairline crack and as a crowbar to widen the crack. (xxix)

The confusing mediacrat will do everything to obstruct the career of a Method-7 politician during his rise to power. But if he takes power, that same mediacrat will broadcast all kinds of interviews with enthusiast Method-7 supporters and hypocritical experts who will explain how strong the position of the new leader is. The tenor of these post-election programmes will be: 'The Method-7 politician has really everything going for him now, it's a piece of cake for him to materialize his goals'. Experts who know there are a lot of difficulties waiting for the new man, aren't interviewed at all.

The goal of the confuser is to force people's expectations to such a high extent, the achievements of the new administration are bound to disappoint, even if they amount to a welcome improvement of the earlier situation.

And after two years or so, the confuser will exploit that disappointment to down-image the 7-side even more intensively than he already did before the elections. To create the right mood, he might show you archive images of the jubilant 7-party congress celebrating the victory, directly followed by a torn poster of the 7-party, its fragments fluttering in the wind, while you hear a displeased saxophone and a similar narrator's voice, describing the transition from high hopes to reality raw. You'll see interviews with well-meaning disappointed people, announcing they'll probably vote for the 5-party again next time. You won't see interviews with voters who are glad with what has been achieved, or but a few. You'll see interviews with triumphant Method-5 politicians saying: 'Well, apparently the political reality isn't that easy to change as Mister Seven always yells it is'. Of course, the confuser has been so clever to broadcast many times the moments the 7-leader was carried away by his enthusiasm, and not to broadcast the moments the 7-leader realistically discussed the forthcoming problems facing him and his team. (xxx)

All political sides have a number of supporters who make an unfavourable impression by the way they look and talk. It's a fact of life. So, the confuser will consistently show unpleasant Method-7 supporters and them alone, because he knows that this down-imaging distortion will contribute to discrediting Method-7. He knows that nobody wants to belong to a group of unpleasant people. This is another example of silent psychological warfare. (xxxi)

Related to the previous. The support for Method-5 can be indirectly enhanced by fostering sympathy for its supporters. Media people know many ways to make a person look nice. It's often done with subtle details. The TV shows a Method-5 professor giving his opinion, while he helps his little daughter draw. He tells amusing anecdotes. With a sigh, he points at a pile of letters and faxes from his friends all over the world he still has to answer. We hear his voice tell childhood stories about how his poor but cheerful father tried to make ends meet, while close-ups direct our attention to lots of honourable declarations, hanging on the wall. The neighbour's wife enters the room with a big smile and a fantastic chocolate cake. The admiring interviewer asks him how he managed to continue his work for Method-5 while his arm was in a cast. (xxxii)

Of course, it works the same the other way around. An ill-wishing media man will put Method-7's leading advocate in a disagreeable atmosphere. So from the footage the camera team have gathered, the following fragments are selected. We see him in a wooden moment with the neighbour's wife, a misunderstanding hampering their conversation. We get long extreme close-ups of his face. (The viewers don't like such an intruding face in their living-room.) While the man is defending Method-7 against prejudiced and one-sided questioning, the TV constantly shows how his fingers nervously drum on the table. We see a long close-up of some horrible plastic cuckoo clock he got from his silly aunt, but which he forgot to remove before the television crew arrived. When he says he has this interesting document he wants to show, he accidentally drops the file on the floor. The interviewer gets the man mad, but the former stays calm and says: 'The viewers simply want to know your position on this important matter'. Outside in the street a dog pees against a fence. (xxxiii)

A confuser can manipulate the public by giving a negative emotional charge to an existing word or term. That's done by consistently putting these words in the context of negative articles and TV items. Because of the consistency with which it's done, the unsympathetic undertone will become attached to that word automatically. The negative tenor has this radiating, this contaminating effect. May I invite you to do a little test here, to point out what I mean?

This is what I'll do. I will write down a term, and once you've read it, please check whether this term raises a positive, a neutral or a negative feeling in you. I hope you'll want to do this carefully, otherwise this test is pointless. I then will ask you some questions.

Here comes the term:

South-American large-landowner

I repeat:

South-American large-landowner

If this term raises a positive or neutral feeling in you, I fail to make my point.

If the term 'South-American large-landowner' raises a negative feeling in you, then this is my question. Have you ever had bad experiences with one or more South-American large-landowners? If so, I am sorry to hear that, and I fail to make my point.

But if the term 'South-American large-landowner' gives rise to a negative feeling in you, and you've never had a bad experience with one, in fact, you've never met one, I think we've hit something interesting here. Where does this negative feeling come from, if you have never met one? In my view, the only explanation is my observation that whenever the old media report on the role of large-landowners in South-American countries, it is done with a negative undertone. The old media are always interviewing the poor peasants, they are always interviewing the galant trade-unionists standing up for these poor peasants, they are always interviewing Marxist priests standing up for both the trade-unionists and the poor peasants, whereas the large-landowners are invariably described as a bunch of super rich, cruel, heartless, junta supporting, death squad financing bastards. Now, I do want to be cautious here, because maybe their activities are indeed despicable. I don't know any of them, I've never been there and I don't want to offend any victims, I like to stress that.

But to the best of my knowledge, I can't recall ever having read or seen neutral interviews with Argentinian or Chilean large-landowners, who got the opportunity to tell their side of the story, to talk about their values and responsibilities, their view on politics, and to talk about the good things they do (if they do them).

So by continuously giving unbalanced reports on South-American politics, the old media have provided the words 'South-American large-landowner' with a negative, repulsive emotion. And if media manipulators can do it with these words, they can do it with other words as well. Words can be artificially loaded with emotions. (xxxiv)

Let's continue with another manner of manipulating a nation. Slander. A simple trick of damaging the Method-7's side trustworthiness. Even if the insulted person goes to court and wins his case, he'll never be able to completely chase away the atmosphere of controversy which the slanderers have created around him. (xxxv)

The insincere media leader may invent a new nasty term and pound people's heads with it, like big advertisers do with their invented brand names. What's the first brand name you think of when I am hinting at some brown sweet bubbling lemonade, sold all over the world? Do you like that particular brand of brown sweet bubbling lemonade the most? I prefer the other brand of brown sweet lemonade.

Do you notice I made you think of two brand names now without mentioning either of them? That's the psychological force of constant repetition for you.

So the confuser makes up disagreeable terms and words to smear Method-7, and at the same time, he makes up nice-sounding terms and words in favour of Method-5. He makes up words that actually camouflage the bad effects of Method-5. He invents treacherous words that strongly suggest the bad effect is a good effect. Words can make certain ideas repulsive or attractive. (xxxvi)

A TV audience can be confused by broadcasting a talk show, in which the unsuspecting guests are talking about a deceptive question of the host. A real example here. I once saw a talk show about the increase of armed robberies in supermarkets. This is the question the TV host opened with: 'The number of armed robberies in supermarkets is rising. The supermarkets are blaming the police for not showing up in time, the police are blaming the supermarkets for not taking enough security measures. Who's right?'. A totally fruitless discussion between police and supermarket representatives then followed. Was this confusion the TV host's intention? I happen to know there is a connection between her and the book that promotes confusion. Her opening question didn't relate to the key cause of armed robberies: armed robbers. So by her introduction, she distracted the viewers' attention from the key cause and she set two groups of non-robbers against each other. (xxxvii)

Suppose, the Method-7 to tackle a certain problem consists of a two-track policy. So two parallel sets of measures are required to solve that problem, not one. In other words, an 'and-and'-policy is necessary. The trick to mislead the viewers is then to present the problem and blur Method-7 by constantly starting panel discussions, interviews and talkshow items by saying 'Should we do this OR that?' and 'Some people are saying we ought to do this, but others say we must do that'. (xxxviii)

News presenters and correspondents can confuse us by discussing what other people 'really' mean, what other people are 'really' after, what other people are 'really' hoping for, without explaining to the public how on earth they, the presenters and the correspondents, can know what these other people are thinking, while the persons concerned are not invited to react to these speculations. If these absent people are in favour of Method-7, it's obvious they are after all sorts of bad things 'really'. (xxxix)

A 'fine' confusion stimulant is the unfounded use of the words 'we', 'nobody' and 'everybody' in televised discussions. Just listen how often prominent people say things like: 'Well, we always assumed this-and-this, but now we have to realize that-and-that'. They don't specify on behalf of which 'we' they are speaking. Not seldom it are politicians who messed things up and now try to avoid their responsibility by losing themselves in the very large, very safe 'we' of 'we British'.

An example with 'nobody'. Suppose, Britain has this big problem you'd wish Downing Street resolve it with Method-7. One evening you're watching a discussion programme and that particular problem is discussed by the guests. They all agree it's a pretty stiff problem, sure, they all agree this and that solution didn't work out, yes, but then, one of them says in this matter-of-factly tone of voice: 'But nobody wants the Government to resort to Method-7, that's obvious'. The others nod in approval immediately. 'No, nobody wants that' seems to be the general feeling of consent - in that particular studio, in that single building, that is. But if our houses weren't made of stone but of glass, you'd probably see millions of British men and women feeling disappointed just like you, feeling pushed in the defensive just like you, feeling uneasy just like you, as if there is something wrong with common sense. Only because five people behind a table somewhere in Britain say: 'Nobody wants Method-7', and because there was a TV camera present.

You can witness the political misuse of 'everybody' very often in the media. A stark example in the past was Frank Sinatra's record 'Everybody votes for Jack'. It was meant to boost John F. Kennedy's campaign in the 1960 elections. Nearly the half of Sinatra's 'everyone' decided to vote for Richard Nixon.

So the improper use of 'we', 'everybody' and 'nobody' is another trick to create the deceptive illusion of a non-existing majority consensus, causing millions of people or even the real majority grow insecure. (xxxx)

The Method-7 insights and proposals can be made downright dirty by producing TV and film scenes in which these opinions are expressed by really obnoxious characters. We get to see a man who is rude towards waitresses, children or old people. Or it is a man who is coarsely replying to someone who tries to help him. It may be a man who mangles difficult words and who's telling vulgar jokes all the time, he himself being the only one who laughs. The actor may play an arrogant prominent man, dispensing humiliating wisecracks at the expense of people in less important positions. It may be someone who has been lecturing others on duty and loyalty and courage in the old days, but who proves to be a coward in the hour of danger himself. We might see a little greedy man in action, prepared to ignore even the absolute minimum of dignity in order to grab a few lousy bucks from helpless people. And while he talks about his scheme, he doesn't seem to realize how disgusting he is. Watching him makes us feel awkward.

And then, he vents his sympathy for Method-7 or its champions.

In that way, the malevolent producer hopes to implant a wordless message in our minds: 'Surely, you don't want to be like him, such a detestable person? Surely, you don't want to sound like him? Surely, these are not the kind of people you want to be associated with, not even in the remotest sense? And if you dare to admit to yourself you agree with him, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, because you're thinking things punks are thinking'. Consequently, the artificially created obnoxiousness of a fictitious screen character smirches the Method-7 arguments that would be constructive in real life politics. (xxxxi)

A confuser has not a field day, but a field era if he succeeds in malignantly connecting Method-7 with violent excesses of the past. Yes, he knows that Method-5 can be easily connected with excessive misery too, many political convictions can, but he doesn't care that much about self-scrutiny and fairness. Yes, independent thinkers know he's playing a foul trick, but since these independent thinkers are never put in front of a TV camera live at prime time for an hour without interruptions, nobody gets the wiser. The confuser won't allow anyone to come between him and his propagandistic goldmine. He will exploit it on and on. In case the confusers own newspapers, their interviewers will monitor the reasonings of the interviewed politicians with the alertness of bloodhounds. They are trained to think three, four, five standard replies ahead. And the moment the politician gives a 7-opinion that even just remotely might link to wrongs of the past, the interviewer intervenes, saying: 'But aren't you entering a dangerous terrain here?', driving the man back to the herd of neat 5-people, like a collie does with a wandering sheep. And many an unsuspecting reader will think: 'Well done'. (xxxxii)

If the confuser owns a television channel, he'll use a technique called sandwiching to discredit the Western dissident. Sandwiching can be done in several manners. For instance, we see a good 5-guy first. He mentions some of the hopeless prejudices that are so characteristic for the 7-idiocy. Then the heretic himself enters the screen, saying exactly some of the things the first man just described. After him, a second good guy appears. He looks worried and explains how similar gruesome ideas once led to human catastrophes. Footage of the excesses is shown: mad dictators, violent mobs, bombed cities, piles of bodies. (Of course, the piles of bodies that could be related to Method-5 are rarely shown on television by the confuser. Just enough to make a feeble case for his objectivity.) (xxxxiii)

Why did I call the 'Method-7-and-excesses-connection' a propagandistic goldmine? Because it enables the confuser to realize his ultimate dream. If he and the likes of him go about it with much patience and intelligence, they can create a set of veritable taboos that will serve their interests for a long, long time. (xxxxiv)

By the way, how can confusers turn a good argument into 'a hopeless prejudice'? Simply by calling it 'a hopeless prejudice' for thirty years in newspaper and magazine stories. How can dishonest mediacrats turn a respected scientist into a 'controversial' scientist? Simply by giving much media space to a less gifted opponent of that scientist, so the former can distort the dispute they once had, and then call the latter 'controversial' in hundreds of broadcasts. As a result of this, the better scientist can actually become a pariah in the scientific world. (xxxxv)

The malevolent TV executive will seek close co-operation with deceitful executives of other media. Their aim will be to up-image Method-5 and to down-image Method-7 in all sorts of media. They will overexpose all people and events that reinforce the 5-case, they will underexpose all people and events that reinforce the 7-case. The pro-5-signals and anti-7- signals must approach our way of thinking from all directions, so that all signals will amplify each other, in order to streamline our thinking perspective, like a magnet does with iron filings. It is not enough to down-image Method-7 in news programmes only. Why not use the big popularity of a daily soap as well? So a convenient script is written, the soap actors rehearse their lines and gestures, they follow the director's instructions, the sound boys select the required audience recordings from their electronic archives, and after a day's work at the studio, this is one of the scenes millions of people will be confronted with. One of the characters, introduced as a colleague of the male star a few episodes ago, initially seemed a nice bloke. But then, at a party, he suddenly says some ugly 7-ish things. Everybody in the room freezes. The audience utter 'Ohhhhh' to air their dismay. The male star looks at him as if he smells a skunk. The female star finally condemns him by saying, after a few seconds of tension-building silence: 'There is no room in my life for 7-ists', and the scoundrel leaves in a hurry.

A few weeks later, your newspaper publishes a big interview with this famous actress. Many aspects of her career, her expectations and her personal life get attention. The interviewer then asks her how she prepared for that difficult anti-7-ism scene. She confides to him it took her a lot of trouble indeed, because 7-ism is really one of those few things she simply can't stand. The cosy tenor of the interview reaches the four corners of the nation, as the newspaper has a four-million-copy circulation.

A few months later, a cheerful TV presenter tells you everything about a planned big-time festival in Brighton, with lots of celebs and music and fireworks, in an amazingly large tent an engineer tells a fascinating story about, and she tells you the motto of that festival is 'Give 5 a Hi-5!' A choir of hundred children is singing a song with that title and, well, what do you know, there is our soap star again, filmed while she's giving signatures to the kids, and she tells the interviewer that she and the children are about to make a CD of the song, and that the revenues of the CD sells will go straight to the International 5-Fund, for which her world famous designer boy-friend is already busy creating this marvellous logo, that will adorn teen mag advertisements, T-shirts, stickers, mugs, bags, flags, a zeppelin, a water-base painted elephant and other media the coming months. (xxxxvi)

And finally, to complete my list of confusing tricks, some special attention now for the good old lie. Any serious confusing can't do without lies, that's obvious. Since the Method-5 values, ideas and measures are worse than Method-7's, a lot of lies are needed to up-image Method-5 in spite of that. And a fair number of skilled liars too. (xxxxvii)

Lies, told with convincing faces and convincing voices, can achieve a lot for confusers. That's why they will polish the lie to perfection. It helps if the lie is well-phrased. It helps if it has the qualities of a good slogan, if it sounds catchy, if it's easy to remember. It helps much if the lie is reproduced by well-meaning nice people on TV, nice football players, nice actors, nice singers, nice award winning people, nice children's heroes. It helps if the lie is told by people who are really nice or just look nice, one cannot always tell the difference, nice TV hosts, nice experts, nice politicians. The effect of the lie rapidly increases if it is copied numerous times in all sorts of media. Thanks to the confusers, we are living in the age of the multi-media lie.

It helps if the liar gets a beautiful lighting. An embellishing lighting can give the liar the sheen of the noble most humanitarian principles. The aura of progress, for the benefit of all mankind. The halo of moral supremacy. The shine of peace, the shine of peace-loving. In fact, the confuser will do his utmost to stick his lies to the values of humanity, peace, progress and decency. He knows very well that those who are to be confused - we - are genuinely longing for humanity, progress, peace and decency. This deep-rooted desire makes us vulnerable for political deception, more or less. So what he has to do is to disguise the right lies by the right humane, peaceful, decent words, put these into well written sentences, and see to it that these sentences are broadcast and printed many times. This approach gives him the best chance that the largest possible part of the public won't recognise the lies and swallow them obediently. (xxxxviii)

Many of the aforementioned tricks are played by insincere, or benevolent but weak politicians as well.

We have to return to the lie for a moment. It may sound strange, but a lie is something people can get used to. The professionally lied lie can become quite familiar, even quite reassuring in the long run. Why is that? Because many people, if not all of us, are unconsciously but constantly searching for inner security. They are constantly looking for things to hold on to. And if they are told major lies year after year, lies that finally get the status of a dominant value, there comes a time that those lies will provide a phoney grip for them. They simply don't recognise it as a phoney grip. Maybe they don't even want to recognise it as such. All they are interested in is the 'grip' part of the phoney grip. And the more people around them do the same, the better they will feel. The safer they will feel.

Now, imagine these people are confronted with stunning facts, with truths that have it in them to shed an astonishingly different light upon the media, upon politics, upon society, they then might very well prefer the familiar lies to this totally unexpected panorama, because the amazing new facts threaten to crumble their phoney grip. I am not condemning these people, it's just the way many of us are. (I am not referring to you and me of course, we're above all that. We're still sitting in that helicopter, remember?)

Now, if we were asked to make a list of Method-7 ideas and measures, and Method-5 ideas and measures, everybody would show up with a different list. No two lists would be the same, since we all have our own particular views on life and politics, we all have our own unique experiences that influence our opinions, and we all have our own definitions of good and bad. Your classification into Method-7 and Method-5 is as good (or bad) as mine. So in order to work things out, in order to find the best solutions for our nation's problems, in order to consolidate the things that are going well, we need the free exchange of thoughts and ideas to arrive at the best possible measures. We need the disciplined mental clash of well-considered arguments to forge the best decisions for Britain, in an atmosphere of fairness and care for our people, and respect for other peoples. This is one of the classic foundations of democracy. And therefore, it is not up to me or you to decide for other people beforehand which arguments are Method-7 or Method-5. Yet, that means that any attempt to deliberately confuse that free exchange of thoughts, is a highly despicable, highly contemptible, sometimes indeed a highly threatening thing to do.

I am saying this, because I have to repeat there is this regrettable and alarming connection between the old media and an influential book that legitimizes the psychological warfare many tactics of which I've just described.

You probably know what Winston Churchill once said about mass deception. Cited from memory: 'It is possible to fool some people all the time and it is possible to fool everyone a short time. But it is impossible to fool everyone forever'. Let's focus on the second part: 'It is possible to fool everyone a short time'. Yes, it is, I think he's right. I am afraid we are being fooled since the 1960s.


It is important to realize that there have been a Jewish people before Moses wrote the Torah, but that's the book I've hinted at. The connection with the old media is the fact that many persons in the leading positions there are Jews, far more than their share in comparison with the size of the British population. (Source: a 1997 inventory article on the website of Radio Islam,, Choose language: English, scroll to Great Britain, link: Jewish media power in Great Britain. The webmasters have used down-imaging portraits. My mentioning this one-sided website doesn't mean that I agree with its one-sidedness.)

The Torah is the holiest text of the current Jewish faith. The Hebrew word 'Torah' means 'the things that must be learnt'. It consists of five ancient books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri and Deuteronomy. The Torah is the first and oldest part of the Tanach, which we call the Old Testament. (The T in Tanach stands for Torah.) There is some dispute about the question whether Moses was indeed the author. I'll depend on the conviction of many prominent rabbis that he was, and that Moses is the most important leader in Jewish history. The religious prescriptions in the Torah are therefore called 'the Mosaic laws'.

The Torah is world famous for, among many other things, the Ten Commandments. I'll pay attention to them in section 6.3.4. The Ten Commandments compress very much wisdom of life, gathered by the world's most intelligent people, in only ten rules, one rule for every finger of our hands, not difficult to remember. In current times, many think the Ten Commandments are limiting man's freedom. I believe the opposite is true. The Ten Commandments help us to live our lifes cautiously. They help us to adapt to a life style which offers us real freedom, the freedom to fully enjoy our lifes without hurting or slowly wrecking ourselves and others.

However, in sharp contrast with the fame of the Ten Commandments stands the obscurity of a number of disconcerting passages in the Torah and Tanach I am about to quote here. Before I continue, please realize that not a single Jew in our time can be held accountable for the existence of the following texts. They have been written thousands of years ago. According to Moses, the Torah was dictated to him by the god 'Yahweh', or 'HaShem' in daily Jewish language, 'the Lord your God' in English. Sometimes, in Exodus for instance, Yahweh is the "I" person. I'll give an interpretation in modern English afterwards.


And the LORD said to Moses, 'When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.' (Exodus 4:21)

'Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.' (Exodus 23:9)

'But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars.' (Exodus 23:22-24)

'I will send My fear before you, I will cause confusion among all the people to whom you come, and will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you. I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased, and you inherit the land.' (Exodus 23:27-30)

Now when Moses saw that the people were unrestrained (for Aaron had not restrained them, to their shame among their enemies), then Moses stood in the entrance of the camp, and said, "Whoever is on the LORD's side--come to me!" And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor." So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day. Then Moses said, "Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, that He may bestow on you a blessing this day, for every man has opposed his son and his brother." (Exodus 32:25-29)

'Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst.' (Exodus 34:12)

'And as for those of you who are left, I will send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; the sound of a shaken leaf shall cause them to flee; they shall flee as though fleeing from a sword, and they shall fall when no one pursues. They shall stumble over one another, as it were before a sword, when no one pursues; and you shall have no power to stand before your enemies.' (Leviticus 26:36-37, part of HaShem's announcement of revenge on disobedient Jews)

So Israel made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities." And the LORD listened to the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites, and they utterly destroyed them and their cities. So the name of that place was called Hormah. (Numeri 21:2,3)

When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire. For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)

If you should say in your heart, "These nations are greater than I; how can I dispossess them?'-- you shall not be afraid of them, but you shall remember well what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt: the great trials which your eyes saw, the signs and the wonders, the mighty hand and the outstretched arm, by which the LORD your God brought you out. So shall the LORD your God do to all the peoples of whom you are afraid. Moreover the LORD your God will send the hornet among them until those who are left, who hide themselves from you, are destroyed. You shall not be terrified of them; for the LORD your God, the great and awesome God, is among you. And the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you little by little; you will be unable to destroy them at once, lest the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. But the LORD your God will deliver them over to you, and will inflict defeat upon them until they are destroyed. And He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you will destroy their name from under heaven; no one shall be able to stand against you until you have destroyed them. You shall burn the carved images of their gods with fire; you shall not covet the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, lest you be snared by it; for it is an abomination to the LORD your God. Nor shall you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be doomed to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is an accursed thing. (Deuteronomy 7:17-26)

Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God.
Beware of False Gods
When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, "How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.' You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. (Deuteronomy 12:28-32)

At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts. And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the LORD's release. Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother, except when there may be no poor among you; for the LORD will greatly bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance-- only if you carefully obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe with care all these commandments which I command you today. For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you. (Deuteronomy 15:1-6)

You shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. (Deuteronomy 17:15)

The LORD will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you heed the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe them. So you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right or the left, to go after other gods to serve them. (Deuteronomy 28:12-14)

'Curses on disobedience' is a list of horrible punishments. (Deuteronomy 28:15-68)

A fragment of this:

The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand, a nation of fierce countenance, which does not respect the elderly nor show favor to the young. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land, until you are destroyed; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you. (Deuteronomy 28:49-51)

Moses's ideas about God and mankind in modern English:

God is HaShem, HaShem is the only God. HaShem has selected us Jews above all other peoples. One proof of this selection are the Ten Commandments. If these are strictly observed, we Jews will enjoy moral and economic prosperity. Jewry will flourish and expand. Individual strangers in our midst must be treated benignly. However, we Jews are obliged to fulfil a number of necessary conditions under penalty of our own extermination. In short, obey HaShem or die. Another proof of the holy choice is HaShem's promise to lead us Jews to world dominion. This will be accomplished at the expense of all the other peoples. The non-Jewish peoples can be divided in two categories. There are peoples which are similar in size. They have armies that are a match for the Jewish army. HaShem will help the Jewish army to massacre them, but only if we have deserved this holy help by our obedience. If we Jews have neglected the admonitions of HaShem, He will punish us ruthlessly. HaShem will not hesitate to use those foreign armies to kill very large numbers of Jews.

The most peoples however outnumber us by far. Their countries have many more inhabitants than there are Jews. Yet, HaShem has predestined us Jews to rule the world. It's obvious that any attempt to subjugate those large peoples by military means, is doomed to fail. Our military would suffer defeat after defeat. It's also obvious that it will take a lot of time before we Jews can call ourselves masters of the world. HaShem knows world dominion can't be gained in one or two generations. It will take centuries, maybe millennia. So, HaShem urges us to apply a number of patient non-military methods.

One method is to manoeuvre the other peoples into a situation of economic dependence. HaShem teaches us that money is the world's most powerful political tool. A creditor can inflict his will upon the debtor. So HaShem wants us Jews to use our intelligence to get hold of large amounts of money and become creditors. This auxiliary goal can be achieved by loaning money to these other peoples and charge them for interest, and at the same time by borrowing money from other Jews only, who are not allowed to charge their brothers for interest. In this way, a permanent stream of interest money will flow to us Jews, whereas no interest money will flow towards those other peoples. We Jews will therefore gain large amounts of money with which the aforementioned process can be intensified. Money makes more money makes far more money and so on. In the long run, this process will inevitably generate such incredibly large amounts of money, our Jewish banks will become attractive for the governments of these other peoples. Nations need a lot of money every now and then. For waging wars, for rebuilding destroyed cities after a war, for technological challenges, for investing in new infrastructures, for developing new territories, for empire-building. So HaShem expects us to turn the other nations into our debtors. And once these nations are debtors to Jewish creditors, they have to follow Jewish orders, just like we Jews are compelled to follow the orders of HaShem.

The Jewish future is fixed. Everything will happen the way HaShem has envisaged it, one way or the other. HaShem's goal is sacrosanct, whether we Jews like it or not. HaShem's resolve can't be altered by the despair and indignant protests of individual Jews, by the sheer blasphemy which they call their disgust at HaShem's ways. Individual Jews don't matter actually. If some Jews drop out, their departure is merely the result of false sentiments, feebleness, weak nerves. In fact, the sooner the whiners leave the Jewish collectivity the better, before their whining infects the determination of the Chosen People. HaShem will deal with those whining traitors as he does with misbehavers, He will deal with them in such a gruesome way, other potential complainers will be discouraged. All Jews must understand that HaShem's almighty will shall be realized.

Those other peoples shall be destroyed.

All of them.

They shall be ruined, because their filthy life styles foul the earth HaShem created. If we Jews show any compassion for them, we will perish ourselves, because it is HaShem Himself who orders us, again under penalty of our own extermination, to help Him to destroy the non-Jewish peoples. Who received the Ten Commandments, those priceless directives? We Jews or the other peoples? We did. Who got the courage to take revenge on mighty foes by obliterating them? We Jews did. Who escaped from the tyranny of Pharaoh against all odds? We did. Does anyone need more proof of HaShem's existence? And of His holy commitment to us? So HaShem rightly demands our full and unconditional co-operation while He is confusing those other peoples for our sake. Since military warfare is impossible, we have to find ways to expel them slowly. We must go about it with great caution, but those larger peoples must be lied to. They must be misguided. It's not an option. It's a holy must. Their view on life's risks must be fogged. They must be disconnected from their pitiful gods and values. Their kings must bow. It's HaShem's indisputable will that the non-Jews are seduced to slowly destroy themselves. Only by the aforementioned strategies, the non-Jews will become the weak-willed obedient servants of us Jews, like we are bound to be the obedient servants of HaShem.

And in the long run, those defiled peoples will disappear from the face of the earth, together with all the Jews who refuse to submit to HaShem, the ungrateful protesting Jews, the weak Jews and the Jews who live like non-Jews, who even stain themselves by marrying non-Jews. This is the future that HaShem has foreseen and created. For HaShem, the God of Israel, the only God, has created everything, including Jewish destiny.

Moses's long-term vision, that.

I guess it can't do any harm to repeat that not a single living Jew can be blamed for the existence of the quoted passages. The same goes for the next passages as well.


In the centuries after Moses, the religious and political elites of the Jews elaborated on his ideas and on the relation between these ideas and the things that happened to the Jews. The central question is always the same: 'What must be the Jewish attitude in life?' And every now and then, some leaders produced speeches and texts that were considered to be of eternal value for Jewry. Just like Moses's writings, their texts were meant to inspire future Jewish generations. These thoughts and views are to be found in the rest of the Tanach, a number of them quite astonishing too:

When these things were done, the leaders came to me, saying, "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, with respect to the abominations of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed is mixed with the peoples of those lands. Indeed, the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass." So when I heard this thing, I tore my garment and my robe, and plucked out some of the hair of my head and beard, and sat down astonished. Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel assembled to me, because of the transgression of those who had been carried away captive, and I sat astonished until the evening sacrifice. (Ezra 9:1-4)

And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments, which You commanded by Your servants the prophets, saying, "The land which you are entering to possess is an unclean land, with the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from one end to another with their impurity. Now therefore, do not give your daughters as wives for their sons, nor take their daughters to your sons; and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good of the land, and leave it as an inheritance to your children forever." (Ezra 9:10-12)

"Moreover You gave them kingdoms and nations,
And divided them into districts.

So they took possession of the land of Sihon,
The land of the king of Heshbon,
And the land of Og king of Bashan.
You also multiplied their children as the stars of heaven,
And brought them into the land
Which You had told their fathers
To go in and possess.
So the people went in
And possessed the land;
You subdued before them the inhabitants of the land,
The Canaanites,
And gave them into their hands,
With their kings
And the people of the land,
That they might do with them as they wished.
And they took strong cities and a rich land,
And possessed houses full of all goods,
Cisterns already dug, vineyards, olive groves,
And fruit trees in abundance.
So they ate and were filled and grew fat,
And delighted themselves in Your great goodness. (Nehemiah 9:22-25)

I will set Egyptians against Egyptians;
Everyone will fight against his brother,
And everyone against his neighbor,
City against city, kingdom against kingdom. (Isaiah 19:2)

The princes of Zoan have become fools;
The princes of Noph are deceived;
They have also deluded Egypt,
Those who are the mainstay of its tribes.
The LORD has mingled a perverse spirit in her midst;
And they have caused Egypt to err in all her work,
As a drunken man staggers in his vomit.
Neither will there be any work for Egypt,
Which the head or tail,
Palm branch or bulrush, may do. (Isaiah 19:13-15)

For the indignation of the LORD is against all nations,
And His fury against all their armies;
He has utterly destroyed them,
He has given them over to the slaughter.
Also their slain shall be thrown out;
Their stench shall rise from their corpses,
And the mountains shall be melted with their blood. (Isaiah 34:2,3)

The sons of foreigners shall build up your walls,
And their kings shall minister to you;
For in My wrath I struck you,
But in My favor I have had mercy on you.
Therefore your gates shall be open continually;
They shall not be shut day or night,
That men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles,
And their kings in procession.
For the nation and kingdom which will not serve you, shall perish,
And those nations shall be utterly ruined. (Isaiah 60:10-12)

'For I am with you,' says the LORD, "to save you;
Though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you,
Yet I will not make a complete end of you.
But I will correct you in justice,
And will not let you go altogether unpunished.' (Jeremiah 30:11)

Thus says the Lord GOD: "Because of what Edom did against the house of Judah by taking vengeance, and has greatly offended by avenging itself on them," therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "I will also stretch out My hand against Edom, cut off man and beast from it, and make it desolate from Teman; Dedan shall fall by the sword. I will lay My vengeance on Edom by the hand of My people Israel, that they may do in Edom according to My anger and according to My fury; and they shall know My vengeance," says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 25:12-14)

Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. (Daniel 2:41-44)

My interpretation:

Ezra explicitly forbids the Jews to mix with other peoples, thus reinforcing the Mosaic ban. Another of Ezra's concerns emerges when he is probably observing that a number of Jews want to share their wisdom with other peoples to prevent these non-Jews from slipping down from life's slopes. A worshipper of HaShem, Ezra is having none of it. Ezra is convinced that Jewish happiness can only be founded on non-Jewish misery, just like Moses has taught ('never seek their peace and prosperity').

Nehemiah notices that Moses's instructions are working well for the Jews. However, indignant over his compatriots' ingratitude, he addresses HaShem. You, HaShem, gave them everything, he says, and still they tend to ignore the Mosaic laws. You even gave them kings and peoples to toy with, to do with them whatever they liked. Why can't they be grateful that You gave them this powerful position? So like Moses, Nehemiah proclaims the idea that it is very desirable for Jews to do with the non-Jewish nations whatever they like. The passages that directly follow, show how much importance this Jewish opinion leader attaches to material goods.

Moses's hate of Egypt glows on in the prophecies of Isaiah. HaShem will confuse Egypt's leaders to such an extent, that the internal differences of the Egyptians will plunge them into civil war. A foreign power will then seize the weakened country. This story therefore implies a strong warning about unmanageable national discordance. Isaiah's writings support Moses's strategy to subjugate the non-Jewish peoples economically. Isaiah is simply delighted by the prospect of the nations handing over the monetary value of their crops, mineral resources and GNPs to the Jews. Yet, his delight quickly turns into a murderous grimness the moment he contemplates the possibility those nations might object. Utter ruin will be their fate.

In addition, Isaiah predicts something else too. This prediction concerns the future of the descendants of Esaw. Esaw is the patriarch of the non-Jews. He was the brother of Jacob, the ancestor of the Jews. According to Isaiah, HaShem will butcher the peoples of Esaw until their blood flows downhill from the mountain. (I'll come back to Isaiah later.)

Jeremiah vigorously makes a stand against the idea that emigrated Jews owe respect towards the host nations. On the contrary. He foresees like Moses that HaShem will destroy all the non-Jewish nations, and that includes those nations that have allowed the Jews to immigrate.

The blood-thirsty fantasies of these spiritual leaders rage on, as Ezekiel lists a number of peoples that are HaShem's primary targets. Among them, the descendants of Esaw are mentioned again.

Explaining the dream of a foreign king at his own request, Daniel warns of the nation-jeopardizing effects of what is nowadays called 'the multicultural society'. The combination of various ethnic groups will constitute a weaker kingdom in comparison with a kingdom with a homogenous population.

I hope you've noticed that nowhere in these passages an exception has been made for European peoples living on islands.

If you don't have a bible, you can easily check the quotations at You can choose from several editions, like the New International Version (NIV). I used the New King James Version (NKJV). Once you have typed in and found a passage, you'll see a button 'Search by passage - go' at that page. This will show all the books and number links to their chapters.


The Talmud is the huge Jewish collection of observations, comments on earlier texts like the Tanach, and comments on these comments. It's argued that it is the Talmud, not the Torah, which is the most important book of the Jewish faith. A proud Jew once defined the Talmud as 'a mountain range of wisdom'. Some quotations:

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
(Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b)

"Even though God created the non-Jew, they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form."
(Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855)

"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
(Coschen hamischpat 405)

"The souls of non-Jews come from impure spirits and are called pigs."
(Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b)

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
(Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b)

"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
(Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)

"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died."
(Jore dea 377, 1)

"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
(Talmud Sanhedrin 74b)

I'll abstain from any comment on this.

(Source:, 'Some chosen topics', link: Talmud, link: Jewish racism towards the non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud.)


The Tanach was written from 600 to 300 BC. Now, what is the relation, if any, between a book completed 2,300 years ago and the Jews of early 21st century? If we narrow down this question to the old media, why should there be a connection between the Jewish mediacrats of the West today and some Hebrew letters meaning 'confusion', written down in some scrolls of papyrus so long ago? Do Moses's ideas still mean anything to Jewry? Yes, they do, and everybody can establish this fact. Far be it from me to suggest that all Jews believe in HaShem and act accordingly. I know many Jews have abandoned this faith throughout history. The Creator also respects righteous non-Jews, according to a wing in rabbinal Jewry that has evolved since the 2nd century. The influential Jewish philosopher Spinoza, who lived in the 17th century, didn't believe that the Jews were the Chosen People. The 18th-century spirit of the Enlightenment inspired Jews all over Europe to reject the Painful Passages. Today, there are religious communities in Jewry that explicitly seek to live in harmony with the non-Jews, they are summoning their members not to rebel against the other nations. I have witnessed myself that many Jews wish the best for non-Jews. But a number of Jews are still sharing Moses's vision. Three factors have secured the continuation of Moses's perspective of the world in their minds to this day. The Jewish indoor world, Moses's genius in general and one masterstroke in particular.


Have you ever realized, while you were walking down the street, that behind all the windows in that street, people are having lives you don't know anything about? Have you ever realized, looking at those big office buildings, veiled in glass and steel, that the meetings that take place there, may very well affect your life sooner or later, although those meetings are attended by people you don't know and you'll never see? Maybe some years ago, pure coincidence arranged it for you to drive along one of those buildings, at the same moment someone on the ninth floor said: 'How about some sort of a congestion charge?'

We are all living in two worlds, an indoor world and an outdoor world. The indoor world is the atmosphere that protects us, cherishes us, gives us strength, comforts us. In the indoor world, we are together with our friends, our loved ones, our children and grandchildren. Even when we are outside, we can enjoy life in our indoor world. We go to a barbecue party in a friend's garden in our indoor world. We visit Legoland with our children in our indoor world. And since we are attached to our privacy, we are careful to give information about our indoor world to the outdoor world in which we are living too, with our colleagues, casual acquaintances, the bus driver, the people waiting before us in the supermarket's queue. You see to it that they only get to know harmless things about your indoor world. And they see to it that you only get to know harmless things about their indoor worlds.

Their indoor world is a formidable source of strength, love and care for the Jews. Despite severe persecutions and heavy losses, their indoor world has always provided for a spiritual and emotional counterweight of vital importance. It has always contributed to their survival as a people. There are very many small and big traditions which have been reinforcing the mutual solidarity of the Jews throughout the centuries. There are lots of books available that describe these ancient and, in many cases, beautiful traditions, so I will only mention two here. At Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, Jews will give an apple and honey to the people they like. Many Jewish households are characterised by two sets of kitchenware, one set exclusively to be used for meat, the other set exclusively to be used for dairy. Mosaic laws forbid to mingle dead food, meat, and nourishing food like milk. The mental territory of the Jews' indoor world comprises their houses, shops and companies, their organisations, the synagogues of course, their separate schools, their centres for leadership seminars, cultural events, monuments and their separate cemeteries. But there is more. In late 2000 or early 2001, I forgot to note the date because of my amazement, I read a Jewish weekly in which such a thing as 'the Observation of Memi' was described. I quote: 'The first thing that a Jew will think when he meets another man, is: is he a Jew? The second thing that the Jew will think is: does this man recognize me as a Jew?'

So according to this Jewish weekly, Jews are constantly scanning who is a Jew and who isn't when they are meeting other people. The Jews are constantly categorizing people in the silence of their thoughts. And wherever two or more Jews meet and recognize each other as such, a piece of the Jewish indoor world will embrace them.

Some examples:

A Jewess, a former senior editor of a Jewish magazine, was asked to mention the elements of her culture she found the most impressive. One of the things she described was the circumcision. 'Once a Jew has been circumcised, he'll never be alone'. So in her view, a Jew who isn't circumcised, is alone, even if he lives amidst a thousand non-Jews.

Jewish students talked about their preference for Jewish student accommodation. One of them said: 'The Jewish student home is not extremely Jewish, but everybody sympathizes with Israel and we are glued to CNN together when something has happened there. During the holidays you feel more at home. Now, maybe I will get a room in that non-Jewish accommodation, and the people there, well, they are OK, you can reasonably talk about Israel with them once you've given them the facts, but as a whole, it isn't the same though' (Source: a Jewish weekly, August 2002).

The names of the Jewish student organisations in Europe all have the same syntactic structure. In our country, it's called 'the Union of Jewish Students in Britain and North Ireland'. In France, 'l'Union des Etudiants Juifs en France'. In Germany, the 'Bund Juedischer Studenten in Deutschland'. Please note, it is not: the Union of British students of the Jewish religion, or: the Union of French students of the Jewish faith, and so on. Now, we can safely assume that the majority of these students have the nationality of that particular country. But that fact apparently didn't count when they chose the names of their clubs. Their Jewish identity outweighs the nationality mentioned in their passports. The Jewish students in Britain, France, Germany and other countries are regarding themselves as Jews living in non-Jewish countries.

In June 2002, I saw a Jewish documentary about a European song festival, for Jewish children only. In expectation of the show, visitors who stepped out of a bus were being interviewed. 'The journey to and fro takes us a very long time compared to the few hours we will be here, but it is important'. Someone else: 'Everybody knows the lyrics of these songs. That is good for our solidarity'. These were the lyrics of the winning song: 'The TV blames Israel for everything, I can't wear my skullcap in the street. As a Jew I am praying with my face towards Israel. Does my fear force me to leave? Is that the reason I am a Zionist? The land of Israel is also mine, now it's my turn to go there!' The proud winners were three ten-year-olds.

I once attended a meeting, organised by a foundation that is promoting public debates. The subject of the meeting was the coexistence of the religious communities. Among the panel guests were a Buddhist, an imam, a Hindu, a vicar and two prominent rabbis. Some speakers in the audience said they had mixed feelings about the Jews. (These speakers were non-whites. The whites tend to be modest and quiet at multi-ethnic gatherings like this.) But, as the speakers proposed to the rabbis, if only the Jews opened their doors for others, mutual understanding was bound to grow. Surely, the desired coexistence would benefit from it. One of the rabbis was notably reluctant, no, no, he said, we like to be on our own, we can coexist without entertaining visitors. The other rabbi kept silent.

The Jewish indoor world is a mental fortress.


Moses's long-term vision is repulsive nowadays. But it isn't fair to judge it by today's standards. We are living in a country the culture of which is mainly influenced by the Christian message, that seeks to inspire all peoples to live together in harmony. Are you still with me in that helicopter? Let's press the Time Lapse button for a bird's eye view of the Middle East, 1500 BC. The peoples lived like wild animals back then. Lying, gambling, looting, sexual excesses, rowing, stealing, murders out of jealousy, murders just for kicks. In the international relations, things were hardly any better. No Doctors Without Borders. No Unicef. No Geneva Convention. Emerging powers treated conquered peoples like we are treating vermin. Mighty buildings expressed the omnipotence of the victorious power, which undoubtedly would remain omnipotent and victorious eternally, because the mistakes and the badness of the annihilated empire were evident for everybody with eyes and brains in his head. The new empire was bound to last, simply because of its unchallenged superiority. It had the better gods for starters. A god for fine crops, a god for good health, a god for fertility, a brave god for the military, a god for the king, kings who promoted themselves to divinity, a special god for everything, gods engaged in fierce competition, sometimes too busy to cure the sick and to stimulate the grain to grow because of that competition, according to desperate priests.

But a few independent philosophers developed some ideas of their own. Maybe there is only one God. Why should we believe in competing gods in heaven, if there is already so much counterproductive competition on earth? Those are not the kind of gods mankind really needs, are they? These thinkers studied history, wondering why so many self-assured empires with state-of-the-art armies did perish by internal upheaval or external violence against all expectations. They figured: maybe it is because of that self-assuredness. Perhaps there is a relation between self-assuredness and a decrease of inner strength. And, for heaven's sake, what is this uncomfortable feeling you get when you think about the fate of a conquered people, killed because they happened to be born in the wrong kingdom? It is... let's call it: cruel. One of those independent minds was the Persian thinker Zarathustra. He believed in The One God and he told his people: 'Think well, speak well and do well'. He saw the connection between man's thoughts, words and deeds. Zarathustra lived twenty-six centuries ago, but his ideas live on to the present day in a beautiful saying of his followers: 'Change your life into a heaven'.

Moses was another original thinker. Once he found out he wasn't an Egyptian prince, but a son of Hebrew slaves, he felt this urge to free his people and to guide them safely along the dangers of the outside world. Now, like the other peoples in the Middle East, the Jews showed no mercy for a defeated enemy. But Moses was perhaps the first Jew who reviewed the massacre and said: 'God, HaShem, made us do this. We were merely executing his wish'. In retrospect, this reasoning seems a rather clumsy and cheap construction to deny responsibility. But if we try to judge Moses's words by the then standards, it becomes clear that he achieved an enormous moral advance. Apparently, the massacre bothered him. It bothered him - a totally new sensation at that time. It made him feel puzzled, troubled, insecure. The other nations massacred at will and it didn't bother them a bit. So the Jews were probably the first people who discovered that man had a conscience. And the idea of a HaShem above man, the One God who predestined everything, including that particular massacre, relieved the Jewish conscience. Moses realized that this One God and man have a direct relation and that it is impossible for man to hide any thought, any emotion for God. What started with the indefinable feeling of Jewish shepherds that someone was looking at them, even when they were totally alone out there in the open, became perpetuated by Moses in the stories of Genesis and other chapters, stories that are rich in beautiful symbolism and that remain very valuable for that reason, although they can't be regarded as accurate historical records. At the same time, the Jews realized that the neighbouring peoples didn't have similar elevated insights. This was maybe the moment a Jew said for the first time: 'I think there is something special about us'.

Moses had another reason to believe that there was something special about the Jews. A relatively small nation without a large army, it discovered that sheer intelligence proved to be essential for maintaining itself and for surviving hostilities. How did those Ten Commandments come into being? I don't think that HaShem's fiery finger wrote them on tablets of stone. Those things are made up by Moses or later scribes to give some pezazz to the story, like the apostles tried to capture their public's attention by claiming Christ walked on water and things like that. Magical additions were the 'special effects' of those times. The Ten Commandments most probably emerged from a thorough study of human behaviour. Intelligent people do things the less intelligent don't. They make notes. They describe their own individual thoughts and deeds. Their fellow man's ideas and deeds. They describe events that have a crucial meaning, that have a strong symbolic value, that matter to the nation. They ask other intelligent people to give a comment. They carefully safe the notes instead of throwing them away by accident while cleaning the room. They pass on these notes to the next generation. And as time goes by, intelligent people begin to see lines where others only see a couple of dots. Intelligent people recognize the connection between cause(s) and result(s) earlier than the less intelligent. They get aware of social developments earlier. And they just go on making notes about it. They just go on studying earlier writings and other people's writings.

Now, just like the surrounding peoples, the Jewish people were undoubtedly fully engaged in gambling, looting, cheating, rowing, stealing, murdering too, inflicting misery on their fellow men and themselves. It's a mankind thing, sad to say. But they had an elite that did the studious things I just mentioned, human behaviour being their main subject, and as years, decades, centuries went by, this elite found out that if only you watch your step in ten activities, you still have the liberty to do a thousand other things as many times as you like, but you will not slowly destroy yourself, you and your children will lead a prosperous life in stead, and on a larger scale, the nation will flourish.

But while the Jewish elite intensively discussed relevant questions and answers, they noticed the elites of the other peoples didn't, or made serious mistakes in comparable efforts. This observation, added to the discovery of conscience, must have strengthened the idea that the Jews were a special people, a people guarded by a god who chose them to see the opportunities and dangers other nations didn't see in time, or didn't see at all. And most probably it was this observation, among other things, that drove Moses to his idea that the non-Jews were inferior, their mere existence a disgraceful stain on the beautiful earth HaShem had created. And then, he wrote the Torah.

Now, if I try to put myself in the position of a HaShem-worshipping Jew, Moses's view seems flawless. The HaShem concept explains everything that happens to the Jews:

'In times when we Jews are a strong, rich people, united in will, blessed with many children, we are evidently enjoying HaShem's reward for obeying him. In such times, one of our writers once described a lively party he had attended: 'And all the women were pregnant; a lovely sight!' In times we are weak, when we are foolish Jews living like the Goyim, in times we are set against each other by internal disputes, in times we are being persecuted, we must have insulted HaShem in one way or the other, only to be struck by his predicted wrath. But at the end of the day, we always manage to survive, we always regain our hope and our spirit, because HaShem will never fail us permanently. We will always prosper again, if it is not in country X, it will be in country Y, and HaShem will deal with our former persecutors thoroughly. In the long run He is always on our side to elevate us to heigher heights. Take a look at all those mighty empires we saw rise and fall. We Jews were around when Roman rulers subjected a whole range of nations, among them former great centres of civilisation, Greece and Egypt. Who is the Roman emperor now? Berlusconi, a man who likes to pose as Al Capone before photographers. But we are still around. We were around when the great Christian Empires rose, those of Spain, Austria-Hungary, Britain. But where are Kaiser Franz-Joseph and his descendants now? Otto von Habsburg is a member of the European Parliament, an institution that pretends to represent three hundred million Europeans and is probably despised by two hundred and ninety million of them. But we are still around. What is left of the British Empire now, at the pinnacle of its power extending over one fifth of the earth's land surface? A rock in Spain and a lot of fuss about it. But we are still around. Nothing is left of the Ottoman Empire either, and of him whose Empire posed the biggest threat to our existence by far, not a single trace is left, except for some lamp-posts in Berlin. We are now building a monument there, right on top of his hideout. We are still around and we are doing well like we've never done before, we know how to prosper, prosperity never got the better of us and adversity only hardened our determination, and that's why we became the toughest people on earth, and we owe it all to HaShem', they are probably thinking and yes, if you look at the world from their angle, religious Jews have good reasons to firmly believe in the correctness of Moses's vision.

We are getting close to the most important pillar of the Mosaic faith now. If you read the Tanach stories of the Jewish leaders after Moses, the prophets I mentioned, who were really very intelligent men with a great sense of responsibility for their people, and wise kings like Solomon and courageous men like David, then what is the main cause that everyone of them kept thinking the way Moses thought? Well, it was either Moses's idea or one of his immediate successors, but it was a masterstroke. It is because Jewish children in observant families are getting Torah lessons as from the age of five.


It goes without saying that a five-year-old child is defenceless against any set of ideas whatsoever. The impressionable part of a young child's mind is like a field of fresh snow, patiently waiting for someone to tread it. Children that age will believe anything that's told to them by the people in their surroundings, their loving parents, their aunts and uncles, their teachers. So if it is born in a HaShem-worshipping environment, with so many ancient traditions aimed at the continuation of that adoration, the Jewish child is bound to absorb the Mosaic ideas like a sponge does with water. That child is simply denied the opportunity to reflect upon any other world view. Suppose, Moses and his successors had decided differently 3,500 years ago. Suppose they had argued: 'We Jews being the Chosen People and the consequences, well, it is such a serious matter, let's wait until our youths have become twenty-five years of age before we tell them anything about it', what kind of conversation would then have taken place on the day after the 25th birthday of the average Ruben?

'Ruben, there's something very important we have to tell you, please join us'

'Yes, mum, dad'

'Ruben, now you are twenty-five, there are some things about us Jews you must know. It's not an easy thing to tell, because it implies you have to distance yourself from a number of people you invited over here the other day, even some of your closest friends. You know we are Jews, but what you did't know is that we Jews are a very special people. You see, our God, HaShem, has predestined us to rule the world one day and we must show no mercy for the other peoples to get there. Those other peoples, well, we seem to have a lot in common with them, but they have actually been created by HaShem to serve us. The non-Jews, we call them Goyim, must serve the Jews. In fact, we can do anything with them what we like. We can deceive them, we can lie to them, we can lure them in all sorts of bad things. We have to, because we are such a small people compared to them, we'll never be able to boss them about after a military victory. We have no choice actually. If we allow ourselves to be overcome by weakheartedness, HaShem will ruin us because we let him down. So we will teach you how you can distinguish the Jews from the non-Jews, because you always have to favour your Jewish brothers above the Goyim, and we recommend you to slowly phase out your friendships with them. Now we have a copy of a holy book we want to give to you, it's called the Tanach, read it as many times as you can, especially the first five chapters, those are called the Torah. You'll find out that life isn't always easy for us Jews, but then again, that's the unavoidable burden of our divine mission. Our congratulations once more, son'

Now, what would have been the reaction of the average Ruben in that case?



'Have you gone mad or what? I don't believe my own ears. Are you, my mother and my father, really telling me this? I always believed that this home was marked by morality. Lying? Deceiving? Luring? You want me to lie to people I have come to love? Never, do you hear! So yesterday evening, when you were friendly with my guests, it was only fake, you were only being hypocrites? Are you really thinking of my friends as your future slaves? No wonder why the Jews have aroused so much hatred, I've always wondered what could be the cause of that. Who came up with all this nonsense in the first place? How long is this madness going on?'

It's obvious that in this way, Moses's dream would have ended 3,400 years ago. This conviction simply can't do without brainwashing five-years-olds. It's very difficult to escape from it. You can't recognize a trap if you have never seen that trap from the outside. The followers of Moses are looking at the world from behind the windows of a trap all their lifes. Oh, they are seeing those iron rods in the window alright, but they don't identify them as bars, since their parents and their rabbis are describing the iron rods as irreplaceable texts and traditions that secure the Jewish existence and enhance the Jewish influence. In the indoor world of observant Jews, five-year-olds are being indoctrinated to indoctrinate the five-years-olds of the next generation themselves. It's a masterstroke, leaving aside the immoral nature of it. As it works for one generation, it will work for countless generations. It sounds as a strange metaphor, but as he understood that the seizure of world dominion would be a lengthy affair, Moses's goal was to turn every new Jewish generation into a spiritual Lego brick. Why is it that you can make the tallest buildings with tiny pieces of Lego? Because the eight little bulges of one brick fit precisely in the eight holes of another. So this is the comparison: the bulges are the teaching adult Jews, the holes are the learning Jewish children, and the thickness of the Lego brick is the growing up from childhood to adulthood, the time that it takes for the holes to become bulges themselves. In this way, the Mosaic instructions live on generation after generation, continuously enlarging the building of the Jewish power. Another metaphor: if you compare the mind of a Jewish child with the blank hard-disk of a new computer, you might say that, a visionary hacker, Moses successfully programmed the unprotected minds of seventy consecutive Jewish generations with the virus of a locust doctrine.

No, not a single living Jew can be blamed for the existence of the Painful Passages. And the many 'ordinary' Jews can't be blamed for the wrongs of the Jews acting in Moses's spirit. But can the latter be blamed for the deeds they've been indoctrinated to do? I find that hard to answer. However, the understanding of their background should not distract the non-Jews from the threat these Jews pose to them.


Many individual Jews have abolished the Painful Passages, but the Jews as a collectivity, as a people, have never done the same. There has never been an official statement of the World Jewish Congress, currently residing in New York, in which the Jewish people addressed the world and apologized for disadvantaging and hurting other peoples. Such an apology has never been given by the Supreme Rabbinical Council in Israel either.

The opposite is true. I read many books on Jewry and anti-Semitism, printed in the 1960s or later. In these books, the Torah and the rest of the Tanach are being described in mere positive wordings. The holy books of the Jews are glorified as the summit of human morale and ethics. I never came across an author, who even mentioned the Painful Passages, let alone that he investigated their damaging influence on non-Jewish societies. So these distorting books are up-imaging the Torah and the Tanach to put it mildly, they are camouflaging those texts that spark a very hostile attitude towards non-Jews. You don't have to take my word for it. I'd almost say: please distrust everything I am writing and do your own investigating. I strongly recommend you to check it yourself in your local library or bookstore.

Or have a look at the Encarta CD, if you have one. Mine is the 1998 edition. Whatever Jews-related article you read, be it 'Jews', 'Judaism', 'Torah', 'Moses', or 'Anti-Semitism', you won't come across a Jewish abolition of the Painful Passages and a description of the misery they must have caused. Worse even, these passages are simply never mentioned. Now, Encarta, the encyclopedia of Microsoft, is an important source of information in the West. It's distributed together with the millions of Microsoft-programmed PCs that are sold all over the world. Countless schoolchildren are writing essays with the aid of Encarta. So whenever someone wants to know more about the Jews or the Jewish faith and he consults his Encarta CD, he will be severely disinformed about the subject.

The internet shows the same picture. The Jewish site can easily produce a list of the websites of Jewish organisations in every country of choice. At the homepages I visited, I frequently found a link to pages concerning the Torah. At these particular pages too, I never found a text in which the Painful Passages were denounced. Again, the opposite is true. In 2002 I found the most striking example of Jews worshipping HaShem thus far. I read some webpages of the World Union of Jewish Students,, its central office based in Israel. At one of the pages dealing with the Torah, it said: 'The Torah needs every letter and Israel needs every Jew'.

Now, please let it get through to your mind what this means.

On the internet, one of the symbols of 21st-century technology, the merciless mentality of Moses is admired, shared and spread by young men and women who will once belong to the elites in Israel, America, Europe and elsewhere.

We have bridged the period from 1500 BC to our days. The conclusion is inevitable: to the present day, there is such a thing as the pursuit of a number of Jews for world dominion by whatever means that suits them, at the expense of the other peoples. We have to realize that a hidden totalitarian ideology, originated by the Torah, does exist. In short, there is such a thing as Torahism, and a number of today's Jews are Torahists.


5.9.1  PARADOX

Torahism yields an interesting paradox that blurs our view on its danger. The ancient tradition of studying a dubious book has had the advantage at any rate that it made the Jews a studious people. Learning, acquiring knowledge, teaching are very important in the Jewish culture. The renowned 'Yiddishe Memme' (the Jewish mum) urgently wants her son to become a doctor, a lawyer, a scientist, a success in society. And once he gets there, she loves to brag about it in the company of other Memmes. So throughout history, the Jewish contribution to all kinds of scientific advance has always been disproportionately large, in medicin, law, philosophy, physics, astronomy and so on. In other words, although the direct effect of the Torah is a menace to the separate nations, its indirect effect has truely benefited all mankind. The latter fact is frequently misused in Torahist propaganda to disguise the former.

5.9.2  TABOO

Whoever criticises any aspect of Jewry, automatically burdens himself with the suspicion being an anti-Semite or a Nazi. This association has become a reflex in the post-1945 world. Once the world discovered that six million defenceless Jews had been murdered, a logical awe for that tremendous suffering arose, together with an understandable reluctance to disapprove of any aspect of the Mosaic religion whatsoever. It has become a taboo ever since, one of the but very few taboos that are left in a tabooless world, so it seems. When you hear someone criticising the Jews, you think: 'That's how it must have started in the 1920s and 1930s'. And whoever violates that taboo, passes an invisible border, entering the Pariah Desert. But anti-Semitism, the irrational hatred of all the Jews, isn't the same as the indignation of non-Jews once they discover they are being confused and severely disadvantaged by the Torahists among the Jews. It isn't the same, although it looks the same to the fearful, the lightly impressionable and the ill-informed. To put it bluntly: it is a good thing that Hitler has been defeated, but Hitler's defeat didn't turn the Torah into a comic book all of a sudden. And the fear to be seen as an anti-Semite, is easily misinterpreted by the Torahists as the very fear which Moses predicted: HaShem would fill the hearts of the non-Jews with fear. This fear is therefore considered a success by the Torahists whenever they notice it and it will only encourage them.


The theory that a number of Jews are seeking global supremacy, is a downright conspiracy theory. And most people laugh about conspiracy theories, or get annoyed by it. Oh yeah, sure, the Jews are behind it again. Theories about conspiring Jews - the gloomy realm of the frustrated, the hateful losers, the political paranoiacs, hysterical Arabs, neo-Nazis and other pathetic weirdos, widespread belief has it. Two counterarguments, nonetheless.

In the first place, a conspiracy theory is not a fool's fact by definition. The very word 'conspiracy' originated for a good reason: conspiracies do happen. Julius Caesar was assassinated in a conspiracy, his own adapted son Brutus being one of the perpetrators. Tens of thousands of protestants lost their lives in religious mayhem, ignited by a conspiracy that was staged by the French King and his mother in 1572. Fourteen years later, a conspiracy to replace Queen Elizabeth I by Mary, Queen of Scots, involved plotters here and in France and Spain. During the First World War agents of Wilhelminian Germany and Irish influentials conspired against our country. In 1939 Nazi Germany and the USSR conspired to divide Poland. A bureaucratic conspiracy in a Berlin villa, January 1942, preceded the Holocaust. President John Kennedy was most probably slain by conspirators, as sixteen years later a Dallas policeman posthumously reported he had seen a second gunner. In 1974 Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, after a conspiracy had taken place in the White House to obstruct the Watergate investigation. Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi fell a victim to conspiring Sikh bodyguards in 1984.

In the second place, a power-obsessed minority like the Torahists has no other tool to realize its obsession than a conspiracy. It is not a poor tool actually. A confused majority can lose out to a determined and intelligent minority, because every country has a number of key positions that give their holders a disproportionately large influence on that country's affairs. So if that determined minority patiently aims for the key positions, and works closely together, it can ultimately 'outpower' the majority in that country. Please remember the Observation of Memi: Jews are always scanning who is a Jew and who isn't. In this text the large influence of the media leaders is investigated, but there are more crucial posts.

1) The owners of the US East Coast banks to which many nations are indebted. These banks lended the money for the rebuilding of Europe after WW2.

2) Big bankers decide which enterprises get credits to expand or to survive, and which don't, influencing the employment of numerous people, not only working at the enterprise itself, but also at its supply companies.

3) The board of a multinational can decide to transfer thousands of jobs to other countries. Politicians hate that, so merely alluding to this possibility in a private conversation gives the leaders of the multinational political influence.

4) Politicians and judges create laws and legal precedents.

5) Influentials in the civil service in a department can manipulate a minister and henceforth influence the (lack of) measures that will affect the entire country. It occurs that after the elections a newly appointed minister enters the department, shakes hands with the staff, sits down behind his desk, tells what he wants, and then gets to hear a lengthy well-argued survey, in which the promises which made crowds cheer and people vote for him, are irrefutably exposed as actual impossibilities, leaving the minister speechless. It also occurs that the new minister gets to hear from the staff how pleasant the working atmosphere in the department is, how friendly things are going and how important it is to keep the precious harmony intact, so that the new man is expected to be a tactically gifted man. He might hear amusing anecdotes about a predecessor who made himself impossible and his stay in the department totally fruitless, after early frustration about the pace of things briefly inspired him to what was generally considered a Rambo-like approach.

6) The secretary of a political party co-decides about people's memberships and political careers. In conversations behind closed doors, the opinions of the candidate can be scrutinized, even in a seemingly casual, smalltalk manner. So if the secretary is a Torahist or a non-Jewish Torahist puppet, and the unsuspecting candidate utters opinions the Torahists don't like, he can forget about his political career, never actually realizing what might have been the cause of that.

7) The personnel manager of a big organization co-decides who gets the job and who don't, in the long run influencing the overall mentality in that company or institution.

8) If he is a member of that ambitious minority, the leader of a trade union can secretly further the cause of his fellows by deceitfully pretending that his decisions are in the interest of the numerous people he claims to represent. A malevolent leader of a trade union can also influence national policies by strike threats.

Naturally, the conspirators will all benefit from the support of their media friends to make their case, to sell their case as a matter of national interest to the general public and to impede their opponents.

Let's end with two media-related positions:

9) The intendant of a public library of a large town decides which books reach the shelves and which don't, thus influencing the opinion forming of tens of thousands of library members.

10) Together with the civil servants of the education ministry, the publisher of school books co-decides if and how certain episodes of a nation's history are depicted, influencing the opinion of countless pliable schoolchildren on matters concerning that nation. If that publisher is in business for thirty or fourty years, one can only guess how much influence he must have had.

A well-organized minority with a radar for the country's decisive meetings, always making sure its members attend these meetings, even if that takes the sort of behaviour most people find pushy, a minority that knows the 'who is who' of a nation's elite, a minority that knows how to befriend with those who matter in society too, a minority that thinks through the standpoints of the other participants of the decisive meeting beforehand, making lots of internal phonecalls in order to prepare and time its own contribution, and making lots of external phonecalls to outmanoeuvre their main opposers beforehand, by making covert deals with the other participants that will surprisingly present the unsuspecting opposers with a fait accompli during the meeting and thus isolate them, why, such a clever minority can even succeed in orchestrating the course of a meeting before it actually takes place.

The Torahists could try the honest, candid, really democratic way of course. They could establish Jewish World Dominion Parties all over the West, participate in national elections and frankly ask the voters to grant them the right to rule eternally. Given the fact that only about 1% of the Western voters are Jews, this straightforward approach is however not very likely to succeed.

Let's return to 1939 Poland for a moment: after the occupation of East Poland by the Red Army, the Poles were stunned by the sudden appearance of secretly formed Jewish militia groups that arrested prominent Poles in their homes. In a bid to win the favour of the new rulers, the Jews handed over these members of the Polish elite to the Soviet authorities, that were keen to eliminate all potential resistance leaders as a precautionary measure. The communists murdered thousands of officers and intellectuals in the woods of Katyn, as Moscow half a century later admitted. I don't know how many of these victims were turned in by the Jewish traitors, but it became clear that the Torahist indoor world had breeded an anti-Polish conspiracy.


How many of us can really imagine what it takes to be the general manager of a firm with 3,000 employees? How many of us can really imagine what life must be like for the mayor of a big town? Now, if we have already trouble imagining people who are managing a company or a municipality, it's virtually impossible to imagine people aiming for world dominion. But because of that lack of imagination, we are not inclined to take such a colossal ambition seriously, and therefore, we are not inclined to undertake any action to hamper those engaged in that ambition. It's much easier to laugh about the whole idea, or to laugh about people like me who are alerting to it. World rule, good heavens, that's Goldfinger and Dr No stuff, and the other crazy villains in the Bond movies. We think. But the quest for world dominion is probably as old as man's political activities. It's an ancient dream. Hitler. Trotsky. Napoleon. Julius Caesar. Alexander the Great. None of them ever featured in an 007 production. They and their mind-boggling ambitions were very, very real.

And speaking of lack of imagination, there is more. The levels of meanness the Torahists have to sink to in order to get their way, are hard to imagine. It's also hard to imagine that any faith could justify such levels of meanness. And let's be realistic about it, people don't easily admit that they can be deceived.


Many of us have lost their Christian faith in the past decades. Consequently, there is a decrease of awareness that the Bible has been the spiritual foundation of the Western societies for an odd one and a half thousand years. More and more people are forgetting about the long-standing connection between the story of the West and the bible. In fact, the very thought that any holy book can inspire a people is fading in the West's collective memory. Just look at the amazement many people display whenever the influence of the Koran becomes evident in the words and deeds of Muslims. Just listen to the many loud voices claiming that 'religions cause nothing but wars and misery'. But precisely those people forget that their gain of secular insights, doesn't imply that all the Jews have left behind their Torah. Especially many intellectual non-believers tend to assume that all other intelligent people are thinking in the same 'Enlightened' manner as they do, more or less. That's a pretty dangerous mistake in this case.


Suppose, you will do the things I am hoping for. You will do your own investigating and you will come across the same facts as I did. You will then have to classify those facts into a special category of truths - the awful truths. The facts about Torahism are awful for two reasons. In the first place, it is a horror and a disgrace that a part of that fascinating people is still engaged in such a thing. In the second place, the discovery of Torahism can lead to all kinds of highly unpleasant questions to oneself:

'I am not Jewish, so the worship for HaShem is threatening the people I belong to, it pursues the slow destruction of our nation. God Almighty, I always thought of the Jews as mere victims of other peoples. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read those things. All my political certainties, everything I thought I knew about history is crumbling before my eyes. Which slogans, if any, are meant to confuse Britain? Are there really any social deteriorations that are caused or reinforced by malevolent Jews? And if so, which then? And how can they benefit from it? Why does my newspaper never offer me investigative journalism on this subject? Why do the BBC and other broadcasters never speak about this? Maybe that website article about Jews running the media isn't a bunch of lies after all. Why do I never hear the political parties warning of Torahism? What's the bloody scale of it anyway? Where do I stand? The Torahists want to deceive me and my family for a very malicious purpose, so I must resist it. Do I want to resist it? My discovery is forcing me to distrust other people, the last thing I want to do. Do I dare to resist it? Do I have what it takes to resist it? What will be the price of that resistance? I have children, a job, a mortgage. I don't even know how to resist it. I don't even dare to tell other people about the things I found out. My friends, colleagues and neighbours will instantaneously look upon me as an anti-Semite, a far right extremist. It would jeopardize my reputation, my career. I'd wish I could un-know the things I know now. I am not half the hero I always hoped I'd be. I am only the coward I always avoided to realize I am.'

'Awful truths' is the correct term for this special category of truths indeed. Because awful truths have this awful habit of confronting us with the awful truth about ourselves.


Ideas make people do things. Ideas make people cause social developments, ignore social developments, accept social developments, improve social developments. Founding its policies on time-honoured ideas, is a necessary condition for a nation to flourish. If a nation bases its policies on wrong ideas, the nation will perish. From the 1960s onwards, Britain's dominant ideas are characterised by words like: the global community, secularization, privatization, the emancipation of women, the sexual revolution, individualization, crime has only social-economic causes, anti-racism, anti-discrimination, the multicultural society, tolerance, wars for the sake of human rights, the welfare state, the rights of the individual. In the same period, Britain has become an overall dumbing, overall disintegrating, overall hardening society, in which more and more people feel unhappy, alienated, lonely and misunderstood. Moral, political and ethnic confusion are omnipresent. The 1968 values have therefore proven to be slowly destructive. Where do these dominant ideas come from? Society's main sources of ideas are the old media, especially television. These media are largely being controlled by Jews. The inauspicious thing about the Jewish people is that they never distanced themselves from the Painful Passages in their holy texts. These passages are assigning the Jews to confuse and slowly destroy all the other nations. So we've got ourselves quite a situation here - in the first place, those who control the potential means to confuse Britain, belong to the same people a part of which is determined to confuse Britain. In the second place, control of the old media enables a malevolent minority to deceitfully up-image a worsening situation as a normal or even desirable situation, so that a large part of the population will not understand what's going on, or only after some time. In other words, if those who control the mass media are malevolent, they can stealthily inject damaging ideas in society and subsequently up-image the deteriorations as unaccountable, unavoidable or even desirable developments. In the third place, Hitler's atrocities brought about a huge taboo to criticise the book that promotes this kind of confusing activities.


Naturally, the crucial question now is: 'Do the Jews who dominate the old media, belong to the Torahist part of Jewry? Are they misusing their position to spread destructive ideas?'

Suppose, I'd write a letter to Alan Yentob, a creative director of the BBC and a Jew. 'Dear Mister Yentob, please help me out, since I am profoundly concerned by the following. I recently read the Torah and I was flabbergasted to discover it spreads a world view that endangers the existence of my people, the British. My research pointed out that the Jewish people never abolished this most disconcerting view. Among others, the 'confusion' bits worry me, since I know you are a Jew and your job enables you to confuse Britain, if you want to. So please answer my question: do you or don't belong to those Jews who believe they must confuse the non-Jews? I really hope I haven't written anything in this letter that you may find offensive. Yours sincerely, Richard'

I can think of ten possible reactions.

Although I did my best to word my letter as neutrally as possible, Mr Yentob, a sincere man, feels so indignant, he doesn't react at all.

Mr Yentob, a sincere man, feels so indignant, he returns me an angry or sarcastic letter.

Mr Yentob is a Torahist and he lashes out, returning me an angry or sarcastic letter.

Fortunately, Mr Yentob is not a Torahist and he returns my letter. He reassures me his work isn't influenced by any wish to slowly destroy the British people. He also writes some lines in which he displays understanding for my concern and embarrassment because of the dark ways of the Torahists.

Mr Yentob is every inch a Torahist. He returns my letter, deceitfully reassuring me his work isn't influenced by any wish to slowly destroy the British people. He is so full of contempt for me, he hypocritically adds some lines in which he displays phoney understanding for my concern and faked embarrassment because of the dark ways of other Torahists.

Mr Yentob is a Torahist, reveling in his picture power which enables him to indoctrinate the viewers with whatever lie or phoney value that suits him and his brethren. He reads my letter, laughs about my powerlessness and doesn't reply.

Mr Yentob is a Torahist and he feels caught in the act by my letter and this text. He doesn't reply, but he starts thinking of ways of slowly neutralising the BBC programmes, removing the confusing bias out of them. He starts thinking about a reserve strategy.

Mr Yentob has been a happy Torahist all his life, but something in my letter totally unexpectedly breaks the bad guy in him. His secretary thinks he is sitting quietly in his office, but the whole world starts turning and turning and turning around him, and, like in a fast-forward video, he reviews all the moments he has perniciously manipulated the unsuspecting British audience in the silence of his thoughts. He is overwhelmed by feelings of shame, and he deeply regrets everything that can't be reversed anymore. As if he is drugged, his hand reaches out for the phone and he instructs his secretary he doesn't want to be disturbed by anybody for the next two hours. Contemplating the enormous consequences his turn-around would have if it became publicly known, he decides to ignore my letter and he starts thinking about his future, his professional life a big question mark now.

Like the previous, but with another end. Mr Yentob finds the courage to account for his manipulating and distorting activities. In a statement that rocks the world, he publicly apologizes for the confusing effect of the programmes made under his supervision.

Mr Yentob always abhorred Torahism, but my letter strikes him as so annoyingly ironical or naive, he suddenly realizes Moses was right about the non-Jews after all. He dedicates himself to HaShem's holy sake on the spot.

Evidently, the chance I would receive a reliable reaction from him, is small. Ask a non-confuser whether he is a confuser and he will rightly deny it. But ask a confuser whether he is a confuser and he will most likely confuse you by denying it. Only option 9 would be trustworthy. And this whole fictitious situation involving Mr Yentob and me would have been caused by the existence of Torahism and my concern about it. The Torahist part of Jewry compels the non-Jews to be suspicious of all Jews. So the non-Jews are forced to do something they'd rather not, namely distrust the Jews; the non-Torahist Jews will many times sense a suspicion they don't deserve, which must be an awkward feeling; and finally, the Torahist Jews always have to worry, consciously or unconsciously, when the non-Jews will see what they are up to, regardless of the ingenuity of their deceptive ways.


The only thing I am sure of right now, is that I am seeing a number of patterns in the old media that are constituting a psychological war against the British people. In the following, I will describe a number of typical TV and film fragments, followed by my interpretation of their mental effects. The examples are a small and rather random selection of numerous fragments. The patterns are more important than the fragments. I am not alleging that the old media never broadcast opinions or scenes contrary to these patterns. I will describe what I consider to be the mainstream patterns, give or take some deviations. They are summarized in 5.11.16.


(No fragments here.)

Men talking about the importance of the housewive for the family, are down-imaged.
In series and films, women in jobs are up-imaged as vigorous and fast-moving professionals, outsmarting old-fashioned men all the time.
Women are portrayed as the ones who ought to decide when to have sex.
It is presented as something normal that women criticise the poor sexual performance of men in public.
It is presented as something normal that women unilaterally decide whether to have an abortion or not, as if the feelings of the father don't matter.
An undertone of 'women are the victims of men' can be heard many times.

In short, the old media are setting women and men against each other.


12th August 2002, BBC, an episode of 'Merseybeat'. The scene is in the living-room, where Jim and his wife are together with Jenny and her new boy-friend, a polite decent chap. Jim asks him: 'Are you sleeping with her?' He doesn't get an answer and he repeats the question. Jenny then shouts: 'Yes!', which makes Jim cross. He says: 'She is very precious to me and men can only think of one thing'. Jenny angrily shouts at him: 'How would you know?!' It becomes a row with both his wife and his daughter, and Jim leaves the room. Later on, the scene is at Jim's work, where his daughter visits him. She says: 'You already lost Ma, now you are losing me'

The scenes weakened the following constructive ideas. Parents have every right to prevent their daughter becoming everybody's slut, since not all Britain's new boy-friends are polite decent chaps. It's wrong for a daughter to accuse her father of hypocrisy, especially when other people are present. Both the mother and the father ought to adapt one single view on education in the interest of their children. If any lecturing is needed, it's the parent who lectures the child, not vice versa.

The scenes reinforced the following destructive ideas. Look how his old-fashioned views make this father ask embarrassing questions. It's perfectly normal for a daughter to give her father a loud mouth in serious matters like these. A father has to accept that his daughter sleeps around with everyone she likes. Concerned fathers are hypocrites. When the father is a nuisance, he has to leave the living-room. It's the father's own fault if he drifts apart from his wife and his daughter.

From September 2002 onwards, the clip channels, 'Cleaning Out My Closet' by Eminem. The images: a nervous wreck for a mother makes a mess in the kitchen, while her young son is watching her. Her trembling hand pours out pills from a jar. As an adult, he is digging a grave in a storm, singing, cited from memory: 'I am sorry mama, I didn't want to hurt you, I wasn't as nice for you as the visitors, I made you take pills, now I am cleaning out my closet'.

This videoclip weakens the following constructive ideas. We have to respect our fathers and mothers. Even if you have had a highly problematic relation with your mother, you don't exploit it commercially by making a videoclip about it, since the mother concerned has no possibility to defend herself against a videoclip that onesidedly portrays her in millions of Western homes. A teenager idol like Eminem can be a positive role model for impressionable minds. As violence against parents is increasing in current times, one doesn't make a videoclip that lowers the barrier to do it.

The videoclip reinforces the following destructive ideas. Other people, yes even my own mother, made me do the wrong things I am doing. What can I do about it? Every angle to make a catchy best-selling videoclip is OK. If your mother is a slut and a bitch, well, she is asking for trouble with you, isn't she?

These and similar scenes in television and film are revealing the following patterns:

The reasons for a child to have a loud mouth against its parents and teachers are often up-imaged as justifiable reasons.
Educating children to be polite, self-disciplined and persevering people is down-imaged as overdone drilling by insensitive or hypocritical parents.
Obstinate youths, vulnerable for false friendships and self-damaging choices, are up-imaged as youths who can perfectly judge for themselves what's best for them, despite their obstinacy.
The concern of parents for a homosexual child is down-imaged as the hypocritical and insensitive concern for their own reputation.

In short, the old media are setting parents and children against each other.


2003, Paramount, an episode of 'Spin City'. Charlie has a new girl-friend, Jennifer. They've agreed with Charlie's female colleague Caitlin to have dinner in a restaurant the three of them that evening. Before they meet Jennifer, Charlie says to Caitlin: 'I must warn you, Jennifer has been with a woman'. Caitlin is fascinated: 'She has? Everybody has done that, except me'.

The scene weakened the following constructive ideas. 1) Sex is something very beautiful, but it isn't a game, it isn't a pastime, because, whether we like it or not, our most tender and most precious feelings are always involved if we have sex, and we therefore ought to take great, great care with whom we share this experience. For the sake of self-respect, a thing that never can fully be regained once it is corroded, we don't sleep with people who don't deserve the joy our body can give. And we have to prevent the beast in us getting dragged into sexual perversions, because once unleashed that beast will need ever stronger kicks for its satisfaction, at the expense of our and other people's dignity and mental health. 2) When a man finds out he is dating a pervert, he doesn't introduce her to friendly colleagues. 3) Both men and women take care they don't get involved with perverted women.

The scene reinforced the following destructive ideas. It's perfectly OK to sleep around with both genders. It doesn't matter if you manoeuvre your colleague into a situation that easily may become very embarrassing. If you've never had a homosexual experience, you are old-fashioned.

Did you notice the 'everybody' in Caitlin's reaction? Who is this 'everybody'? Has 'everybody' in your surroundings been engaged in bisexual relationships? Presumably not and the same goes of course for the 'everybodies' in the vicinity of most viewers of 'Spin City'. The scriptwriter of the series must also be aware of this. So he has probably written this line to lure countless Western female viewers into an atmosphere of 'well, why shouldn't I experiment with bisexuality? It seems to be normal these days'.

11th February 2003, BBC Ten O'Clock News, London News Desk. Correspondent Sarah Harris reports on an event involving prostitutes. Ms Harris calls prostitution 'work' and calls prostitutes 'women making a living'. She tells the TV audience that 'whatever your views on prostitution, it is not illegal'.

The item weakened the following constructive ideas. Only real labour is work, true work is achieving something that will enrich your life and the life of others. You ought to make a living in a honourable manner, in a way that enhances your self-respect and that makes you respectable in the eyes of the people around you. You shouldn't do all the things the law allows you to do. Countries can have bad laws.

The item reinforced the following destructive ideas. I can't make ends meet this month again. Perhaps prostitution can help me out. It would only be for a short while. It's work nowadays. It's legal, they said it on the telly. It will be just work for me, I can handle it.

Mind you, Ms Harris also could have said things like 'How can some people call this 'work'? Prostitution kills all charm and inner beauty in a woman and she will develop a cynical opinion on all men'. She also could have said that instead, but she didn't.

These and similar scenes in television and film are revealing the following patterns in the long run:

Sex, the activity we owe our very existence to, is down-imaged as something that's fun only, in which there is no need for emotional responsibility for the partner, no need for love.
Having sex with many different partners is deceitfully up-imaged as something normal, as something that won't affect your self-respect and that won't harden your attitude towards your successive partners.
Homosexuality is misrepresented as equal to heterosexuality.
Homosexual activities of heterosexuals are up-imaged as interesting experiences without serious consequences for their inner self.
Prostitution is up-imaged as work.
AIDS is distortingly presented as something the whole world should feel responsible for, as if it is some sort of bubonic plague. I feel sorry for all the world's AIDS patients, but it isn't.

In short, the old media are encouraging immoral behaviour.


2001, the Hollywood film 'Traffic'. Leading actor Michael Douglas is playing the part of a conservative US judge. In the opening scenes, surly looking government officials offer him a career move if he succeeds in fighting drugs the hard way. Ironically, his own daughter becomes a drug addict. When he finds out, he gets enraged and he collides with his wive, who is in favour of a gentle approach. At one point he catches his daughter at using drugs in their home. In the row she says 'Fuck you' to her father. He finds out who her dealer is and he addresses him harshly, but the dealer, a negro, makes it clear he is not to be trifled with. In the closing scenes, the judge comes round and together with his daughter he visits a therapy group.

This film weakened these constructive ideas: a) Drug dealers are ruthless merciless scum, slowly ruining young people and their desperate families for the sake of money, and the only language this scum understands is harsh and relentless persecution by a government that will stop at little to protect the youth. The harder the battle against drugs, the better young people will understand that drugs are taboo, and the fewer persons will become dealers. (I am against the death penalty, that's the only neighbourly love I feel for them.) b) The rage and the despair of a father when his daughter becomes a junk, are sincere, and his urge to stop her ruining herself any further is totally natural, and both husband and wive should then unite. c) When a daughter is addicted to drugs, and she is caught by her parents, their sorrow should inspire her to feel contrite, because, after all, her parents are the people who love her most and they have raised her to become a happy and strong woman, not a self-destructor. d) In case a dealer is tracked down, the police ought to show up and arrest the punk. In case the punk has an attitude problem, the police should feel free to correct that attitude problem with a baton.

The film reinforced these destructive ideas: a) Will those hardliners in politics never learn? Drugs are there and there will always be drugs, that's just the way it is. We have to accept that. b) That father is only concerned about his daughter because she might endanger his career. c) The hard way will only deter drug addicts. They are ill. They can only be helped if they want to. The anger of the father will only alienate him from his daughter and wive. It's his own fault that his daughter insulted him. d) You can't come in the 'hood as an uptight honkey like that. You are then simply asking for trouble, aren't you?

May 2002, BBC, the Kilroy episode 'Young people taking drugs'. a) An ex-addict is in favour of drug liberalization. He says: 'Every government that tried to stamp out drugs, failed'. b) One of the guests is former Labour minister Mo Mowlam. She is also in favour of drug liberalization. c) At one point an ex-addict seems to think the whole discussion is one-sided, because she says: 'And how about alcohol?'

These remarks weakened the following constructive ideas: a) Thanks to the laws of the 'permissive society', a real government initiative to stamp out drugs has never actually taken place in the past decades. b) Leaders and other influential people should take a firm stance against addictions. In the early decades of the social democratic movement, their politicians did their best to keep working class people from addictions by means of many initiatives. c) If both drugs and alcohol are a big problem, let's try to tackle these problems at the same time then.

The remarks contributed to the following undermining ideas: a) and b) Yes, they always failed. Well, there is nothing we can do about it, obviously. c) Yes, they are always hammering on drugs, but how about alcohol indeed? Let's talk another ten years about which problem has the biggest priority before we do anything at all. And finally, a question Mr Kilroy-Silk didn't ask and other interviewers also never ask: 'We didn't have this terrible drug problem fourty years ago. How on earth could this nation have sunk so low?'

4th March 2003, BBC, an episode of 'Manchild'. In the closing scenes 'Terry' and 'James' are sitting on a couch in the middle of a very noisy party. They're trying to talk with one another. James is yelling: 'They are behaving like teenagers! Teenagers! Pathetic!' Someone then approaches their couch and bows forward, opening his hand in the sight of both. He shows them some pills and starts summing up the names of the drugs. James says: 'What a splendid notion!' Terry also fancies the prospect of getting drugged. They both take a pill and make a toasting gesture. After the credits we see James freak out on the dance floor.

The scenes weakened the following constructive ideas. You must avoid places where dealers are likely to be around. When someone tries to offer you drugs, you tell him to get out of your sight and you warn the police. You don't experiment with drugs, because life is too precious to experiment with and drug addictions are life-damaging. It's bad enough already that some people have a drinking problem, Britain really could have done without the drug problem that grew from the 1960s onwards. Real friends keep each other off from drugs.

The scenes reinforced the following destructive ideas. It's suggested that party drugs only stimulate the fun a bit, just like alcohol does. The words 'what a splendid notion' are gentleman's English. This choice of words deceitfully suggests that someone who takes drugs, can be a person who is in full control of himself, that someone who takes drugs can be a strong personality for whom it is just an innocent experiment, no big deal, it won't destabilize his life. In other words, weak minds, susceptible for the risk of drugs, are encouraged to fool and damage themselves, because weak minds also like to believe they have strong personalities. The mental effect on parents and grandparents of adolescents: drugs are our greatest concern and now they are demonstrating it on television, what's the use of warning our children of it? In the minds of narcotics fighters: what am I doing my utmost for now they are promoting it on television? Finally, the following mistake arises in the younger viewer's minds: when adults are having fun trying drugs on the tube, especially such a cool guy like Terry, it's probably less harmful than my parents always say it is, why shouldn't I try it, just once?

In short, the old media are undermining a firm stance against drugs.


July-August 2002, BBC, the trailer of the Commonwealth Athletic Games. From the distance an athlete comes running towards us. He runs along a couple of parked cars. The shockwave caused by his speed shatters all car windows.

September 2002, BBC, the announcement clip of the new programme 'Bedtime'. We see a woman meditating in her bed. Her noisy husband distracts her. The clock radio next to the bed then explodes.

In television and film an increasing number of scenes and cuts are meant to startle the viewers. Even in sheer informatory programmes of Discovery and National Geographic sudden camera movements are combined with sharp sounds. Watching TV and films, you get the feeling you have to duck away for flying axes more and more.

2001, a Warner Bros. motion picture, 'Harry Potter'. Some scenes: the boy hero follows another boy who stole something, everyone of them is flying on a broomstick. Harry Potter: 'Give it back or I'll kick you from your broomstick'. At his first dinner in the castle a number of ghosts emerge. One of them introduces himself as a knight who almost lost his head, tilting his head aside. A nauseating slimy sound is audible. His slit throat is shown in close-up. The main figure and his two friends land in a room with a huge chess set. The chessmen look like some sort of insane samurais. They savagely smash one another to pieces in an orgy of violence. Harry enters a forbidden library and opens a book. One of the pages suddenly turns into a horrifying face, crying in agony. In the final battle Harry Potter fights a monster with two faces that yells 'There is no good or evil, only power and the powerless'. Close-up of a throat, strangled by a hand. Close-up of a clawing hand on a face. The monster pulverizes, the boy not showing a trace of dismay. The words 'kill' and 'death' are frequently used in the film.

Countless young children have seen this Harry Potter movie. Both the books and the film were positively depicted in big media hypes, so parents got the feeling they would be depriving their children of something great if they didn't give them Harry Potter books and if they didn't take them to see the film. But if these are the kicks the old media confront our children with at the age of 8, 9 or 10, then which kicks will our children need for their 'entertainment' once they are 18, 19 or 20?

From July 2002 onwards, the clip channels, 'Born To Bounce', I forgot the name of the 'performers'. One man and two women are ruining a car. The camera shows carefully how an iron rod hits a window. In the closing scenes one of the depraved women drops a doll. We see a close-up of the doll's head. We hear the lyrics: 'We are born...'. Pause. The doll's head explodes. ' bounce.' Let's analyse these last seconds in detail. Once the viewer hears 'we are born...', he expects to hear ' bounce', because that would complete the refrain. The pause therefore grows an expectant tension in him. That tension gets released by the image of the exploding doll's head and the subsequent lyrics ' bounce'. In other words, a few unknown persons in an unknown studio have spent hours to edit the clip's footage and soundtrack in such a refined way, that numerous young viewers get a kick seeing a doll's head explode. One of the wordless messages of this clip: cool girls don't play with dolls, they destroy them, a metaphor for: you have to hurt other people instead of care about them. Be a bitch, not a mother.

From October 2002 onwards, the clip channels, 'Die Another Day' of Madonna. Her face totally contorted with contempt and aggression, she and another woman are vandalizing a museum-like scenery during a fight. The camera is leering at the destruction of big showcases. Madonna gets caught, she fights with prison personnel like a wild animal and finally she is electrocuted.

The young viewers' minds are smeared by these ideas: if you are a girl, you can be a violent punk too. Vandalism is fun. Authorities must be spitted at. Even if your crimes lead you to the chair, you can be proud of yourself, because you have fought to the bitter end. Any angle to make a best-selling clip is OK. Why should an artist care about the feelings of victims of crime and vandalism?

These and similar scenes in television and film - and computer games, not to forget - are revealing the following patterns in the long run:

Disproportionately violent revenge is up-imaged as the obvious thing to do.
Life in general is down-imaged as some sort of war zone in which you are on your own.
The old media and they alone have widely spread words like 'bitch', 'nerd' and 'motherfucker' in the past decades. Such expressions are encouraging verbal aggression, which stimulates physical aggression.

In short, the old media are arousing aggressive tensions.

Music surrogates like 'house' and 'techno' are doing the same thing.


1983, a film of Brian DePalma, 'Scarface', leading actor Al Pacino. A Cuban immigrant, Tony Montano finds out that dealing drugs makes more and easier money than working in a fastfood joint. His talent for crime makes him a big shot. One evening he is having dinner with his girlfriend in a fancy restaurant. He's drunk, they start a quarrel and she leaves him alone. He then gets up his feet and starts disorientedly drifting about in the restaurant, treating the other guests to the following monologue: 'What are you looking at? Never seen a bad guy before? Shall I tell you something? You need people like me. You need people like me, so you can point your fucking finger at me and say: that's the bad guy. That makes you feel good. But you are no good, you are only better at hiding your badness than me.' Some waiters guide him to the exit while he shouts: 'Make way for the bad guy! There's a bad guy coming through!' At the end of the film the dealer dies after getting shot in his back, while fighting a gang that intruded his house.

The film weakened the following constructive ideas: even if you have a simple job that pays little, there is honour in making the best of it, in being a nice colleague. Nothing prevents you to follow some course in the evening to enhance your chances of a better paid job. Life knows no corner an honest and patient man can't get out of. A ruthless criminal who makes money out of other people's misery shouldn't be portrayed as a man who rouses sympathy by liquor-inspired wisecracks.

The film reinforced the following destructive ideas. You, socially vulnerable young viewer who tends to look at films like these, you are mad to work yourself to the bone for some lousy salary. Only wealth matters. Only wealth proves you are successful in life. Who cares you may end up dead due to a career in crime? We all got to go some time. At least you will have lived your life to the fullest, you won't have been anybody's fool. Everybody is bad one way or the other, including the tie brigade, they only manage to conceal it, look at them profiteering top managers.

Whenever criminals are interrogated by police and judges, 'Scarface' pops up as one of their favourite films.

Early 1990s, a Martin Scorsese film, 'Goodfellas', leading actor Robert DeNiro. The socially vulnerable young viewers who tend to look at films like these are exposed to the following destructive ideas: working won't make you rich, you are stupid if you work from 9 to 5. The police are corrupt. You got to have a position in which you can command other people. Mates talking to the police are despicable informers, when you keep silent during an interrogation, you are a hero. Anyone who comes on to you, must be mutilated. Idiots simply ask for being shot in the back. In the long run killing gets easy.

I have now twice used the term 'socially vulnerable young viewers who tend to look at films like these'. Why? Because we have to realize that many people tend not to. They are therefore missing a major part of the old media's content. That partial darkness hinders them to assess correctly as to whether there is really a psychological war going on.

18th September 2002, BBC, 'Crime Day'. In one of the programmes an ex-convict visits a married couple to investigate whether their home is an easy prey for burglars or not. The three of them take a look at the entrance light, the sliding French window, the bolts, and they check where the couple stores its valuables. The attitude of the ex-convict in this programme is characterised by the flair and the self-assuredness of a veritable expert. He predicts correctly where the woman hides her jewelry. He comments disparagingly on the protective qualities of the locks and things. Everything he says has this undertone of 'these people are so naive, they are asking for it'. The married couple grins sheepishly or looks bewildered, no offence intended.

The programme goes on showing the successful effort of a reformed burglar-friend of the ex-convict to break into the house. The married couple and the expert are seated behind a monitor, and a clock shows how much time the burglar needs to get in. It takes him three bounces against a door to open it. He raids the dwelling in a practised manner, gathering the loot in a suitcase. The woman starts crying. Afterwards the married couple gets another lecture, now from the burglar. He tells them off. How could you safe your banking stuff in such an obvious place, it's a piece of cake now for me to rob your account. He gives them a full array of instructions. Do this, never do that, hide this there, always hide that, and so on. It's clear that this English home isn't a castle by any standard, so they go to work, the couple buys a fortified door, of a type the burglar approves of, and some other safety materials. The BBC narrator lists their purchases and literally tells Britain that '1,121 pounds is a small price to protect your values'. Once their house is equipped with the new safety devices, two uninformed policemen are invited to walk down the street to point out which house will most likely deter burglars. They select the house of the couple, thank heavens. A cosy chat concludes the programme. Later on that evening statistician Peter Snow tells us that 'crime figures are bad, but not as bad as you think'.

The programme weakened the following constructive ideas: it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens against crime. Political parties that forsake that duty, ought to be harassed by independent media. Politicians who forsake that duty, ought to leave office. Those citizens who don't harm others, have every right to be protected against those who do. It's unbecoming for an ex-convict to adopt a lecturing attitude towards people who've always worked for their money. If any lecturing is needed, it are the working people and the state who will lecture the criminals, not vice versa. It's very unwise to televise the ease with which an outside door can be opened by force. Our lifes shouldn't be burdened by the necessity of all kinds of safety and security measures. People have every right to live in a pleasant atmosphere without worrying about crime. We have had such a relaxed atmosphere in this country, let's thoroughly find out where things went wrong and let's make a serious multi-track national effort to roll crime back.

The programme reinforced the following destructive ideas: it's your own fault if it's easy for burglars to enter your home. Look how easy it is to break open an outside door. If you're too miserly to spend 1,121 pounds, then that's your problem. In today's world you have a big responsiblity to protect yourself, that's just the way it is.What's the use of walking down memory lane? We live in a different world now. And speaking of a different world, it's progress when citizens and former offenders talk with one another, it will grow mutual understanding. Besides, crime isn't that omnipresent, people are talking themselves into believing that.

27th September 2002, BBC Ten O'Clock News. In one of the reports, the viewers are informed about a volunteer monitoring an anonymous sex offender in Canada who has been convicted dozens of times. When the two of them meet, they exchange a hi-five and they go out bowling. The volunteer tells the interviewer he is keeping track of the convict's ways to prevent the latter falling back in old behaviour. The British Home Office in the background, the BBC reporter then continues, promoting this idea of volunteers accompanying sex offenders. He emphasizes it's not meant as an idea to replace police and probation office, but as a supplementary measure.

The report weakened the following constructive ideas: 1) The less monitoring people are involved, the smaller the chance of confused responsibilities, the smaller the chance fatal misunderstandings will occur about whose turn it was to monitor the offender. 2) The sight of multi-convicted sex offenders hi-fiving and bowling on TV is bitter for all the victims of sex offences and their families. 3) It's a highly saddening fact of life that some people are born weirdos whose sexual desires are bound to make victims. So once society has established a sex offender is a born weirdo, and committing more than one sexual offence is a pretty reliable indication for that, society has every moral right to isolate the weirdos permanently, to protect children, women and their families on the one hand, and to protect the weirdos from themselves on the other hand, instead of releasing them time after time, aggravating misery. Since born weirdos haven't created themselves, a humane consideration is in place, so they shouldn't be locked up in moist dungeons for the rest of their lifes, but they have to be isolated forever one way or the other. They have a grave social duty to be honest to themselves and to admit they are born weirdos society must be protected against. In fact, there have been such people who showed this kind of honesty. American serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer stated he felt both sick and evil. Suffering from his inner urge, he didn't blame other people. 4) Society has to be reorganized in such a way, that the chances that sexually sane people become perverted criminals, are minimal.

The BBC reporter reinforced the following destructive ideas: the more people involved in monitoring sex offenders, the better. If someone has been convicted for several sexual offences, that doesn't necessarily imply he will do it again. Crystal-clear protective solutions aren't even worth mentioning, Britain simply has to accept this risk. There is no need starting a national discussion about the relation between sexual offences and the omnipresence of pornography and obscenities on TV.

8th January 2003, BBC Ten O'Clock News. The viewers are informed about the rounding up of a London-based Colombian gang that brought in 8-year-olds as drug runners. The BBC reporter interviews Detective Chief Superintendent John Coles. He says: 'When we cut them off, the cocaine market disappeared in that area'. The reporter then continues in the absence of the police officer: 'Detectives are billing this as a success but they are not pretending to have solved the problem of crack cocaine in the capital, because as soon as one drugs operation has been shut down, then another will inevitably takes its place'

This report weakened the following constructive ideas. Every rounding up of a drug gang is beneficial for British society. Every rounding up is a victory, be it big or small. We owe a lot to our police force for their fight against crime, they are even frequently jeopardizing their own lifes for the common good. Let's hope that by this successful drugs operation our politicians wake up and realize that Britain has become an attractive country for totally unscrupulous criminals from abroad.

The BBC report corroborated the following destructive ideas. It's a matter of debate whether to consider this rounding up a success. It isn't that much of a success really. The London police are well aware they can't win this battle. They're wasting their energy fighting a losing battle actually, because the drug gangs will always prevail. (It's this undertone that stealthily undermines the average policeman's determination, whereas strengthening that determination would be more than welcome nowadays.) 8-year-old drug runners, so what? The immigration of Colombian criminals, so what? It isn't worth paying special attention to.

The old media are talking about 'gangsta rap' in a neutral manner. That contributes to susceptible viewers thinking that being a 'gangsta' isn't that bad. An American negro called '50 Cents' released an album full of 'gangsta rap' and named it 'Get rich or die tryin'. What's that supposed to mean? His clips are shown non-stop on MTV.

These and similar utterances in the old media are revealing the following patterns in the long run:

The rise of crime is wrongly depicted as an inevitable social development no-one can do anything about.
The rise of crime is played down as a phenomenon many people exaggerate.
The discussion about the causes of crime is systematically narrowed down to social-economic factors.
Welfare work is up-imaged as the obvious remedy for crime, although the increase of crime coincides with the increasing influence of welfare organizations on politics since 1968.
Stern common-sense measures to prevent and suppress crime are down-imaged as obsolete, short-sighted and fascist.

In short, the old media are boosting the wrong attitude of criminals.


1985, film 'My beautiful laundrette'. A young Pakistani arrives in the UK and he wants to be a successful businessman. He visits his family. He asks his aunt: 'Have you ever been in Karachi?' She answers: 'What a foolish thing to ask. Karachi, that's my home. How could anybody in his right mind consider this silly island of Europe as his home?!' The Pakistani family share their concern with their newly arrived relative: 'How to survive in racist Britain?' The immigrant buys a shabby laundrette in a working class district, turns it into a nice and clean neon-lit place that attracts many customers and he finds happiness in a love affair with his employee, a British lad. One of his relatives is already well-to-do. This Pakistani arrogantly asks the young Briton: 'What else is there to do for you in this country than work for us?'

'My beautiful laundrette', a film of a Pakistani director, was given high praise by this country's journalists and cultural highbrow.

The scenes weakened the following constructive ideas: film directors shouldn't make films that encourage immigrants to look down on the host nation. If the media want to be consistent in condemning racism, they ought to condemn films that spread anti-British racism as well.

The scenes strengthened the following destructive ideas: look, a Pakistani can make a film that insults the British in their own country and nobody will protest. He will even be praised for it by the British media. If it was the other way around, we Pakistani wouldn't tolerate it. We would contact the media, anti-racism institutions, politicians, we would make our protests be heard loud and clear. But the British don't. The British are either racists or wimps.

2000, 'Rules of engagement', leading actor Samuel Jackson. In the capital of a Third-World country a violent armed mob starts attacking the American embassy. Mr Jackson, a negro, plays the part of a US army sergeant. He and his platoon are commissioned to fly to the besieged building with a helicopter in order to rescue the ambassador and his staff. The military land on top of the building. Defying enemy fire, the sergeant manages to get to the ambassador. It is a white man. He shows no gladness because of the arrival of his rescuer, on the contrary, he is coarsely shouting things. The sergeant risks his life covering the ambassador's run for the helicopter. Once the official is safe, the sergeant wants to embark also, but he then suddenly turns around, stunning the other Americans, and he runs to the embassy again, while shots are fired at him continuously. It appears he has run back to secure the US flag. He returns to the helicopter again with the Stars and Stripes, which he offers the diplomat. The sergeant submissively says: 'Do you know how to fold up this flag, Mr Ambassador?' Later on in Washington, the sergeant gets a reprimand because he had fired at civilians.

The silent messages of these scenes, in my view: look how this brave black man risks his life for saving the neck of that arrogant white. Look at that white man's ingratitude, look how that white coward makes a run for the helicopter, all forgetting about the holy cloth of the country he is supposed to represent. On the other hand, how about the fearless patriotism of that dutiful Afro-American, huh? He, a humble soldier, has more 'America' in his little finger than the white ambassador has in his entire body. But now, after their return to the States, look at the 'thanks' the black man is getting. The whites screwed the blacks in the slavery years and the whites are still screwing the blacks today.

December 2001, BBC, last of series 'Taboos'. Presenter Joan Bakewell blames comedian Bernard Manning for making discriminating jokes. She confronts him with the complaints of non-whites. He then replies: 'Let them worry about the child starvation in their own countries'. Joan Bakewell: 'Do you hear what you say? 'Their' countries? But this is their country. Are you a racist?' Mr Manning stammers a denial. In the same episode Bakewell pays attention to the turmoil among Muslims that was caused by Salman Rushdie's book 'The Satanic Verses'. She says: 'Britain has no longer a national voice. Due to cultural mixing and global publishing more sensitivities arose'.

The episode weakened the following constructive ideas: 1) Britain is the country of the British people unless the British people democraticly decide otherwise after an extensive, profound and candid national debate about the advantages and disadvantages of mass immigration. 2) Now we are paying attention to taboos in general, let's investigate the taboos of our own time. Let's see if these taboos are good or bad for society. Let's see where today's taboos come frome anyway. Let's investigate how generally acknowledged facts of life became taboos in one era and vice versa.

The episode reinforced the following destructive ideas: 1) Britain has no longer a national voice, because we, the twenty or fifty unelected decision-makers of the BBC, simply happen to believe that Britain shouldn't have a national voice any longer. And because we can seat ourselves before the TV cameras any time we like, we have the possibility to dictate the whole of Britain it has no longer a national voice, whether the whole of Britain fancies that idea or not. In fact, those who dare to say anything else, can easily be intimidated by calling them 'racists' in front of a multi-million audience. 2) In the minds of the non-white immigrants: excellent job of Joan Bakewell, telling off those racist Britons there. This is our country too, from the very moment we set foot on it, without a day's work here. 3) In many a British mind: it isn't fair. There is something going on in our country that simply isn't fair. It feels as if you ought to be ashamed of yourself if you are white and British.

June 2002, BBC, an episode of 'The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air', leading actor Will Smith. This is the story line the producer, the director and the scriptwriters had created: the black family are glad to hear that one of them is about to get married. Many witty dialogues with a lot of audience laughter typify the happy atmosphere. But then, one day the bridegroom arrives. He is white. An awkward silence falls. The forthcoming wedding finds its greatest opponent in one of the girl's aunts. In a dialogue with the bride she explains why: 'I want to be happy for you, I really do, but a mixed marriage is very though because of racism'. The sitcom gets a happy end when even the reluctant aunt shows up at the wedding party to join a compelling part song. The drift of the producer's and the director's story line is clear: there are many bad racist whites out there that are souring the lifes of those nice jolly black people.

Fall 2002, BBC series 'Great Britons'. The trailer of the series consists of the following images. We see a yellowish sky. As the camera moves down, we see birds fluttering. Three signs are held up high, with the word 'VOTE' on them. A portrait of Churchill. Then, the first close-up shows a negro with a bowler hat. More and more people appear on the screen. The words 'Great Britons' appear and the programme begins.

This is the silent message the BBC wanted to tell us, in my view: 'White viewer, now you are about to watch this retrospective series 'Great Britons', you and your family might be susceptible for nostalgic feelings. You might long for the days that Britain was great and that the British people were a white people. However, we, the unelected BBC producers, have quietly decided those are wrong thoughts, and we are therefore showing you a negro with a bowler as the first person in this trailer. Today's average Briton might very well be a negro, do you understand? And if you don't like it, you'd better get used to it. We shall erase those bad sentiments about white people totally out of your head.'

November 2002, the BBC series 'A history of Britain' by Simon Schama. In one of the episodes, the historian pays attention to the slave trade. I quote: 'The slave trade wasn't a sideshow of the British Empire, it was the British Empire'. He furthermore shows a branding iron, used for marking the African slaves, in full detail.

The fragment weakened the following constructive ideas: although it had its dark sides like the slave trade and violent repression, the British Empire was the result of the pioneering spirit, the boldness, the technical skills, the organization expertise, the perseverance and the hard, hard work of a Christian white people. It was indeed wrong of the whites to make a profit by trading and shipping human beings, but they got help from African chiefs chasing other tribes for money, so both the white race and the black race can learn something from that sad chapter in history. There is however no need for mutual reproaching nowadays, because guilt is not hereditary. Besides, it were also the whites who abolished slavery, the pro-abolition speech of Pitt the Younger in 1792 kicking off the debate in our country.

Mr Schama reinforced the following destructive ideas: a) If it wasn't for us black people, there wouldn't even ever have been a British Empire. Look carefully how cruel those whites were, branding blacks with red hot iron. No wonder we black people are still traumatized by this, this enormous wound passes on from generation to generation. It doesn't matter the slave trade ended some 150 years ago. Today's whites ought to be ashamed of themselves also. The whites are still indebted to us, we'll make them pay. b) Many well-meaning whites will probably think: 'We have caused the blacks much misery', forgetting that the 'we' doesn't apply here.

13th February 2003, BBC Ten O'Clock News. The 2001 census is reported to show that from 1991 to 2001 the percentage of non-whites in the British population has increased from 6% to 9%. Newham is presented as the first community in which the non-white residents are outnumbering the whites. Three non-whites are being interviewed by the BBC about the subject.

The selection of three non-whites for these interviews weakened the following constructive ideas: the British people belong to the white race and Britain is the country of the British people, so let's hear what the Britons have to say about this racial development. The whites have every right to make themselves heard. If this racial development continues, the future of the whites in a traditionally white country doesn't look bright. In fact, the British should have been consulted by the political parties about the mass immigration of non-whites. In a democracy the people ought to be consulted and asked for their approval about all major decisions which determine that people's future.

The three interviews reinforced the following destructive ideas: the opinion of white people about racial developments doesn't matter. It is of no importance that Britain has always been a country where white people lived. We simply have to forget that Britain. It's already gone actually.

These and similar scenes in television and film are revealing the following patterns in the long run:

In discussions about race-related problems, the whites we get to see on television, are taking sides with non-whites against other whites.
Racism is usually portrayed as a bad thing only white people are guilty of.
Every problem of non-white communities and Third-World countries is related to the wrongs of whites, one way or the other.
In more and more TV and film scenes in which both a white and a negro are playing a part, the negro is up-imaged as the more sensible, the more firm, the more warm-hearted, the more generous person of the two.
In the past fifteen years or so, pop music has become almost identical with negro music.

In short, the old media are undermining the self-confidence of white people.


We've seen that the production of TV programmes and films in the West is the work of a very small Jewish minority. But have you ever realized that these films and programmes are misinterpreted by most non-Westerners as symbolic for the entire West? And that they understandably but wrongly assume that all Westerners are living like the Western actors in these series and films? It's something worth paying special attention to, I think.

In series about white families like 'Roseanne' and 'Married With Children' brothers and sisters are gravely insulting each other, ridiculing each other's sexual behaviour, they don't hesitate to call each other 'slut'. How do you think such scenes go down with the Muslims and other foreigners in our country? They have the notion that family members ought to respect each other. They have the notion that parents ought to forbid such insults. They have the notion that brothers and fathers ought to defend their sisters' and wifes' honour. But because of the distorted image of the West the TV offers them, they will wrongly assume that all Westerners have lost those notions. That mistake arouses or furthers their contempt of the Western peoples.

There is a growing tendency in TV series and films to depict Western women as women who are throwing themselves at everyone ('Sex & The City'). But the immigrants don't know many of us don't like this tendency of ever more sex on the box. The immigrants don't know there is a wide gap between the media executives and the British people. Even many British aren't aware of this. All that the foreigners know is that they are constantly seeing white women sleep around on television.

The Kilroy talk show of 13th November 2002 deals with the question: 'Why are women unfaithful?' Remarkable thing about the audience: this time all women in the studio are white, whereas in other Kilroy episodes also women of Asian and African origin are invited. The wording of the central question and the sight of all these white women suggest that being unfaithful is widespread, if not epidemic, among our women. Please note: the question was not 'Why are some women unfaithful?'

Series like 'The Office', praised by the incrowd, are suggesting that utterly obtuse and corny behaviour answers to the average white man's definition of humour.

The visual media of the West don't hesitate to show people on toilet seats.

Please try to put yourself in the position of an average non-Western immigrant, watching the aforementioned shows and, for instance, the BBC programme '4 on 2' of 3rd March 2003. It was a BBC4 compilation. These were some scenes the immigrant got to see.

1) A man introduced as an artist, who destroys literally all his belongings, reminiscing on his past while studying some shreds he picked out of the waste crades.

2) An art prominent, renowned in the artistic milieu for his ill-fitting whig that makes him easily recognizable at crowded parties.

What will the average Ugandese or Azerbaijani or Sri Lankan or Kurdish immigrant think of such things?

'Well, I find the culture of my new fatherland very interesting, although I have to admit I don't grasp all its subtleties entirely yet. I simply can't wait to learn English and then adjust to these British social-cultural standards that are so fascinatingly deviating from the habits of the country I left.'

Or will he think: 'They're a funny lot, the British, but I like their jobs, their houses, their lawyers and their benefits'?

It is clear in my mind that the old media are down-imaging our people in the eyes of the foreigners.


October 2000. Time Magazine runs a merry cover story about the fact that more and more Americans have a multi-racial and multi-ethnic ancestry. The editors have enlivened the article with many photo inserts of smiling people, with captions like 'Peggy (29) works as an IT director at a food company. Her grandparents are from Mexico, Bulgary, Puerto Rico and China'. The tenor of the article was, if memory serves me right: the race issue is becoming less and less of an issue, since ethnic mixing is on the increase and that's progress. (No offence intended of the real persons portrayed in this article.) Nearly a year later, Time Magazine runs another cover story on a comparable subject. The front page shows a bearded Afghan-like face and the headline is: 'Immigration: Europe's future?' The opening lines set the positive tone of the rest. Cited from memory: 'Europe is slowly discovering what made America great: immigration.'

August 2002, BBC, Newsnight, a report on illegal immigration from Cherbourg. French policemen are checking the underside of a lorry. They find an illegal immigrant, a rather suspicious-looking character, who was hiding underneath. Later on, the man is sitting in a pitiful posture before the TV camera. The commenter's voice is full of sympathy for him: 'Disappointment and weariness are evident.'

The report weakened the following constructive ideas: anyone who tries to enter a country illegally, ought to be treated with a fair amount of suspicion. His very first act towards the British people is a shady act, so he is likely to be a criminal. Regretfully, we already have a huge crime problem, so we can do without criminals from abroad, thank you very much. In fact, it is advisable for the British state to radiate a deterrent attitude towards criminals and parasites from abroad, in order to discourage illegal immigration beforehand.

The BBC report strengthened the following destructive ideas: surely, all illegal immigrants have a good reason for trying to enter this country illegally. We have to regard them as desperate people beforehand. What else can they do? They're not bad people. Illegal immigrants can't be bad people.

8th October 2002, BBC, coverage of the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Former Tory Chairman Lord Tebbit is interviewed by a BBC reporter. One of his questions: 'When you look at the Conservative MPs now, they're overwhelmingly male, and entirely white, but that is not representative for the Britain I am seeing when I'm walking in the street.' Later on, Party Chairman Theresa May is also interrogated about the composition of the Conservative side in parliament. The BBC reporter jeers: 'Women? Minorities? All a snail's progress at best!'

In 'Breakfast with Frost' of 20th January 2002 Sir David Frost asked comparable questions to Mr Duncan Smith: 'Why aren't there any black MPs, Asian MPs, gay MPs in your party?' After the Tory leader aired his good intentions, Mr Frost pressed him: 'How soon will we see results?'

Questions like that are weakening the following constructive ideas: 1) Being a negro or an Asian or a woman or a gay doesn't imply you will be a better MP than a white man - and Britain, or any other country for that matter, has to be governed by the best of the best. 2) We have never been consulted about the mass immigration, much less asked for its approval, so offering Africans and Asians seats in our home of democracy, simply because they are Africans and Asians for crying out loud, would legitimize a very serious wrong in retrospect.

Questions like the ones mentioned are reinforcing the following destructive ideas: 1) I am white. I am a male. I am a heterosexual. However, I am getting the feeling there is something wrong with me when I am watching television. 2) I am gay or a negro or an Asian. If a political party is denying me a seat in parliament or the local council, it is probably because I am gay or a negro or an Asian. Good questions there of Mr Frost and the others. They are about to expose those white politicians as a bunch of gay-hating mysogynic racists.

26th November 2002, BBC, a Kilroy episode on 'Are immigrants welcome?' At the end, the host tells Britain his conclusion: 'We need new people, new skills. You can't get a plumber nowadays. You can't get a plumber!'

15th January 2003, BBC, a Kilroy episode on 'Asylum seekers'. While several fellow countrymen are attacking each other's 'aggressive stance' towards foreigners, Mr Kilroy-Silk talks with an Albanian. He has a job. The presenter immediately turns to our living-rooms, saying: 'He will pay for your pensions, he will support the elderly, we need well-qualified people like him.' When a Briton tells he doesn't like the sight of young foreigners grouping together in his street, Mr Kilroy-Silk explains: 'They are sticking together because they are in a strange land'. He then introduces another talk with some immigrants. He predicts their story will make some people cross. It appears that these foreigners first found asylum in Germany, then decided to migrate to the UK, where they got a bigger house than an English woman in the audience got after years of waiting. The episode was concluded by Mr Kilroy-Silk saying: 'We have to maintain our responsibility for the threatened'.

The episode weakened the following constructive ideas: 1) Because many foreigners came here for all the wrong reasons, the British people shouldn't be divided against itself. That will play into their hands and of those who make money on immigration. 2) The ageing of the British population proves that in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s the British governments forsook their duty to stimulate family life in time. Let's confront the Conservative Party and the Labour Party with this grave neglect of duty. Let's make an effort to correct their bungling in order to maintain the existence of our people. 3) If a country is so kind to protect you, you ought to behave in such a manner that the host nation notices you are respecting it. Therefore, you must avoid the company of foreigners with a wrong, intimidating attitude. 4) We have to maintain our responsibility for the threatened, yes, but why is mass immigration constantly presented as the only way to do it? Furthermore, the British state has to prevent that our hospitality and our compassion are being misused by malevolent people. It's one of its duties.

The Kilroy show corroborated the following damaging ideas. 1) In the minds of the malevolent among the foreigners: 'Look how those naive Britons are fighting with each other. Look how they are slighting the housing needs of their own people. These people must be crazy, but I don't mind'. 2) In the minds of many well-meaning people, still unaware of an incredible pursuit I discovered in 2000: 'Well, yes, those young working immigrants can mean a lot for our economy.' 3) In the minds of the malevolent among the immigrants: 'Yes, we're in a strange land, we group together if we want to, let them get used to it'. 4) In the minds of those Britons whose neighbourhoods are tormented by criminals from abroad: 'Well done, Mr Kilroy-Silk, encourage them to group together, thanks but no thanks!' 5) A poisonous thought in general: the only way to help other peoples is by allowing them to immigrate in their hundreds of thousands and if you don't endorse mass immigration, you're evading your humanitarian responsibility.

2nd March 2003, BBC, The Politics Show, London addition. Presenter Tim Donovan opens an item on asylum seekers. 'Requests for asylum broke the 100,000 barrier. The government announced these figures must be decreased. So the talk is of tightening restrictions and sending people back and so on. But isn't there another way of turning a problem into a solution? Should we in fact embrace more asylum seekers as migrant workers for the benefits they could bring? Only one thing is for certain: London would grind to a halt without its black economy.'

Saying this, Mr Donovan weakened the following constructive ideas: Britain is the country of the British. The more foreigners pour in, the sooner we will lose our national identity and our spirit. It''s only fair that vacancies are filled by Britons. It's simply unjust to help non-Britons by disadvantaging Britons. If one praises the results of the black economy, one is indirectly encouraging the black economy, so media people, of all people, shouldn't do that, given the large influence they have.

Mr Donovan reinforced the following destructive ideas: 1) The fact that a large part of the British people has just about had it with more immigration, must be ignored. The fact that many foreigners are downright freeloaders, and that many of them are involved in crime, must be totally ignored too. The opinion of indignant Britons is totally irrelevant. 2) It doesn't matter if London's economy is thriving on people evading the law. We need the black economy. The corrupting long-term effects of that situation aren't important. It doesn't matter if you start evading the law too.

3rd March 2003, BBC, the Newsnight item: 'Scots: a dying breed?' Statistics show that Scotland's original population is diminishing. The narrator's voice: 'The Scottish government not only want more people, but also the right people by encouraging immigration'. Spots are shown that are produced under the authority of the Scottish government. In one of these spots, close-ups show brown and yellow and white hands pulling a rope. The total image shows a multi-racial company next to a flagpole with a huge Scottish flag. The slogan comes in the picture: 'Don't let Scotland down. One Scotland. Many cultures.' In another spot, a white man in a bar mocks the looks of Asians. A hurted Asian girl then appears, she was sitting at the other end of the bar. All look cross at the white racist now. In a street scene a white woman is accidentally bumped against by a non-white. The white woman looks over-angered, she is clearly a racist.

The Newsnight scenes weakened the following constructive ideas: again, it is the duty of the state to secure the existence of the nation. So if the Scottish population is decreasing, the government ought to take measures that will stimulate Scottish families to have more children. A country can only be strong if there is one dominant culture most inhabitants feel connected with. It is unjust and awkward to suggest that only whites can be racists.

The scenes reinforced the following destructive ideas: only more foreigners are the right people for Scotland, mind you, not more Scottish children. Scots opposing immigration, are letting Scotland down, they are bad Scots, according to the current rulers of Scotland. It won't affect the inner harmony of a country if the most divergent cultures and religions are imported in that country. There is no need to consult the Scots first. They simply have to comply with it and if they don't, their own Prime Minister and television will make them understand they're racists good and proper.

These and similar scenes in television and film are revealing the following patterns in the long run:

Illegal immigrants are up-imaged as the innocent victims of smugglers.
By grossly overexposing the sad stories of the few real asylum seekers, the BBC mendaciously suggests that most asylum seekers are escaping life-endangering circumstances by arriving here.
The criminal activities of foreigners are played down or glossed over.
Mass migration of non-whites to white countries is portrayed as a rather harmless or inevitable peculiarity of our times.
Immigrants are up-imaged as people whose presence will enrich our society.
You are pressed to regard the immigrants as compatriots unreservedly.
Interviewers are pressing the political parties to appoint immigrants in powerful positions.

In short, the old media are continuously advertising mass immigration and they are constantly boosting the influence of the foreigners.


29th August 2002, BBC World, the programme 'Movies'. Presenter Laura Metzger reviews a film and describes the leading actor: 'With his multi-ethnic background and his bad-boy-attitude, he is the ideal young hero for a new film era'.

30th November 2002, BBC series 'A history of Britain' by Simon Schama, the final episode 'An empire of good intentions'. The presenter's closing statement: 'Maybe the history of the British Empire is not completed, if we do think of it, not in terms of scarlet tunics and flashing sabres, but as a community of language, law and liberal democracy. There is still a future for it if we are prepared to fight for it, not only in Calcutta and Karachi but also in Leicester, Oldham, Bradford and Burnley'. Among the images that accompanied his words were these two consecutive scenes. A group of Asian boys is walking from left to right. A group of British girls is walking from right to left. This is film language for: these groups are going to meet and mingle.

10th February 2003, BBC, the Kilroy episode 'Why are racist attacks on the increase?'. A problem worthwhile addressing indeed. We can't have that. But some of the remarks Mr Kilroy-Silk made in this programme, deserve our special attention too. An older white woman hesitates to tell her story. Her son has fallen in love with a negress. She doesn't oppose it, she's happy for them, but you can see she has some doubts. Someone in the audience wants to interrupt her, but Mr Kilroy-Silk prevents that, saying: 'Let her tell her story, we are educating this woman here'. Once she is finished, he says to her: 'Now, you and I both know what marriage is all about, we both know what love is, you know how bad life would be without your husband, and that's what counts, and the same goes for your son and his girl'. Later on, he tells countless living-rooms: 'You've got to know and got to believe that all people are equal, you should not discriminate other people for their race and creed and you must teach your children the same'. As usual, the programme comes to an end when the host walks to the central camera position to state his conclusion: 'We have to live together, we must, we have no choice, we have to treat other people as individuals, that's the starting point, that's the closing point.'

Mr Kilroy-Silk's remarks weakened the following constructive ideas: if TV hosts want to educate us, let them tell facts instead of nonsense or lies. Respect for all mankind isn't diminished by the observation that the races do differ, and since every individual is unique, no-one is equal to his fellow man. The world's creeds aren't the same either. They are inspiring people to totally different attitudes. We have already looked into the Painful Passages and unfortunately, Islam is another religion that legitimizes unreliable behaviour towards outsiders, leaving aside its positive aspects. Speaking of race, on an individual scale it doesn't matter indeed whether or not people in love belong to the same race. However, if we want our people still to exist in, let's say, 2204, we should foster a climate in which British boys prefer British girls and vice versa, without insulting those who made other choices. Such a mental climate is of vital importance, because nations are bound to disappear without it. It's hard to imagine a world without a British people, but then again, the Etruscans, Longobards and Churrasco probably also thought there would always be Etruscans, Longobards and Churrasco. However, these peoples dissolved in the fog of times, so apparently they made some lethal mistakes. Let's prevent the Britons from becoming the Etruscans of the 23rd century.

His remarks reinforced the following misleading ideas: 1) Everybody is everybody's replica. The average Jew, the average Asian, the average European, the average African, they are all the same, they are all equally talented. 2) The Torah, the Gospels, the Koran, the Vedas, they all teach people the same noble things. 3) It doesn't matter if a British boy marries a non-British girl. It doesn't matter if 100 British boys marry 100 non-British girls. It doesn't matter if a million British boys marry a million non-British girls. It doesn't matter if all nations mix with each other. 4) Why yes, we are a multiracial country now, that's just the way it is, and moreover, it is the way of the future. 5) We're only individuals, nothing more than that. Nation-related thinking is obsolete. We must not think of the British people as a log, but as fifty-four million splinters.

An endless chain of clips on TMF, MTV and so on is showing negroes most of the time and these clips are glorifying the negroes. The illusion is created and systematically intensified that negroes are dressed cool, that they look tough and attractive, that they know how to enjoy themselves, that they are in control. The silent message: negroes are fun hanging out with.

The growing number of non-white TV presenters suggests that it is normal that people of all races are living here.

These and similar scenes in television and film are revealing the following patterns in the long run:

The love for one's people and one's country is down-imaged as worrisome nationalism and racism.
There is no media attention for the measures a people ought to take in order to secure its existence.
The old media don't criticise the old parties for failing to take such measures.
The acknowledgement of racial differences is down-imaged as some sort of a thought crime.
The relation between race, nation, values and its history (the record of its acts) is tabooized.
Everything that furthers the multi-racial population of Europe, is up-imaged: immigration, asylum seeking, mixed schools, multicultural events and projects, hiphop, mixed marriages.

In short, the old media try to brainwash us with the falsehood that all races are equal and they are encouraging racial and ethnic mixing.


24th April 2003, BBC, Newsnight. One of the issues is a plan to reform the EU. The chairman of the reform committee, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, is being interviewed. He advocates that a permanent EU President should replace the current rotating presidency. Political editor Mark Urban concludes the item by saying: 'Many EU watchers feel that even this plan of reform will be littled down by the various nations, so those who hoped greater integration might be the best way of avoiding more Iraq-type divisions, are likely to be disappointed.'

What does Mr Urban want the viewers to think? 1) That the reform plan has quiet modest objectives ('even this plan is expected to be littled down'). But introducing a permanent EU President isn't a modest plan at all in my opinion. 2) That greater integration is something desirable, without substantiating why. 3) That stubborn countries like France and Germany have divided Europe over Iraq.

So Mr Urban wants the viewers to sympathize with even more drastic EU reform plans, with countries that obediently follow Washington and with those poor disappointed EU fans.

18th May 2003, BBC, Breakfast with Frost. After an interview with Sir Christopher Meyer, Chairman of the Press Complaints Council, Mr Frost turns to the camera and says: '.... and now to the question which has dominated the news this past week: is Britain ready to join the euro in the near future?’

Mr Frost apparently wants us to think that only the timing is the issue, not the desirability. He is actually saying: 'everybody' knows that Britain will once join the euro, the only question worth discussing is when this will happen.

5th June 2003, BBC Ten O'Clock News. Andrew Marr reports on the cabinet talks about the euro entry. His closing sentence: 'If Tony Blair wants the UK to enter the Euro zone, he'd better wait for the general elections and win those first.'

In the taxpayers' time, Mr Marr is brainstorming aloud with the Prime Minister, well-known for his pro-EU stance.

8th June 2003, BBC, Breakfast with Frost. The host is interviewing Chancellor Gordon Brown about the euro deliberations. Mr Brown says: 'It is not only in the economic but also in the patriotic interest to be a part of Europe' and 'The Prime Minister and I are agreed the time is right to unite the country about the pro-European consensus'. Mr Frost then says: 'Hundreds headlines in the papers said: not yet'.

So again, Mr Frost is only bringing in an objection against the timing of the euro entry, not against the actual entry itself. Furthermore, he doesn't ask critical questions about the contradictions in Mr Brown's statements.

1) 'It's our patriotic interest to be a part of Europe', Mr Brown said, meaning the EU. But patriotism is all about the self-determination of a people, so truely patriotic policies can't be combined with a further entanglement in the EU, since that automatically implies a greater power shift from Whitehall to Brussels. You can't make a Brussels omelet without breaking the national eggs. No questions of Mr Frost there, however.

2) 'To unite the country about the pro-European consensus'. Unite people about a consensus? Whose consensus is he then referring to, if the people haven't yet been united about it? Mr Frost didn't ask him.

In short, the BBC is suggesting that Britain's on-going merging into the EU is something desirable and inevitable.


26th September 2002, BBC, a 'Question Time' special. David Dimbleby presents the key question of the programme: 'Should Britain go to war without UN backing if Saddam Hussein denies the weapon inspectors the access he has offered?' SMS, fax and phone numbers appear so that the viewers can respond.

The subsequent studio discussions and the viewers' reactions suggest an atmosphere of a candid unbiased exchange of views. But it isn't. The central question is phrased in such a way that a third viable option is left out - the option of Britain not going to war at all, with or without UN backing. So Mr Dimbleby and his editorial staff only allow a televised debate on the question what Britain should do if there is no UN support. The analysis of their question reveals that they definitely want British lads to go to war in case there is a UN backing.

24th October 2002, BBC, Newsnight, Jeremy Paxman interviews Harold Pinter. Washington's warlike position is one of the topics. The playwright, anti-war, strongly disapproves of Mr Blair's docility towards the White House. Mr Paxman then asks: 'Are you denying that Saddam Hussein is a bad man?' The question suggests that everyone who opposes war believes that the Iraqi dictator is a good man, and that everyone who opposes war doesn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. So the question is meant to put anti-war people in the defensive.

16th January 2003, BBC Newsnight, an item about Prime Ministers in times of war. We get to see images of John Major during the 1991 Gulf War and of Sir Winston Churchill in 1940. The voice-over says: 'Now the pressure on Iraq is mounting, committing your country to war is one of the most difficult things to do for a Prime Minister. And today in the House of Commons, Mr Blair displayed Churchillean energy, certainty at its most, passionate on the subject'. This introduction was then followed by a fragment of a speech of the Prime Minister. In other words, the Newsnight staff edited an introduction meant to make us think that Mr Blair in 2003 is comparable with Mr Churchill in 1940.

10th February 2003, BBC Ten O'Clock News. NATO members France, Belgium and Germany had vetoed an American proposal to support Turkey in case of war. This is how BBC correspondent in Washington Matt Frei reported on this veto: 'France, Germany and Belgium are called the 'axis of weasels' here, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave up pleasing France some time ago, and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld says: well, there are only three of them, they are isolating themselves, sixteen out of nineteen countries join us'.

Mr Frei thus copied Washington's insult aimed at three European countries. Mr Frei thus teamed up with Mr Powell against those hopeless French. Mr Frei also teamed up with Mr Rumsfeld against three European countries, which he disdainfully called 'the old Europe'.

The same day, half an hour later, BBC Newsnight. Kirsty Wark interviews the French ambassador to NATO, Benoit d'Aboville. The Newsnight presenter pitches the tone of the interview through the following first three questions.

1) 'Isn't the French veto oppostion for oppostion's sake, mere gesture politics, why won't you support Turkey?'

2) 'But you could undermine NATO by this. If an ally feels threatened, like Turkey does, under NATO treaty you're obliged to help that ally.'

3) 'Is this not simply about responding to what you might feel as America's high-handed attitude, with Mr Rumsfeld snearing at the Old Europe, is this not simply Old Europe fighting back?'

1) Mrs Wark tries to put an anti-war diplomat in the defensive. Mrs Wark didn't invite the American ambassador to NATO for an interview to ask him: 'Why is America so anxious to create the favourable conditions for a two-front war against Iraq? The weapon inspectors haven't even delivered their crucial report yet.' Mrs Wark also didn't ask the not invited American ambassador: 'President Bush is energetically promoting Turkey's entry into the EU. It looks like a barter. Washington supports the Turkish wish to become a EU member, Ankara enables the Americans to open up a northern front against Iraq. What's your comment on that?'

2A) Virtual subtitles: 'Let me, Kirsty Wark, remind you, the French ambassador to NATO, what the NATO treaty is all about.'

2B) Mrs Wark put things on their heads here. In February 2003, it wasn't Iraq that threatened Turkey. It was the Turkish willingness towards the American military that threatened Iraq.

3) 'IS it not what you MIGHT feel?' Without asking it, Mrs Wark already knows for sure that French frustration ignited the veto. By wording the question that way, she tried to pull the Newsnight viewers to the opinion that France was just acting childishly.

18th February 2003, BBC Newsnight. Worldwide the tension is mounting, as America increasingly shows his eagerness to attack Iraq. Jeremy Paxman interviews American playwright Arthur Miller ('Death of a salesman'). Mr Miller is against the war. He has constantly to defend his viewpoint against Mr Paxman's prejudiced questions, all having the undertone of 'America simply has to do this'.

At one point Mr Miller mentions a moral argument against war of General Schwarzkopf, who was the Allied commander in the 1991 conflict. However, Mr Paxman doesn't ask the writer to elaborate on this argument. He ignores his remark completely, as if it wasn't said at all. Mr Paxman only likes his own moral argument while he asks the following question: 'Don't you accept even a moral argument against Saddam Hussein, that he has driven four million people into exile, that he has killed a million of his citizens, tortured countless numbers of others?' Mr Paxman apparently only wants to discuss moral arguments if they are pro-war arguments.

However, the moral arguments against war are quite clear in February 2003. 1) No war, no human misery. 2) No war, no worsening anti-Western hatred in the Arab world (that already led to the terror of 11th September) and among the millions of Muslims living in the Western countries. 3) No war, no further destabilization of the already tension-packed Middle East. 4) No war, no increasing concern in the capitals of China and other countries that were already labelled as possible nuclear targets on an astonishing list the US Secretary of State accidentally dropped on the floor in 2002. In other words, no war, no other nuclear powers that will think: 'Pre-emptive strikes? Two can play at that game.'

Let's return to the Arthur Miller interview. Another question of Mr Paxman: 'You live in New York, you must vividly recall what happened on 9/11. Is the sort of world in which we live now, isn't some sort of pre-emptive strike the only defensive option available to the US?' Now, at a press conference in January 2003, even the American President had declared he had no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein's government and the terrorist network that attacked the Twin Towers. So in this question, Mr Paxman wrongly suggests that war with Iraq is morally legitimized by 11th September.

24th February 2003, BBC Ten O'Clock News. While the anti-war rebellion in his own party is growing, the Prime Minister is preparing his key Commons speech to obtain parliamentary consent for the war option. Andrew Marr reports. I quote: 'That what encourages Saddam Hussein is the peace party in the West, the divided European leaders, the marches in the streets of London, the rebellion in the Labour Party. Those people are actually sending messages which will persuade Saddam Hussein to carry on playing games and not to disarm and who'll therefore make an attack within weeks inevitable. That's a difficult argument to get across, but it is the one he has to'

In my analysis: according to the reasoning of Mr Marr, the war will start anyhow, with or without a worldwide anti-war movement. Mr Marr was brainstorming aloud about the contents of Mr Blair's speech, so Mr Marr wasn't neutrally informing us, but he was taking sides against the anti-war voices in the Labour Party and in society. Mr Marr copied the Bush term 'Saddam playing games' and was therefore volunteering as a bellicose White House spokesman.

To wind up this section, some remarks of Mr Frost in several episodes of his Sunday programme.

23rd February 2003. The host interviews former PM John Major. Three times Mr Frost talks about 'the first Gulf War', although it is still peace time. Mr Frost evidently tries to talk his viewers into believing that the second Gulf War is inevitable.

16th March 2003. Mr Frost quotes several cheap anti-French jokes from some American newspapers, so he seems to exploit irrational Francophobic sentiments because France opposes the war. He has also invited John Kampfner, an editor of 'The New Statesman', an opinion magazine. Mr Kampfner, pro-war, praises the logic of a Sunday Telegraph story, written by Ann Appelbaum, also pro-war. The drift of that article is that the American President was mistaken to initially follow Mr Blair's advice to stick to the UN route in the first place. He'd better listened to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle right-away, who wanted him to aggressively exert American supremacy from the outset.

In short, the BBC was creating a pro-war mood before the House of Commons on 18th March 2003 voted for war with Iraq. (The 'Beeb' should preferably have accounted to the public for their own manipulations, before they started accusing the government of the same thing.)


Some patterns of media indoctrination without examples now:

Gloating over other people's humiliation has slowly become normal TV entertainment.
The old media always seem to take sides with people advocating abortion, euthanasia and the liberalization of drug laws.
Politicians and other leaders with a social democratic background are pressed to comply with megacapitalism and globalization.
The old media, although suggesting they endorse religious tolerance, are down-imaging Christianity.
Christians who fail to live up to the Christian standards, are down-imaged as hypocrites. The possibility that they are suffering under their own misbehaviour, is ignored or underexposed.
Christian politicians and clergymen are down-imaged as people whose harsh interpretation of Christ's message leads them to cold decisions, disadvantaging and hurting vulnerable sympathetic people.


Finally, let's have a look at how Jewry and the Mosaic conviction are portrayed by the old media.

Two examples from the world of fiction first.

In the 1956 Cecil B. De Mille film 'The Ten Commandments' the part of Moses is played by Charlton Heston. Moses is up-imaged as a formidable thinker who loves the whole of humanity. The film deceitfully claims that the Ten Commandments and the Torah are not only intended for the moral education of the Jews, but for everybody. Even in the first part of the film, when Moses is still a prince at Pharaoh's court, unaware of his Jewish identity, he is kind towards a delegation of the Ethiopian people he just conquered. They pay him their respect, after his alleged brother, played by Yul Brynner, wanted to humiliate the negroes. Prince Moses is portrayed as a master builder, notable for his humane treatment of the Jewish slaves, suffering from their harsh and merciless Egyptian overseers.

After the exodus Moses receives the Ten Commandments, and he angrily tells the Jews, wallowing in misconduct, that there is no liberty without the law. This message is repeated at the end of the film. The Jews have reached the river Jordan, and Moses and his loved ones are looking out on them and on the Promised Land he will never enter. His wife says: 'You taught them not to live by bread alone. You are God's torch that lights the way to freedom'. Before he leaves them to die in solitude in the mountains, his final words are: 'Go, proclaim liberty throughout all the lands, unto all the inhabitants thereof'. So at this point Mr Heston is reciting another scriptwriter's line that is grossly distorting Moses's intentions.

Although the opening credits emphaticly claim that the film is based on 'the Holy Scriptures', the Painful Passages aren't mentioned once. The public are kept in the dark about the real goals of the founder of Torahism. How many people in how many countries will have been misled by this film classic in the past fifty years, including me? In their tens of millions, I guess.

2nd January 2003, BBC, the 1996 film 'Independence Day'. Huge vessels from outer space visit Earth. They take positions above the metropoles of our planet. Their hostile intentions become evident once they start devastating the White House and other buildings. After many scenes full of hope and despair, trial and error, disorientation and determination, mankind is finally rescued thanks to the inspiring and vigorous leadership of the American President, the boyish courage of a black pilot and the intellect of a modest Jew, accompanied by his father. I will confine myself to some scenes involving David, the Jew (Jeff Goldblum) and his father (Judd Hirsch). First a description of the fragments, then my interpretation.

1) David, a quiet man, has a worrying nature. He has no spectacular career, but he seems to rise to the occasion while events are unfolding. When everyone else is panicking in the opening scenes, he manages to crack a communication code of the aliens with his laptop. During a hectic meeting with the White House staff, one of the advisers urges the President to go nuclear against the invaders, but the normally so modest David shouts him down. The adviser wants him to leave the meeting, but David's father prevents that: 'Shut up! If it wasn't for my son, we would all be dead already', referring to the moment David cracked the code.

2) At one point David's father quotes one of the Beatles: 'All you need is love, John Lennon said, smart man.'

3) The President is surprised to find out a secret research centre has been built in the middle of a desert. The scientists there are working for the federal government. They are investigating the remnants of an alien craft that crashed near Roswell in 1951, an event that was officially dismissed as a fairy tale of UFO fantasists. While walking down the entry corridor, the President asks his advisers: 'Where does all the funding come from?' David's father interrupts them from behind: 'You don't actually think they spend 20,000 dollar on a hammer, 30,000 dollar on a toilet seat, do you?'

4) After their inspection of the crashed vehicle, the President and his company are led to a room where the remains of three alien pilots are being conserved in glass containers. The President and David are taking a closer look at the creatures. The Leader of the Free World then says: 'David, you unlocked a part of their technology....' But David plays it down: 'No, no, I just cracked the code'. The President persists: 'Try to find out what these researchers haven't thought of yet. Let us see you are as smart as we all hope you are'. One of the Roswell scientists then turns to David and asks: 'What code?', proving that the President has correctly assessed David's superior intellect.

5) In an emergency situation David's father soothes a couple of children, he gathers them around him and starts praying in Hebrew. He beckons to a white man, 'Come on, join us', but the white man irritatedly reacts: 'But I am not Jewish'. 'Ah well', says the father, 'nobody is perfect', standing to his invitation.

6) The overall situation seems totally hopeless, as David's father, who caught a cold in the meantime, hears some noise in another room. He finds his son there, who is drunk and desperate. He is throwing chairs and dustbins, while he is shouting, cited from memory: 'Who needs them to destroy the Earth? We're doing fine ourselves already, wasting the ozone layer, polluting the environment!' His father calms him down and confesses: 'I haven't spoken to God since the day your mother died...' It amazes David. His father, ashamed: 'Yes...' But a few moments later, his father sneezes - which ignites a brilliant idea in David's mind.

7) The final stage of the film shows the working out of that idea. By infecting the aliens' mothership with an e-mailed computer virus (the father's cold!), he and the pilot succeed in switching off all the hostile defence systems. The alien war machines, impenetrable until then, have now become vulnerable for the rockets of the combined air forces of Earth and the film gets its happy end.

The silent deceit in these scenes:

1) In case a big threat emerges, you can rely on the Jews. Their universal care makes them win the day for everybody, despite the occasional stupidities of ignorant non-Jews.

2) John Lennon, a great man indeed. Together with the other Jews Paul, Ringo and George, he conquered the world. 'The Beatles' were among the first heralds of a new way of thinking in the 1960s, centring tolerance, liberty, understanding, empathy, solidarity, happiness, peace and love, love, love. Their flirtation with sex & drugs & rock-and-roll ushered in a new era, saying farewell to those narrow-minded dusty conventions of hypocritical England.

3) A funny but clever character, that Jewish father. You can't fool a Jew and once he sees what's going on, he will immediately share his insights with the non-Jews.

4) The entire world can put its hopes in the Jews and for good reasons. The Jews will help mankind out, whatever the global problem. They can do it. The Jews only solve problems.

5) Many non-Jews are thinking in compartments. These people belong to this group, those belong to that group. Jews don't think that way. They are an inviting people, cordial, open-hearted. Only non-Jews hate and discriminate. Jews don't.

6, 7) The suffering of all mankind is resting on the shoulders of the Jews. It makes them desperate every now and then. Where is the Jewish God, everybody's God that is, now? But in the thick of the misery, just when HaShem seems further away than ever before, His presence sparks a fantastic idea in a Jewish mind, so that he can save humanity once again.

My conclusion: the makers and broadcasters of 'Independence Day' are giving the viewers a propagandistic image of the Jews that is omitting the Torahist reality completely.

Two examples of how the old media report on Jews-related subjects:

August 2001. A regional newspaper reports on an American movement that wonders how Christ, if he was living now, would react to current affairs. The reporter has called a number of people for their comment, among them one of the rabbis I mentioned in 5.8.1, he has been on TV many times. His reaction: 'A club like that, wondering what Jesus would do, well, it stands far away from us of course. But we follow the examples of previous generations too and for the Jews, Moses is the greatest of the prophets. The Torah, the first five books of the bible, has been written by Moses, and we read it in the synagogue. A striking text, especially in these times. Time after time it's about justice. Always do your utmost for peace'.

The rabbi didn't mention the Painful Passages. The reporter didn't ask him a question about the Painful Passages. The senior editor approved of the reporter's misleading lines about the Torah. For several hours huge presses have been printing misleading newspapers in their hundreds of thousands. The readers were kept in the dark about Torahism.

1st December 2002, the BBC documentary 'Moses', a BBC Manchester / The Learning Centre co-production in association with Jerusalem Productions. A woman's voice introduces the programme saying that 'Moses's ethics have been a moral basis for more than 3,000 years'. Besides the things he tells about the Jewish leader, presenter Jeremy Bowen explores an interesting theory. The biblical plagues that struck Egypt, may have been caused by a catastrophic explosion of the volcano Santorini. At the end Mr Bowen talks about the significance of Moses in today's world: 'It is not sure whether Moses wrote all Ten Commandments, but because of his special relation with HaShem, he might have written those commandments that concern the relation of man to God. His work is the moral basis for Christians, Jews and Arabs. In every continent people who know nothing about Moses, know at least a few of the Ten Commandments, so in a sense we are all Moses's children now.' After some footage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr Bowen hopes that the admonition 'Thou shall not kill' will once get through to people's minds.

Mr Bowen didn't mention the Painful Passages. The British public were kept in the dark about Torahism.

These and similar utterances in the old media are revealing the following patterns in the long run:

The old media are displaying and denouncing all totalitarian ideologies (such as medieval Christian fundamentalism, communism, fascism, national-socialism and Muslim fundamentalism), except for Torahism.
In films and TV series, the Jews are depicted as sensitive, wise, serious, sympathetic people, extending a warm welcome to everybody; as a morally superior people; as an awesome people that will always prevail in the long run.
In scenes in which Jews are temporarily dependent on the decisions of non-Jewish persons in authority, these are always portrayed as unfriendly people.
With regard to the Holocaust, the Europeans are down-imaged as people who could easily have done more to prevent it; as overt anti-Semites or as indifferent people; as despicable persons who seemed to stealthily approve of the deportations; as cowards who were letting the Jews down.
The fact that the Europeans were living at gunpoint during the Nazi occupation, is ignored or underexposed.
In Middle East reports, violent actions of Israel are up-imaged as reactions to earlier Palestinian violence.
By means of the term 'suicide bombings', the despair terror of young Palestinians is misrepresented as the acts of people who don't respect their own lifes. In that way, the attention of the public is diverted from the causes of their despair.

In short, while concealing the existence of Torahism, the old media are up-imaging the Jews.


The old media are setting women and men against each other. (5.11.2)
The old media are setting parents and children against each other. (5.11.3)
The old media are encouraging immoral behaviour. (5.11.4)
The old media are undermining a firm stance against drugs. (5.11.5)
The old media are arousing aggressive tensions. (5.11.6)
The old media are boosting the wrong attitude of criminals. (5.11.7)
The old media are undermining the self-confidence of white people. (5.11.8)
The old media are down-imaging our people in the eyes of the foreigners. (5.11.9)
The old media are continuously advertising mass immigration and they are constantly boosting the influence of the foreigners. (5.11.10)
The old media try to brainwash us with the falsehood that all races are equal and they are encouraging racial and ethnic mixing. (5.11.11)
The old media team up with the advocates of abortion, euthanasia and drugs liberalization.
The old media are pressing social democrats to comply with megacapitalism.
The old media are down-imaging Christian people.
The BBC is suggesting that Britain's on-going merging into the EU is something desirable and inevitable. (5.11.12)
The BBC was creating a pro-war mood before the House of Commons voted for war with Iraq. (5.11.13)
While concealing the existence of Torahism, the old media are up-imaging the Jews. (5.11.15)

Please note, I am not alleging that the presenters and others I mentioned are deliberately deceiving us. It is possible that they genuinely believe in the ideas they are spreading. It is possible that they, although sincere themselves, are being misused by insincere and invisible employers. However, it is the result of their influencing that counts, and that result is damaging Britain.

My personal conclusion: the aforementioned patterns are probably the deliberate result of the editorial and creative instructions of those in charge of the old media. The old media are probably being misused by Torahists, to spread ideas that lure the British people into slow, unnoticed self-destruction. The old media are misrepresenting the results of these ideas as unaccountable, inevitable, logical or even positive developments. The single fact that the old media never expose, investigate or criticise Torahism, is as good as a proof that they are instruments of Torahism.


Now, those among you who know something about history, will object: 'But now you are saying something that Hitler said. The national-socialists also claimed that the Jews misused the media to undermine the other nations. What's your reply to that?'

My reply is a 'yes, but', in which the 'but' outweighs the 'yes'.

It is true, the national-socialists said the same approximately. I never read 'Mein Kampf', but I've studied many original wartime newspapers of an occupied country, produced according to the directives of Goebbels's propaganda ministry. One of the core themes in these hateful newspapers was the over-simplified message that 'the' Jews used the printed press, theatre, cabaret, film, to sow dissent and to inflict social damage.

These and other sources have given rise to all sorts of contradictory feelings, feelings of shock in me for some time. What to think of it all? It seemed to me I had two options. The first option: I cannot trust my eyes and my mind, because I am seeing things in the media that confirm Hitler's allegations, but Hitler can't be right in anything he said, so there must be something wrong with me. The second option: after the Second World War the Torahists decided to do exactly those undermining things in the media that Hitler accused them of, and they speculated that no-one in his right mind would have the stomach to object, for fear of being associated with the mass murderer Hitler, the fear I mentioned earlier.

I've come to believe that the second option is corresponding with reality for two reasons.

In the first place, despite of my shortcomings I am not mad, I know full well what I am seeing while watching the media. What really matters is of course if and how many people will share my media analysis. The more people agree, the stronger my case.

In the second place, making the most out of every opportunity is the Torahist thing to do. And the combination of Hitler's huge crimes and his crushing defeat has opened a unique, once-in-a-history window of opportunity for the Torahists. That's a terrible thing to say, because it boils down to the accusation that the Torahists are misusing the awe for the Holocaust, but their superiority complex and their psychological war are terrible things too, especially since Britain is one of the countries they're waging that war against, a nation that spilled blood for more than five years fighting, FIGHTING Hitler, dammit.

And by stating the previous, I am supporting neither anti-Semitism nor neo-Nazism, nor am I justifying the Holocaust in retrospect. My view on the Jews differs fundamentally and irrefutably from that of the Austrian fanatic. Hitler wrongly argued: 'Undermining, deceiving, parasitizing are ingrained in the Jewish DNA. They are already bad in the womb. We don't have to look into the lifestyle of each individual Jew, they all have to be exterminated before they exterminate us.'

I discovered: '3,500 years ago there was this genius called Moses who devised a dangerous world view and a self-reproducing mental-cultural prison in which innocent five-year-olds are pickled in moral schizophrenia, and regretfully a part of Jewry hasn't yet been able to free themselves from this problematic mindset, but I think I've found a peaceful way to neutralize the threat they still pose.'


By the way, a number of readers will perhaps think: "But he is mistaken about my newspaper. The papers I am reading run stories with headlines like 'Flood of bogus asylum seekers' and 'Why police target decent people' and 'Jobs at risk because of immigration'. So these newspapers feel the same way as I and many other people do. These papers are on our side."

Well, I am afraid that appearances are deceiving here too. Sure, a part of the press seems to verbalize the displeasure of many people. But the so-called right-wing press never mentions Torahism either, and they never investigate whether or not there is a connection between Torahism and Britain's decay. I believe they are only interested in commercially exploiting people's displeasure. There is money in it, you know. The persons behind these media know that a lot of people like to read in a newspaper what they are saying to family and friends themselves. So these tabloids are printing shallow stories on asylum abuse and so on, knowing that their readers will nod in approval and think 'That's what I always say' and 'This journalist really knows how to put it well'. In this manner, these papers are rubbing ointment on people's annoyance, so to speak, briefly relieving their annoyance. They are offering some sort of phoney solidarity. They will never start digging for the real causes of the wrongs though. I think that those newspaper owners don't care about their readers. They only want to sell them useless ointment as much as they can. I find the so-called right-wing press more hypocritical than, let's say, The Guardian.

A large part of the press is outspokenly anti-EU, but their concerns aren't necessarily fed by patriotic feelings. Michael Heseltine once pointed out that a number of newspapers have American owners, instructing their employees to write against the EU, because those proprietors are reluctant to see the rise of a mighty economic bloc competing with the US.


In the following I will report on a number of recent public statements of prominent Jews, inside and outside our country. In my opinion, their statements are typifying the overall nature of the Jewish contribution to the main political discussions (again: give or take some deviations). The quoted persons are either Jews, publicly known as such, or people I recognize as Jews. There are Jews in public life who never say they are Jews. For the time being, I am forced to be vague about a number of them, but I will mention their names, if-when the right day breaks. The following pages are summarized in 5.12.12.


In the early 1990s, the Jewish chairman of the board of a multinational beverage company launches his proposal to split up all the European nations in a patchwork of regions.

2000. A Jewess is interviewed in a news broadcast about a migration-related subject. She is a researcher at the sociology faculty of a European university. She says: 'Our nation has already disappeared or is at least disappearing right now'. (She wasn't referring to Israel.)

2001. A Jewish politician publishes a book on various subjects. Although he writes that he loves the country he lives in, the following sentences can be found in the book: 'Since the world is becoming one village, people certainly want to feel embedded in something. However, the question arises whether the concept of the nation still has a convincing place between Brussels and the regions.' (...) 'The notion of the nation-state was artificially stimulated in the 19th century.'

November 2001. James Wolfensohn, the director of the World Bank and a Jew, is interviewed by an opinion magazine. 'Politicians still tend to stick to the obsolete concept of the nation-state. However, today's major problems can't be solved by the separate nations anymore'.

November 2001. A Jewish cabaret artist comments on a political party that's against further immigration. He scorningly calls them 'the party of the white elderly'.

March 2002. Interviewed on an migration-related subject, a Jewish minister, intensely pro-immigration, speaks about 'the pale population of the past'.

April 2002. A Jewish TV hostess talks with a man who is pleading for better teaching in national history. She asks him: 'Why national history only? Why not add the history of the ethnic minorities living here? They form the half of the population in some places!'

May 2002. A Jewish spin doctor: 'This country is an immigration country and will remain that. The multicultural society can't be undone anymore.'

October 2002. A weathered Jewish parliamentary correspondent is interviewed by a political weekly. He is bemoaning the thinness of parliamentary journalism, his own profession. 'Nothing is explained to the voters.'


His series 'Weird weekends' leads the Jewish TV maker Louis Theroux to some South-African farmers. They are cherishing the strange idea that God has chosen the whites. When they say they don't like Whitney Houston, Mr Theroux objects: 'I regard music like that of Whitney Houston as a means to reduce racial differences.'

March 2000. An opinion magazine publishes an essay of a Jewish authoress, entitled 'The paper thin varnish of decency'. She wrote it referring to the Austrian government taking office a few weeks earlier. One of the parties in the new coalition is the FPOe of Joerg Haider. It is the first time since 1945 that an alleged 'extreme right-wing' party is participating in a European government. Like many demonstrators throughout Europe, the authoress looks upon Mr Haider with great distrust. On earlier occasions, the Austrian politician had praised the employment policies of the Third Reich and he had addressed meetings of, if I am not mistaken, Waffen-SS front veterans. Mr Haider's entry in Vienna alarms the authoress to such an extent that she interprets it as an omen of reviving Nazism in Europe. She even advises the Jews among her readers to emigrate to the US, Israel, Canada or Australia.

In her essay, the Jewess also pays attention to the floods of the millions of people migrating to Europe. I quote: '(...) As a result of the current mass migration, the world will change beyond recognition, as has happened before in previous large-scale migration processes in world history known to us. Almost certainly, this time too it will be a refreshing process for us in the long run, say within a couple of centuries. The mixing of peoples and cultures can perhaps advance mankind a bit further than it is now. However, for those living in the middle of such a process, it is nearly always a painful experience. In addition to the 'refreshing' elements, initially less pleasant elements will enter into our culture as well, constituting a dramatic decline for modern Westerners: a less democratic inclination, less tolerance for those who disagree, less respect for the weak and the needy, more tendency to violence and terror, and more socially unadjusted behaviour or criminality of the first generations of young men from elsewhere, plus - and that's the worst of it by far - the racist, xenophobic reactions of fascistoid Europeans. These are the most obvious current symptoms. That what's undoubtedly good for the refugees and needy migrants and perhaps for the entire European population in the times of our great-grandchildren, doesn't necessarily have to be pleasant for the eyewitnesses now. However, there is no getting round it for Europe's affluent countries in this phase of history. (...)'

January 2001. A former government adviser, a top-ranking Jewish EU lawyer tells a political magazine: 'We should have the courage to tell the people that the asylum seekers are immigrants actually.'

May 2001. A Jewish senator of a European country writes that globalization can't be stopped and that the opponents are extremists. His article was published in the magazine of his party, which calls itself liberal.

Summer 2001. Paul Spiegel is the chairman of the Central Council of the Jews in Germany. During an interview he displays his amazement. 'Can't people see the similarity? Between the hostile attitude towards today's immigrants and the Nazi violence towards the Jews from the 1930s onwards?'

Fall 2001. The Jewish mayor of a European capital says that it are not the immigrants who should adjust themselves to the original countrymen, but vice versa. 'Now the number of immigrants is inevitably increasing, their ideas are bound to become dominant in this country's opinion climate.'

April 2002. Peter Schwartz, a strategic adviser and a Jew, gives his opinion in a programme about tomorrow's world. 'Globalization and integration are the best guarantee for future peace.'

May 2002. The Jewish leader of a European trade union offers illegal immigrants the possibility to become a member. He tells the old media: 'We don't let our colleagues down.'

June 2002. A prominent European political party is jointly responsible for laws that are privileging the foreigners in that country. However, one of the party leaders tries to announce a policy change during an interview with a Jew. The politician cautiously says: 'A lot of people resent the privileges of the immigrants and well, one needs to speak our language in order to integrate properly, doesn't one?' But halfway his remark the Jew already starts shaking his head and, as if he wants to say 'you know better than that', he answers: 'No no, the problem is the discrimination of the foreigners and xenophobia!'

October 2002. Two writers are asked to comment on the overall situation in their country. One of them, a Jew: 'Immigration is necessary because of the ageing problem.'

November 2002. A former minister of state, a Jewess says in a debate with an MP: 'One of the best ways to integrate is a mixed marriage.'

November 2002. In a TV program about illegal immigration, produced by a Jewess, formerly deported illegals are telling they will always come back anyhow. An immigration official is then asked the following question: 'Aren't we pushing these people into crime as a result of our fight against illegal immigration?'

November 2002. Lord Woolf, a senior member of our judiciary and a Jew, compares legislation to limit the influx of foreigners with the policies of Nazi Germany. He says that the courts should use the EU Convention on Human Rights to block contentious laws.

December 2002. In a review of the year, a Jewish ex-minister makes the closing statement: 'We need wise and moderate political leaders, like Mandela, there are too few Mandelas, most leaders are locking themselves up in the position of their own group and then they go reacting against the Islam, the foreigner, the immigrant. Those are not the leaders the world needs.'


2001. A Jewess, once a minister, and a Jewish showman are invited to a TV studio to talk about their idea. They are proposing the composition of an EU anthem.

December 2001. The world is still impressed by the terror that hit New York and Washington. A former Foreign Secretary is interviewed by a Jewish journalist. Reflecting on the origins of the hate towards the West, the ex-minister shows understanding for the Islamic aversion to globalizing capitalism. He disapprovingly says that the EU is running after the US like a little dog, and he is opposed to the prospect of the EU as a second capitalist bastion like the US. The Jewish interviewer casually reacts: 'It is only a matter of time before the EU is like the US.'

December 2001. An opinion magazine with a Jewish senior editor pleads for the US-style integration of the foreigners.

December 2001. Wim Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, is interviewed by a Jewish journalist. Mr Duisenberg talks about the goal of the EU to rival or to surpass the US economically in 2010. 'If the EU wants to compete with the US, it needs a more flexible labour market, more mobile employers, and longer opening hours of the shops. Due to the cultural differences with the US however, we are less flexible than the Americans.' The Jew: 'So we are not going to make it in 2010. Don't you think that's a pity?' So the both of them seem to agree on the necessity of an economical race with the US. That idea shines through in another remark of the Jew: 'A lot of people are saying: all Europeans should speak English.'

December 2001. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, one of the figureheads of the 1968 protest movement and a Jew, is now a member of the European parliament for the Green parties. In an interview, he airs his support for the US war against Afghanistan: 'I have never been a pacifist. It's great, there are now two women in the new Afghan government!' The interviewer asks: 'Isn't there just irrational racism behind right-wing extremism?' His answer: 'Yes, racism is an expression of fear, so what you have to do is remove the fear.' Mr Cohn-Bendit welcomes a recently presented Franco-German proposal for an EU constitution. 'At least it is the beginning of a constitutional process.' I found the body language of the rather experienced interviewer as much as interesting. It was a mixture of awe ('How about that, I am interviewing the legendary Dani Rouge here!') and of fear ('Oh God, please don't let me say something stupid!') ('Dani Rouge' means 'Red Dani'.)

January 2002. A few days after the introduction of the euro banknotes and coins in most EU member states, an EU Commissioner is interviewed by a Jew. These are his first three questions:

'Now the euro is so easily accepted, doesn't that bring the political and social unification of Europe much closer?'

'Now the eurozone is going to compete with the US, shouldn't we start thinking like Americans?'

'Since we have to compete with the US, a number of things ought to change, don't they, things like labour flexibility, mobility?'

February 2002. An adviser of a European government leader, a Jewish sociologist mentions the great contemporary challenges in his view: the liberalization of drugs, the fight against Berlusconi and Fini and the success of the EU. (Mr Fini is an Italian anti-immigration politician.)

April 2002. Among the invited politicians in a talk show are a Jew, and EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein, who is a Dutchman. Mr Bolkestein expresses his concern about the fact that the foreigners constitute an increasing percentage of the population of Holland's major towns. He criticises the problematic integration of the foreigners and he defines the on-going immigration as 'an endless problem'. The Jew looks at him and says: 'Mr Bolkestein of all people should know that closing the borders in this Europe is not an option', emphasizing 'this'. The EU Commissioner bashfully lowered his eyes.

Furthermore, the Jew states that anti-immigration parties shouldn't be allowed to participate in government. 'It is not a good idea, because admitting them to the cabinet will make them respectable, even if nothing will come of their contribution.'

August 2002. A Jewish news correspondent in Brussels examines the changing city-scape of the Belgian capital as a result of more and more new EU buildings. He calls Brussels 'the Washington of the EU.'

October 2002. A female politician is sceptical about the entry of Poland and nine other countries into the EU in 2004. A Jewish interviewer seems to fail to understand her doubts. He says: 'Well, we have to go forward to one big Europe in which everybody is doing fine, haven't we?'

November 2002. Interview with a Polish Jew about Poland's forthcoming EU admission: 'We need immigrants, not only nurses and workers, but also managers. (...) We are in favour of the EU entry because it is our experience that the government in Warsaw can't be trusted. We like to see our soldiers merging into the NATO. In that way, they will stay in their barracks.'

December 2002. A Jew, Solicitor General at the European Court of Justice and a former government adviser, speaks about the declining powers of national governments: 'The right question is not: how do I exert political power in this country, but: how can I influence the decision-making process in Brussels?' He also says that national-level politicians are absolutely failing in explaining Brussels power to their own peoples.

December 2002. Reviewing the year, a prominent Jewish journalist concludes his lengthy article writing: 'These are confusing times. Let's rely on the institutions, on the EU, on NATO.'

January 2003. A TV panel with guests from politics, civil service and corporate business is talking about the powerlessness of the government, among them the Jewish mayor of a European town: 'There isn't a national government left in Europe anymore that can still be sent away by parliament. (...) Let's boldly carry on in Europe. Let's install an EU government that can be sent away by the EU citizens on the one hand, and let's give more decentralized powers to the municipalities on the other hand.'

April 2003. A Jewish correspondent in Brussels about the future of the EU: 'Now ten new member states will join the EU in 2004, you'd better have one permanent president to give the EU one recognizable face in international politics.'

May 2003. 'Newsnight' airs an item on the economic problems in the eurozone, as Mr Blair and Mr Brown are deliberating on Britain's entry. Economics correspondent Stephanie Flanders has an interview with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Jewish finance minister of France, 1997-1999. She introduces him as 'the guy who helped France into the euro'. One of his pronouncements: 'I love the British. One of the reasons is that when they join a club, they always want to change the rules of the club. So I am convinced that on the day Britain joins the euro a lot of things will change and that's good. I don't say 'if', I say 'on the day', because it is obvious to me that it will happen.'


2000. A Jewish writer is interviewed about his new book. He tells it deals with some of the major questions that are puzzling today's Jewry. He then says that a non-Jew would never have been allowed to publish a book about the same subject. (I like to stress he didn't say this in a condescending manner.)

December 2000. After he had announced the date of his future resignation, the leader of a big political party talks with a Jewish interviewer. The interviewer presses him to appoint a Jewish fellow party member as his successor. 'Now, finally there is a candidate in your party everybody agrees on that he is a good man - and they don't appoint him!?' Only three days before, an opinion poll on people's confidence in politicians was published. The Jewish politician gained a score of less than 1%.

November 2001. A Jewish weekly reports on the disappointment of a non-Jewish woman who lost her Jewish husband. The religious community he belonged to, doesn't allow her to engrave her name on his tombstone. A rabbi of the community is asked for his opinion: 'Mrs Y hasn't been married according to the halacha, the Jewish law. Not Mrs Y, but the mixed marriage is pitiful. One must not marry non-Jews. The problem is fairly new, because mixed marriages are increasing. Nowadays, people don't feel ashamed for it anymore. Until recent times, no Jew even dreamed about writing the name of a non-Jewess on the grave of a Jewish man.'

August 2002. Harold Shukman, a Jewish professor at Oxford University, is interviewed about the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin after Lenin's death in 1921. 'Trotsky had all the intellectual, organisational capacities to succeed Lenin, Stalin didn't.' Trotsky, a Jew whose real name was Bronstein, is known to have said that the success of the Soviet revolution was worth the death of 10% of Russia's population.

5.12.5  ON THE TORAH

Fall 2001. A magazine of an organization that claims it is Christian, interviews a prominent rabbi: 'If one thoroughly studies the cabbala, the mystical text on Jewish numerology, one will discover that the Torah has written itself'.

November 2001. A Jewish weekly reports on the death of rabbi Rav Shach, founder of the Shas Party in Israel. Mr Shach once described Israel as a 'US state'. A rabbi, asked for his comment, praised Mr Shach: 'He was a 'godel ha dor', the great one of a generation'. Another rabbi spoke also highly of him: 'Shach was like Hillel, Akiva, Ben Zakkai, Eliyahu. He taught that the solution of all problems of the Jewish people can be found in the patient study of the Torah. Our identity is only unique because of the Torah.'


2000. During a public discussion about the 'multicultural society' a rabbi is asked the following question: 'Should the children of the immigrants learn about Christmas?' His reply: 'Ridiculous!' The present vicar kept silent.

November 2001. The editor of a Jewish magazine on the continent reviews the book 'The popes against the Jews' of professor David L. Kertzer, published in New York. A fragment from the article: 'The modern anti-Semitic movement that increasingly gained power and influence as from 1880, especially in France and the Habsburg Empire, had perhaps its most powerful ally in the Vatican. A hundred years ago the word actually was: a good Catholic is an anti-Semite (and, in many cases, vice versa). It may have been true that the Vatican never committed the distribution of racialist thoughts in so many words, and that it turned away from national-socialism in the eleventh hour, but after reading the book of Kertzer, few doubts are left that the Catholic Church in general, and the Vatican in particular, has nourished racist anti-Semitism.' The headline of the review was: 'Hitler's pioneers.'

November 2001. During a TV interview, a Jewish film director calls Pope John Paul II 'a sick, old, shaking clown'.

December 2001. In a European country, a prominent rabbi writes in a Jewish magazine that Judaism and Christianity are incompatible.

Christmas 2001. An influential columnist, a Jewish professor is making fun of the words of Christ. He proposes to abolish the Christian era and to found the numbering of the years on the birth of the philosopher Epicurius instead.

Somewhere in 2002 (?). The French magazine 'L'Express' interviews Jacques Attali, a former president of the development bank for post-1989 Eastern Europe and a Jew. Mr Attali says that the commercial traditions of Europe aren't founded on Christian values at all. He pushes the standard book of Max Weber on the subject aside. He says that it are the Jews who have invented capitalism and that the Jews have always been the masters of the money business. The editor of 'L'Express' admiringly emphasises that these are bold statements a non-Jew could never afford to make without being suspected of fostering anti-Semitism. The editor is worried about a certain danger of globalization, judging by one of his questions: 'The Jews have always been a nomadic people. But as a result of globalization all peoples are becoming nomads. Doesn't this development endanger the unique identity of the Jewish people?' (I failed to save Mr Attali's answer.) In 1999, Mr Attali, who has worked closely with President François Mitterrand, wrote a cover story himself in 'L'Express'. In this article, he raised doubts about Mr Mitterrand's feelings regarding Jewry and Israel. The former French President didn't react to the tarnishing text for a good reason. He died in 1996.

July 2002. In an essay, the Jewish philosopher Jonathan Israel claims that Western civilisation isn't founded on the Christian values at all. Reflecting on 'the new Europe', he finds it must be based on the values of the Enlightenment.


December 2001. The unsuspecting visitors of a park in a European town are confronted with dead pigs, hanging from trees. They find out it are not real pigs, but art objects. After they have aired their annoyance, Jan Hoet, the Jewish intendant of a museum in Belgium, is interviewed. He disparagingly compares their annoyance with the Nazi dismissal of 'Entartete Kunst' (degenerated art).

April 2002. Jonathan Israel gets the opportunity to expound his views in an opinion magazine:

'Spinoza was right, the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' don't have a divine origin. They are a social construction. Spinoza's values are equality, tolerance, democracy and the freedom of the individual.'
'Moral consciousness shall become secularly inspired, not religiously.'
'It's grotesque to present fascism and nazism as consequences of the Enlightenment.'
'It is wrong to organize the polity as a monarchy.'
'Regrettably, people are thinking that the nation-state is the essence of liberty.'
'Historians should free themselves from the compulsive national history.'
'A strong state is the best warrant for democratic republicans to urge the people to socially sensible behaviour.'

August 2002. Labour General Secretary David Triesman is interviewed by the Jewish Chronicle. To questions about Labour's embracing of global capitalism in the 1990s, the Jew answers: 'I haven't sold out my principles, but I've learnt from experience. I am an East End radical at heart.'

August 2002. Four months after French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, leader of the socialists, lost the presidential elections, his former cabinet colleague Marie-Noelle Lienemann publishes a book about the defeat. The conclusions of the Jewess: Mr Jospin wasn't the right candidate in April. Despite my warnings he kept himself locked up in arrogant illusions. We European socialists should examine our political role. We have given in to the liberal parties too much, we have alienated ourselves from working class people. And now there are big problems throughout Europe. We have to strengthen the ties with ordinary people again, before populism rises any further and before the support for Le Pen gets larger.' Subsequently, many furious socialists regard her book as fouling the party's nest.


In the 1990s, Jewish organizations successfully applied themselves to demanding money from several governments and companies. A number of prominent Jews and non-Jews claimed that the Jewish people needed to be compensated for all sorts of material losses during and after the Second World War. In early 2000, a rabbi is among the guests of a TV panel, discussing the start of the payments in a European country. Someone says: 'Aren't you afraid that this matter will breed anti-Semitism?' The rabbi's answer: 'Ah, anti-Semitism has nothing to do with what Jews are doing. Anti-Semites don't need a cause.'

In May 1999, a Jew in the same country was asked questions by an opinion weekly about his negotiations with the banks there. He announced the following: 'If the Jewish community doesn't reach an agreement with the banks, the World Jewish Congress will not hesitate to meddle in. These banks may then encounter the same problems as the Swiss banks, they won't get certain government assignments.' An agreement came about. A number of Jews made it publicly known they felt embarrassed by the financial claims, calling it 'misery money' they didn't want a share of. (Outside the scope of this section: the Jew also told the interviewer he was an opponent of ethnic mixing if it would lead to human sameness.)

August 2001. A Jewish TV presenter firmly denies that the Second World War is fading away: 'On the contrary, the war is getting closer more and more'.

April 2002. Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli Prime Minister, is critically questioned by an European interviewer about the way the Israeli army operates in Palestinian territory. Mr Netanyahu is angry: 'Sixty years ago Europe didn't lift a finger when the Jews were murdered, and now it wants to join with a murderer like Arafat?!'

May 2002. Jamal Karsli is a Syrian, living in Germany, and a politician of the FDP, a political party over there. In an interview, he says that the Zionist lobby is controlling the media. In his view, especially Germany ought to protest sharply against what he calls 'the Nazi methods' of Sharon. He also wonders how much longer Germany is supposed to, his words, drag the Holocaust around. Michel Friedman, the deputy chairman of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, reacts: 'Mr Karsli has talked about the Jewish Zionist lobby and its influence in the world and that really plunges us right back in the middle of the Third Reich.' In the row with the FDP that follows, its deputy chairman Jurgen Moellemann says: 'Regretfully there are anti-Semites in Germany and they must be fought against, but I am afraid that no-one gives them more fuel than Mr Sharon and Mr Friedman with his hateful and intolerant remarks.' The row becomes an lengthy and complicated affaire to which, among others, Chancellor Schroeder, former Foreign Minister Genscher and the World Jewish Congress are contributing, all taking sides against Mr Moellemann, who leaves national politics in the end.

June 2002. Gretta Duisenberg, the wife of the ECB President, shows her sympathy with the Palestinian people by hanging their flag from the balcony of her Amsterdam residence. Objections of Jews living in the neighbourhood lead to an argument, in which she says that rich Jews in the United States are supporting Israel. Within two weeks, the World Jewish Congress considers declaring her persona non grata in the US. Joseph Biden, a Jewish US senator and chairman of the foreign relations committee, gives a comment: 'The remarks of Mrs Duisenberg prove that the so-called civilized European governments are letting anti-Semitism flourish rampantly.'

June 2002. Time Magazine, controlled by Jews, prints a cover story about rising anti-Semitism in Europe. The editor of the article alleges that 'during the Holocaust, many Europeans were standing idle or were helping the Germans.' Another allegation: 'Arabs are anti-Semites because their back and spirit are broken.'

June 2002. A Jewish writer: 'The fear of the Jews for the non-Jewish outside world is enormous.'

November 2002. A European writer, usually politically correct, states that Israel is founded on a racist idea. He finds that the Jews should abolish the notion of being the Chosen People. A Jewish TV host reacts. 'Well, he is a fantastic writer, but this is exactly the basis of anti-Semitism, that the Jews are allegedly the Chosen People!'


In the weeks and months after that shocking day, a host of Jews appear in the old media to tell the general public two things:

1) 'War has been declared to us, this is war'. They don't clarify who these 'us' are. They don't substantiate their claim that anti-US terror is identical to war against the peoples of Europe. Mind you, the four terrorist teams selected four targets in America alone, not four targets in New York, London, Paris and Berlin.

2) 'In order to preserve freedom, a little part of that freedom has to be sacrificed', thus trying to breed understanding for wider police powers, army patrols, laws diminishing privacy and things like that.

February 2002. An opinionating programme is reporting on the growing influence of Muslim fundamentalists in Islamic schools in a European country. One particular organization, funded by Saudi-Arabian financers, is spreading the word in these schools that Mohammed has committed himself to fight the infidels. A Jewish minister of state is asked for her comment in a news programme: 'The freedom of religion is very valuable, but if it's misused to preach hatred and rancour, and if a climate of 'we against them' is being created, the integration of the Muslims in our society is then hampered and action needs to be undertaken .'

5.12.10  ON AMERICA

The parents of Norman Finkelstein, a professor at a New York university, survived the concentration camps. He wrote a book in which he condemns prominent Jews making money out of the Holocaust. It made him the target of severe attacks by other Jews. He was dubbed 'a Jewish self-hater'. Opinion leaders suggested he ought to see a psychiatrist. A Jewish magazine called on its readers to consider him a 'racha', Hebrew for villain, because he had dared to speak about 'the Jews' instead of 'we Jews'. Meetings where Mr Finkelstein wanted to discuss his book were boycotted by the Jews his publisher had invited. In the autumn of 2000, Mr Finkelstein tells an opinion magazine: 'Off the record, everybody in the US says that the Jewish establishment has much influence in the media and in intellectual life. However, if anyone says it out loud, he is immediately called a conspiracy theorist. No-one in the US dares to touch my book.'

Summer 2001. A Jewish journalist writes a newspaper article about the American trade-union AFL-CIO. A proposal of that organization to protect the interests of American workers, is described by the Jew in such a way, as if one can suspect the AFL-CIO of having a fascist attitude.

December 2001. The senior columnist of a Jewish weekly comments on Mr Bloomberg, the then candidate-mayor of New York and a Jew. 'He would be a good choice, but I find it dubious what he said in 1995, that the orthodox Jews have too much power'.

February 2002. The White House resident has given his 'State of the Union' address in which a number of countries are dubbed 'the Axis of Evil'. The aggressive nature of this speech is discussed by three European TV personalities, two Jews and a non-Jew. The non-Jew is amazed and says: 'Why isn't America doing anything about self-examination?' That remark embarrasses one of the Jews rather noticeably. Usually a talkative character, he now keeps silent, he lowers his eyes and it takes him a minute or so before he dares to look the non-Jew in the eyes again.

April 2002. A European opinion magazine publishes the essay 'Among bourgeoisophobes' of David Brooks. It had been printed earlier in US magazine 'The Weekly Standard'. Mr Brooks, an American Jew, is reputed to be an authorative journalist. In his essay, Mr Brooks looks on anti-US and anti-Israel feelings, 'hatred' in his words, of European and Arabian critics. Some excerpts:

'Around 1830 French artists and intellectuals were horrified to discover that not they, superior intellectuals, but ordinary bankers, traders and bosses had the final say in this world. All of a sudden a large group of merchants, bosses and traders had come up, who made a lot of money, lived in big houses and occupied key positions. Due to a flaw in the big cosmic plan something had gone wrong: petty avarice brought them enormous wealth, unstoppable power and more and more social regard. The French intellectuals - Gustave Flaubert, Stendhal - grew a deep hatred towards the bourgeoisie: they became bourgeoisophobes. Flaubert signed his letters with 'bourgeoisophobus' to show the extent of his disgust of 'those stupid grocers and their lot'. Marxism is dead. Freudianism is dead. Of all the great 19th-century ideologies only bourgeoisophobia has remained. More than that, it is a conviction that has spread to cities like Baghdad, Ramallah and Peking. Because nowadays, many believe it are the Americans and the Jews who are enjoying undeserved success. They are the money-mad magnats of the planet, the popularizers of morale, the spoilers of culture, the circulators of godless values. These two nations, it is said, are perpetrating predator capitalism, they are overrunning poor countries, and they are exploiting weak neighbours, endlessly longing for more. The Americans and the Jews make money, produce weapons and play the part of super power because they don't esteem life's higher values, because theirs is a feverish energy, because they are unjust, because they are pursuing a shallow search for power and fortune. And just like the French intellectuals around 1830 were harbouring an aversion to traders and bankers, at present there are those who are dreaming of the destruction of America and Israel and are rebelling against it. Today's bourgeoisophobes are full of the same blistering feelings of unjust inferiority like the French intellectuals of 1830. They feel just as much humiliated because there is nothing they can do against the increasing power of their enemies. They are furious. But today's bourgeoisophobes are not only intellectuals: they can also be terrorists or suicide squads. They include Muslim clergymen who are spurring up hatred and violence. They include European intellectuals, deeply offended because they know that America and Israel have a vitality and a heroism that their countries have lost a long time ago already. (...)'

'(...) In essence, bourgeoisophobia is the aversion to success. Bougeoisophobes are thinking that the world is spoiled, that the wrong convictions are rewarded, the wrong people, the wrong abilities. Normal people tend to look at the success of a rich and powerful country and then wonder what's the cause of that success. But for the bourgeoisophobe other people's success is never well-deserved. Success, so he is thinking, is for the one who is worshipping the golden calf, the devilish seducer: money. Enemies of the bourgeoisophobes are invariably described as being bent on money, insanely commercial. 'Money has killed everything', the French poet Gobineau sighed in 1840. The Americans and the Jews became the main targets of the bourgeoisophobes. Because everybody knows that no country has ever been so successful as America, and that no people have done so long so well in Europe as the Jews. (...)'

'(...) In an article in The New York Review of Books, 'Occidentalism', Avishai Margalit and Ian Buruma are mentioning the six pillars at which the bourgeoisophobe aims his anger. Bourgeoisophobes hate 1) the city, since it stands for commerce, sexual freedom, a mixed population, 2) the mass media: advertising, television, pop music, videos, 3) science and technology and all advances there, 4) they hate circumspection, the wish to live in safety instead of taking deadly risks and flirtating with violence heroically, 5) freedom that even stretches itself to the mediocre and finally, 6) they hate the emancipation of the woman, who ought to stay at home and give birth to heroic sons. And these six pillars are exactly the foundation of meritocratic societies like America and Israel. (...)'

'(...) Of course Europeans are bourgeois themselves, in some respects even more than the Americans and the Israelis. They are distrusting in those countries what they believe is an unbalanced and hostile variant of bourgeois ambition. No European will ever admit it, but America and israel are brave bourgeois nations. Israelis are driven by a passionate zionism to establish a rich and affluent fatherland. We Americans are driven by a puritanic calling, the deeply cherished belief that Americans have a mission to spread their way of life over the entire globe. Europe is missing exactly that daily heroism, and that is breeding distrust. Europeans can't remember anymore how it is to have self-confidence, to be propelled by the force of history (...).'

'(...) In the meantime it has become clear that after 11th September America has risen to new economic and military heights, and it isn't easy to explain how such a country, allegedly corrupt to the bone, can apparently be so successful for such a long time. If we are so bad, then why are we doing so well? Despite our so-called uncivilizedness, decadence and materialism, Americans keep on reacting to world events in a way that enhances the idea that America isn't just shallow. President Bush has chosen the most difficult way by seeing the war on terror as a moral confrontation with evil. And the American people has supported him at every step, even those who were against his election the most fiercely. That's not an obvious reaction of a decadent, commercially obsessed people. That's not the reaction one might expect if one orientates oneself to the extensive literature about cultural decline. Just like the Frence anti-globalist Jose Bove, whose biggest achievement was the demolition of a McDonald's restaurant, thinks he has something in common with Yasser Arafat (whom he visited in Ramallah on 31st March 2002), many Americans feel a resemblance with Israel. Most Americans can make the distinction between nihilist terrorism and a democracy that tries to defend itself. In the struggle against terrorism the American leaders and the American people have been unbending and resolute. The American people has stood firm against fascism and communism for a century, and everything is now indicating that they will persist patiently in the fight against terrorism, which is essentially a struggle against those who are loathing our way of life. (...)'

Mr Brooks is rating what he calls 'the Oxbridge mediacrats of the BBC' among his 'bourgeoisophobes' also, as he is discontent with their covering of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

November 2002. The Jewish director of a minor US radio station called 'Democracy now' describes her goal: 'We are challenging the corporate media that are only airing the views of the US government. We are also broadcasting dissident opinions.'

February 2003. Tensions between America and Europe are increasing, as France and Germany are indicating that they are against a war with Iraq. In a European country, a Jewess chairs a debate about the matter. One of the guests is the Jewish authoress Sally Farrar. She says: 'All US media are controlled by nine multinationals.' Furthermore, Richard Perle is interviewed per satellite. Mr Perle is a Pentagon adviser, one of the so-called Neoconservatives and a Jew. An energetic advocate of the war himself, he comments on the position of France and Germany: 'The Axis of Weasels, as a New York newspaper called them, is very harmful.' He also reacts to the fact that on 15th January 2003 millions of anti-war demonstrators took to the streets throughout the world: 'I am sorry to observe the irony of the fact that the number of these demonstrators, six million, is equal to the number of Jews who were killed when the world failed to understand Hitler.' Two of the questions of the hosting Jewess at her panel guests:

'Have we already become Americans, yet reluctant to admit it? Are the French and German protests maybe the last resistance of Europe?'

'Are we but one step away from copying America's political and social choices?'

March 2003. A Jew, who was one of the initiators of the European Community of Coal and Steel in the 1950s, comments on the American think tank that in the 1990s has produced a strategy for making the 21st century 'a new American century'. He says: 'As a result of this strategy paper of Bush the world threatens to return to the situation of before the First World War'. About the war in Iraq and the international tensions it is arousing, he says: 'It is not America versus Europe, but one part of America and Europe versus another part of America and Europe.'

April 2003. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is announced to give a speech at a meeting of the 4,000 members of a pro-Israel lobby group. The White House states that neither the media nor members of the public will be admitted. In the old media, some Jews are worrying that this secrecy might fuel conspiracy theories.

May 2003. Panorama reporter Steve Bradshaw investigates the political influence of the so-called 'Neoconservatives' on the American administration. (I recorded this programme, but missed the final part of it.) In a speech, the President says that his administration has borrowed twenty fine minds of the American Enterprise Institute, the thinktank of the Neocons. Mr Bradshaw interviews Jim Lobe, whom he introduces as 'a Neocon watcher and a longstanding opponent of anti-Semitism'. According to Mr Lobe, the majority of the Neoconservatives are Jewish, but they don't represent the majority of the Jewish community in America. In the part I've taped, Mr Bradshaw didn't say that both he and Mr Lobe are Jews themselves.

Some opinions of these Washington influentials. Michael Ledeen says that all regimes that sponsor terrorism, need to be toppled. The US shouldn't apply its military force for its self-defence only, but also for the promotion of the American principles in the world. The refusal of France and Germany to participate in the Iraq war leads Mr Ledeen to say that France and Germany have behaved as if they were strategic enemies.

J. Woolsey, US Defence Policy Board: 'We are going to have to be involved for several decades to help change the face of the Middle East.'

Eliot Cohen, also a member of the US Defence Policy Board, says that democracy should be exported. He defines the Cold War against communism as the Third World War and the conflict with what he calls 'militant Islam' as the Fourth World War. 'Radicalized branches of Islam can inflict catastrophic damage on Western cities.'

Against the background of huge Israeli and American flags, the US Foreign Secretary gives a speech at a congress of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. He issues a warning: 'Syria bears the responsibility for its choices and its consequences.'

Jay Marx, the Jewish spokesman of the National Peace Lobby, is energetically protesting against the Neoconservatives. He comments on the US media: 'They are now constantly shouting 'Syria! Syria!', as if they are preparing us.'

Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute tells Mr Bradshaw: 'Yes, many of us are Jewish, no need to apologize for that, and all of us are pro-Israel, but that doesn't mean we have a dual loyalty, we are American thinkers. We see tremendous similarities between Israel en America, and Britain for that matter, because these are leading democracies.' Mr Bradshaw confronts her with the following: 'The accusation in our circles is that the administration has been hijacked by a small group of, often pro-Zionist intellectuals, without any popular backing, that somehow persuaded President Bush to go to war with Iraq.' Mrs Wurmser laughs: 'Contrary to popular belief, there is no conspiracy. The group would not have been so powerful, was it not for an administration and a President who is susceptible and willing to adopt many of the group's ideas. Nobody hijacked anything. Nobody has brainwashed the American President. He is acting according to his own convictions and beliefs.'

William Kristol, engaged in the Project of the New American Century: 'President Bush believes that US power is crucial for the promotion of liberty and democracy throughout the world. 9/11 was a huge wake-up call. The President decided that standing back and letting things develop over the world was a recipe for more 9/11s. We had to be active in the world.' Later on in the programme, he comments on the defeat of the Iraqi army: 'This is not the end of the end, it is the end of the beginning.'

5.12.11  ON ISRAEL
To be continued at Britain faces the threat of Anglocide (2/2)


- 1  Introduction -
- 1.1  Very important -
- 1.2  Have you ever wondered....? -
- 1.3  Statement of principles -
- 2  The world around us is being shaped and reshaped by what goes on in our hearts and minds -
- 3  Christ: 'Love your enemies' -
- 4  Hitler: 'The Jews are mankind's worst problem' -
- 5  The dominating ideas in British society -
- 5.1.1  The sexual revolution has been a blessing -
- 5.1.2  Society owes a lot to the women's lib movement -
- 5.1.3  There are no simple solutions for the crime problem -
- 5.1.4  The world is becoming a global village -
- 5.1.5  Racism, the most despicable attitude in life -
- 5.1.6  Privatisation does good work for society -
- 5.1.7  Europe needs mass immigration -
- 5.1.8  The protection of peace and human rights can make war unavoidable -
- 5.1.9  The ideas of the Enlightenment are the spiritual backbone of today's Western world -
- 5.2  The influence of these ideas on our behaviour -
- 5.2.8  Summary -
- 5.3  The main source of today's ideas -
- 5.3.1  The work behind the screens -
- 5.3.2  Six strange phenomena -
- 5.4  My suspicion -
- 5.5  If so, who and why? -
- 5.6  The many ways to confuse a nation -
- 5.6.1  The old media, the confusion and a book -
- 5.7.1  Painful Passages in the Torah, the holiest book of the Mosaic faith -
- 5.7.2  Painful Passages in the other holy books of the Tanach -
- 5.7.3  Painful Passages in the Talmud -
- 5.7.4  The significance of these texts today -
- 5.8.1  The world consists of parallel indoor worlds -
- 5.8.2  On Moses's views -
- 5.8.3  A field of fresh snow -
- 5.8.4  A dismal conclusion -
- 5.9  Several factors that are playing into the hands of the Torahists -
- 5.9.1  Paradox -
- 5.9.2  Taboo -
- 5.9.3  Conspiracy -
- 5.9.4  Lack of imagination -
- 5.9.5  Secularization -
- 5.9.6  The truth and us -
- 5.10  A summary -
- 5.11  The key question -
- 5.11.1  The patterns in the influence of the old media -
- 5.11.16  A summary of the influencing patterns -
- 5.11.17  A logical objection and my reply -
- 5.11.18  About the so-called right-wing press -
- 5.12  Jews contributing to the political debates -
- 5.12.1  On the European nations -
- 5.12.2  On immigration and globalization -
- 5.12.3  On the European Union -
- 5.12.4  On Jews and non-Jews -
- 5.12.5  On the Torah -
- 5.12.6  On Christianity -
- 5.12.7  On Western values and political ideas -
- 5.12.8  On anti-Semitism and the aftermath of the Holocaust -
- 5.12.9  On the world after 11th September 2001 -
- 5.12.10  On America -
- Table of contents -


- 5.12.11  On Israel -
- 5.12.12  The visibility of something unprovable -
- 5.13  Introduction to a theory -
- 5.14  The theory: the so-called European Union is the concealed pursuit of Torahists of obtaining absolute and lasting rule over the peoples of Europe -
- 5.15  Circumstantial evidence -
- 5.15.1  Torahism is conflicting with America's most important texts -
- 5.15.2  The unequal horror status of communism and national-socialism -
- 5.15.3  The unnatural nature of the word 'racism' -
- 5.15.4  President Clinton's unfounded condemnation of scientific findings -
- 5.15.5  The US is always serving Israel's interests -
- 5.15.6  The US didn't have to declare 'war' to persecute terrorists -
- 5.15.7  The speech of the US President during his state visit in November 2003 -
- 5.15.8  The EU is not interested in Europeans, but in euros -
- 5.15.9  The EU reaction to the new Austrian coalition in 2000 -
- 5.15.10  The strange silence about a bizarre idea that directly concerns us and hundreds of millions of other Europeans -
- 5.15.11  Today's leaders are pushing Asian countries into what's supposed to be the European Union -
- 5.15.12  Senior Labour MP: "Prime Minister Blair is being influenced by Jews too much" -
- 5.15.13  Why aren't those who should do it, doing the things I have done? -
- 5.15.14  Four major political developments in Europe have two things in common -
- 6  The future of the British people asks for a non-violent Christian-patriotic counteroffensive, internet-based for starters -
- 6.1  The first battle that must be won, is the decisive one -
- 6.2  Back to our spiritual roots -
- 6.3.1  The animal that is still evolving -
- 6.3.2  God -
- 6.3.3  Taming the animal in man -
- 6.3.4  The Ten Commandments -
- 6.4  The first Jewish doubts on Torahism -
- 6.5.1  Yeshua -
- 6.5.2  A revolutionary insight -
- 6.5.3  Mark and Matthew -
- 6.6  The political party that needs to be founded and some ideas for a program -
- 6.6.1  On proposal 11 -
- 6.6.2  On proposal 1 -
- 6.6.3  On proposal 13 -
- 7  Addresses -
- 7.1  Address to the few upon whose choices depends so much: adolescent Jews, growing up in a Torahist environment -
- 7.2  Address to the truely problematic children of mother Earth, the malevolent among prominent Jews, the core of Torahism -
- 7.3  Another short address -
- 7.4  Address to Prime Minister Mr Blair -
- 7.5  Address to the future founders of the British Christian-Patriotic Party -
- 7.6  Address to those who are willing to support this initiative -
- 8  About me -
- 9  Possible reactions to this initiative -
- 10  Epilogue -
- Appendix: the names in chapter 5.12 -
- Table of contents -

                                       The second part of the text can be found at:
                                       Britain faces the threat of Anglocide (2/2)

                                       Back to the initial page