Back to the initial page

                                       The following is the sequel to:
                                       Britain faces the threat of Anglocide (1/2)

5.12.11  ON ISRAEL

In 1998, Stuart Eizenstat, Deputy Secretary of Trade of the Clinton administration and a Jew, gives a speech at a Jewish university in Jerusalem. He is reported to have said: 'For the first time since the destruction of the Second Temple, the people of Israel are now representing genuine power.' The Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

In September 2000 Mr Sharon's visit of the Temple Mountain sets off the second Palestinian Intifadah. Israeli soldiers are shooting at youngsters throwing stones. A Jewish politician of a left-wing European party gives his comment: 'I saw an Israeli demonstration on TV the other day. One of the people there carried a sign saying: if you don't throw stones, you won't be shot at. Well, there's an element of truth in it.'

2001. The secretary of a church-related peace organization, let's call him Mr X, has written an article about the composition of the Israeli population. He argues that in a globalizing world Israel should give up its tenacity in maintaining its Jewish identity. A Jewish editor of an opinion magazine writes a protesting reply. The headline is: 'Mr X's recipe for genocide'. He utters his fear that mass immigration of non-Jews will mean the end of Israeli Jewry. That same opinion magazine however is constantly writing pro-immigration and it is constantly boosting the political careers of non-whites.

2001 (before 11th September). A Jewish glossy prints a statement of one of the interviewees, a senior editor of another magazine, on its cover: 'The Arabs are right, but the Jews must win.'

April 2002. Unaware of the fact that their microphones are open, Mr Sharon and one of his generals are talking about the best strategy to drive President Arafat into exile again.

April 2002. While Israeli troops are besieging the residence of Mr Arafat in Ramallah, former Prime Minister Barak is interviewed by BBC World. To a question about the return of the dispelled Palestinians, he answers: 'Three million Palestinians back to Israel? That would be a new Bosnia, a new Northern Ireland!'

April 2002. The Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism is a part of the University of Tel Aviv. Its researchers report that since the beginning of the second intifadah, Europe is flooded by a wave of anti-Semitism. The Roth Institute concludes there is no difference between an anti-Israel inclination and anti-Jewish feelings in general. In a reaction, a spokesman of the World Jewish Congress says that by criticising Israel, the European governments are responsible for resurgent anti-Semitism.

April 2002. Martin Van Creveld is a renowned military historian and a Jew, living in Israel, where he is a controversial figure by his own account. Excerpts from an interview with a political weekly:

'Israel can't win the war on terror, because such a war is not winnable by definition. In the long run, the Israelis will discover that no government can protect them. That will be the start of the disintegration and self-destruction of Israeli society.'

'The only alternative is expelling all the Palestinians within our reach, to dispel them from the West Bank to the other side of the river Jordan. In 2000 only 7% of the Israelis considered that the best solution, in early 2002 it was 33% and now it's already 44%. If the terror doesn't stop, maybe 90% of the Israelis will be in favor of a wall along the Jordan, keeping the Palestinians and their terrorists out.'

The interviewer then asks whether Mr Van Creveld believes the world would tolerate such a huge ethnic cleansing.

'I am trying to make it clear to you that Israel is desperate. We will do everything to avoid such an extreme situation become necessary. But the world has to realize that our military power is not the No. 30 of the world, but the No. 2 or 3. We have several hundreds of nuclear warheads plus the missiles to direct them to anywhere, maybe even Rome. Most European capitals can be targeted by our planes. If Israel perishes, we have the power to drag the world along with us, and I can assure you that we will do so, before Israel gets destroyed itself. This is not my preference of course, I am only describing a possibility here.'

April 2002. The American newspaper 'Arizona Daily Star', based in Tucson, interviews senior Sharon adviser Ra'anan Gissin: 'The Third World War will come, whether the world likes it or not. We have been fighting a war for the past 18 months, since Ariel Sharon's visit at the Temple Mountain. That is the harbinger of the Third World War. The world is going to fight, I am sure of it. 11th September was a watershed event. Things will never be the same. The battle lines have been drawn.'

May 2002. Jaffa Jarkoni, an artist whose songs were very popular in 1948, the year that the State of Israel was founded, is sad to comment on the Israeli violence against the Palestinians. 'Our people have been through so much misery because of Auschwitz, how is it possible that we are doing such cruel things now? We ourselves are causing anti-Jewish hatred.' In a comment her remarks are rejected by the senior editor of Ma'ariv newspaper: 'Jarkoni is on the side of Europe's new anti-Semites.'

June 2002. A Jewish professor at the University of Jerusalem is interviewed about Israel's future. When the interviewer brings up the possibility of a war, he gets carried away, and he loses himself in fury shouting: 'If Israel would be struck by a second Holocaust, it will happen with nuclear weapons, but in that case Europe will be destroyed too!'

July 2002. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is interviewed by Michael Friedman, the German Jew I mentioned earlier. Two fragments:

1) Mr Friedman: 'What's your opinion on the European criticism of Israel's policy, criticism of the sort of 'the Palestinians are trapped'?

Mr Sharon: 'There has always been anti-Semitism in Europe and there always will be (...) The twenty million Arabs in Europe have become an important factor. In France for example there are living 650,000 Jews, but six million Arabs. I am glad President Chirac fiercely attacked the newest waves of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is like terror. Once you start making concessions to terror, the same terror will demand only more concessions in the future.'

2) Mr Friedman: 'Do you trust German society?'

Mr Sharon: 'Germany is very friendly towards us. I talk with Foreign Secretary Fischer a lot, I know Mr Schroeder. Maybe we are looking at extreme events too much, but in the final analysis I am saying: we Jews must put our trust in ourselves. To the Jews living in Germany, but also those in France and Russia, I'd say: the majority of the Jewish people should be living in the State of Israel. That's the place where Jews can be Jews. The immigration of another million Jews is one of the goals of my government. In 2020 the majority of the Jews ought to live in Israel.'

At one point Mr Sharon said that 'life isn't easy for the Palestinians, they are suffering too'.

August 2002. The old media are making the possibility and desirablity of a war against Iraq the world's main topic. During a visit at Washington, Prime Minister Sharon and Foreign Secretary Peres meet with the US media. Mr Sharon: 'It's dangerous to attack Iraq, but doing nothing is even more dangerous. If America attacks now, it can still remain a conventional war. But if America lingers, it might ultimately become a nuclear war.' Mr Peres: 'America must win the war against terror, otherwise we won't have a future in which we can work, live, walk, breathe....'

October 2002. In a European opinion magazine a Jew writes an article against the mental climate in Israel, where one rabbi after the other is calling anti-Sharon demonstrators 'traitors'. Remarkable synchronicity: in the same period the White House is calling American anti-war protesters 'traitors to their country'.

November 2002. Prime Minister Sharon says that after a war against Iraq, Iran should be dealt with.

December 2002. Prime Minister Sharon mentions the possibility that Iraq is hiding its weapons of mass destruction in Syria.

February 2003. After winning the elections, Likud leader Mr Sharon forms a coalition with two far right parties, the National Union and the National-Religious Party. Mr Sharon becomes Prime Minister again.

March 2003. The world expects the US and the UK to attack Iraq every day. In a European country, a Jewess, working at an Israel information agency, says: 'The Jewish community in this country has nothing to do with this war and Israel has nothing to do with this war. There was a very big peace demonstration in Tel Aviv on 15th January.' She didn't mention Mr Sharon's pro-war influence on the US president. She didn't mention the number of the Israeli demonstrators: 3,000. The relatively small size of the Israeli-Jewish population taken into account, this was actually a tiny peace demonstration compared to the impressive rallies in London, Rome, Barcelona and many other cities.

March 2003. Our man in Jerusalem, Sherard Cowper-Coles, is summoned to receive an angry reaction from the Israeli government, after Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had told the BBC that the West is applying double standards for Iraq and Israel with regard to complying with UN resolutions and that something needed be done about it.

April 2003. Iraq's defeat is imminent, when Shimon Peres is interviewed by BBC World. Question: 'Now the US Secretary of State has warned Iran and Syria, the Arab world is thinking Iraq is only No. 1 of a target list.' Mr Peres: 'Countries that are supporting terror, ought to be sanctioned economically first. If that doesn't help, military methods may be necessary.'


Now, there are of course very many prominent non-Jews who have the same standpoints and everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions. Furthermore, the Christian thing to do is to treat other people in the same way you want them to treat you. So if I would meet each of these prominent Jews in person, if we would be sitting in one room together, and he repeated the things I've listed, I ought to believe and I want to believe that he is giving his true sincere opinion, without thinking of a hidden agenda. Because if I put myself in his position, I want him to be convinced vice versa that I am not a Nazi, despite my elaborate criticism of Moses's legacy. As I want him to respect my integrity, I have to respect his or hers as well.

But now look what happens when we consider all these opinions and views together, when we superimpose them on one another, as if every opinion is a dot on a transparant sheet. A number of 'opinion clusters' then emerge, a number of common denominators:

Prominent Jews are talking about the separate European nations as if these will once belong to the past. They are in favour of the power drain from the national states to the EU. They are expecting the EU to become a second US. They are promoting mass migration. They are advocating ethnic and racial mixing. Those who want Britain, France and Germany to stay British, French and German, are called 'racists' and 'xenophobes' and 'fascists' by prominent Jews - yet they want Israel to remain a Jewish Israel. Prominent Jews never mention Torahism. They are degrading Christian values and they are promoting secular values. They are promoting 'tolerance' for instance, but they aren't respecting Europe's Christian heritage at the same time. Dubbed an 'anti-Semitic prejudice' for ages, prominent Jews are now saying themselves that the Jews have a special relationship with money. Prominent Jews are protagonists of globalization. Jews naming Jewish misconduct, are risking being boycotted as traitors. Non-Jews naming Jewish misconduct immediately become the object of Third Reich-related slander, insults and underhanded innuendo. Prominent Jews seem to have a grudge against the whole of today's Europe because of yesterday's Nazi crimes. Only after 11th September 2001, they are showing great concern about Muslim activism. Prominent Jews want the American people to believe that Israel and the US are brothers in arms in a hostile world. Israel seems to be obsessed by exerting power and waging wars, even nuclear wars. And finally, there are these similarities between the opinions of prominent Jews and the misleading influences of the old media.

Subsequently, let's compare this summary with the holy orders of Moses, Nehemiah, Isaiah and others regarding the non-Jews:

You are the Chosen People, but you must do the following, otherwise the full wrath of HaShem will befall on you.
Make lots of money, so that you can wield power and rule over other peoples.
Do with those other peoples whatever you like.
Exploit their workforce, their assets.
Destroy those other peoples, but do it slowly, unnoticedly.
Tear down their gods, their traditional values.
Enfeeble their governments, make their kings bow.
Mix away their nations.
Make sure you don't mix with them yourselves.
Send them into wars if you want to.
Fill those who oppose you with fear, intimidate them publicly, HaShem will help you.
If they come after you, take mercilessly revenge on them and their children.
And at every single step, make sure they don't find out what you are up to.
Confuse them.
Lie to them, manipulate them, whatever.
Disguise your goals as posh ideals, use posh terms.
One day, the blood of the non-Jews will flow downhill from the mountains.

There are so many similarities between the superimposed opinions and the Painful Passages, that most of today's prominent Jews probably are Torahists.

I can't prove it, that's right. Torahism is all about deception and cheats seldom bear the word 'cheat' tattooed on their foreheads. But I don't have to prove it, actually. I was born in the 1950s and I have never done any Jew any harm. My children were born in the 1990s and they have never done any Jew any harm. I am not walking around with a book that instructs me to hurt other peoples. It's the other way around, I think. The Torahist indoctrination of Jewish children all over the world is a thing of the present. The World Jewish Congress has never distanced itself from the Painful Passages. The Jewish collectivity has never apologised for the Mosaic wrongs. So I don't have to prove that these prominent Jews are Torahists. In fact, the entire British people don't have to prove that these prominent Jews are Torahists.

It is up to them to convince us they are not.


There are several reasons for putting forward a theory about what's going on in the post-1945 West and the role of Torahism:

1) Torahism is an extremely dangerous doctrine and its followers belong to the most intelligent people on Earth. Every people have a natural right to defend themselves against it. Therefore, we have to have some sort of an orientation paper that can be discussed.

2) Since the old media are most probably run by Torahists, we can not rely on the appearance of post-1945 history that's offered to us by those media.

3) Those who ought to do something against Torahism, don't. Our politicians, who are obliged to protect Britain against every form of totalitarianism, don't. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who by the nature of his position must be aware of Torahism, doesn't. Our writers, supposedly the conscience of the nation, don't.

4) The theory can explain a number of events and developments the official stories and common sense can't.

5) The theory can be helpful to fathom the significance of new events.

However, the following has to be carefully observed while unfolding the theory:

Understanding for the fact that Torahists are the victims of parental and rabbinal indoctrination from early childhood. Growing up as a Torahist is not the result of a deliberate choice.

The theory will serve a spiritual, a non-violent struggle against certain ideas and acts, generated by a book. It's not aimed at the Jews as a people. It's aimed at parts of a book and a Jew is not a book, but a human being. The Jews, including the Torahists, are our fellow men. If it's necessary to repeat this a 1,000 times to reassure them, it must be repeated 2,000 times, just to be on the safe side. (Torahist Jews will presumably spit upon this reassurance, but their attitude is their problem, not mine.)

Torahism is not an exclusively Jewish wrong. The Torahists are outnumbered by their non-Jewish allies, puppets, servants and rank and file by far - a strong alliance of the well-meaning and the unsuspecting, the naive, the intelligent yet dazzled, the learned yet unwise, the people who can only hear what they want to hear, misled young idealists, the souls Lenin once described as 'useful idiots', the cowards, the ignorant yet arrogant, the sanctimonious and the liars who will never admit they are just that, the pseudo-elite, the fierce and the grim who revel in attacking society's heretics, because they want all the world and themselves to know that they belong to the good guys, furthermore, the talented indifferent who don't give a damn about the nation they too are children of, the opportunistic career hunters, the greedy, the political straw men, whose obsession for power makes them betray every ideal their supporters genuinely believe in, then, those Christians who are suffering from self-contempt for incomprehensible reasons, confused Christians who believe that the Christian God and the Jewish God are the same, the slightly hysterical Christians who are glorifying everybody and everything that's Israelite, incapable of understanding that Christians blindly adoring Israel, won't inspire the Torahists to spare the Christians, and finally, those Christians who are glorifying Israel in a compensating reflex to extinguish smouldering anti-Semitism in their hearts.

Special attention ought to be given to the generation of those European politicians and opinion leaders who have seen how the Nazis persecuted the Jews with their own eyes. That must have made a deep and lasting impression on them. It's perfectly understandable that they have been mentally repressing the existence of this Jewish doctrine once the war was over, given the hellish ways Hitler fought Torahism.

Future events that are contradicting or weakening the theory, must be described and explored fair and square.


The theory begins right here.


The Holocaust originated several convictions in post-1945 Jewry:

A number of Jews wanted to forget all about their ancestry. They cut their ties with the ancient traditions and started mixing with non-Jews.

A number of Jews, desperate because of the catastrophe, felt that Auschwitz was the proof that HaShem or any other God doesn't exist. They also cut all mental ties with the faith of their fathers and they became left-wing zionists. Their idealism brought them to work in the kibbutzim, the working communities, of the young State of Israel. In universities, politics and media they became the protagonists of the so-called liberal-progressive values, which they brought into practice in their own lifes. Their dismay unrooted them, they became some sort of prophets gone wild, the involuntary heralds of moral destruction.

A number of Jews worried that in the future, aggressive nationalism of any European people with an anti-Semitic leader could jeopardize their very existence yet again. To rule out this possibility once and for all, it became necessary to eradicate nationalism in Europe. And the only way to achieve that in a failsafe manner, is to put an end to the European nations. Any other way would leave something to chance. The drive of these nation-wrecking Jews is fear.

Among the Torahists, the Mosaic elite of the Jewish people, a burning desire to take revenge for the Holocaust arose, which feeling added to their intent of the past 3,500 years. They too became the advocates of internationalism and the liberal-progressive values, but for deceitful reasons, in contrast to the nihilistic and the fearful Jews.


The outcome of the Second World War had brought Western Europe in the sphere of influence of the US. Now, from the 1880s onwards, three million Jews, fleeing persecutions, had migrated from Eastern Europe to America. The Torahists among them had done very well. Concentrated in the so-called 'Borsht Belt', as they nicknamed the American East Coast ('borsht' is a Russian soup), the Torahists acquired incredible amounts of money and a lot of influence in American industry, mass media and henceforth politics. So by 1945, the US had become a Torahist-American Empire.

The victorious power can impose its will and its way of life on the countries it dominates. Western Europe had several prices to pay for the liberation by the American armies and for the loans of the Marshall Plan and the Lend and Lease Act. The first price was the dismantling of its colonial empires. Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, they were all forced to give up the rule over their overseas territories and the lucrative mining, industrial and trading monopolies that came with it. The mass media sold this to the general public with themes like: 'Because of two World Wars, Europe has lost every moral authority in its colonies' and 'Now Europe has been liberated itself, it would be wrong to suppress the colonized peoples any further'. Post-1945 Europe, once the centre of colonial empires, was meant to become a colony itself.

The second price that Western Europe had to pay was to install governments that were forced to join America in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The formidable American military-industrial complex that rose after Pearl Harbor, was eager to maintain the broad money flow in its direction. It needed the deceitful idea of an imminent Soviet threat, although the Soviet Union was exhausted after four years of fierce war with Germany. The Western mass media, which had depicted the Soviet Union as a 'heroic ally' until 1945, made a cynical U-turn and scaremongered the public that the Stalinist Juggernaut was about to steamroller the Free World, if America and its allies didn't do their utmost to deter it militarily. The artificially created prospect of invading Red Armies, aggravated by Mao Zedong's rise to power in 1949 China, brought fear in the hearts of the American people. That fear made them accept that Capitol Hill allocated enormous amounts of taxpayers' money to the mighty factories of tanks, planes, warships, submarines and rockets and their subcontractors. Western Europe had to follow.


There was also a third price to pay. Torahism is the oldest form of imperialism and in the 1950s, the Torahists decided to deliver a devastating blow against what they consider are their main competitors.

Century after century, they had been living among the Christian peoples of Europe, carefully monitored and occasionally expelled and persecuted, and they loathed their host nations. However, they couldn't help feeling some admiration for the Europeans at the same time. Embracing the ideas of a Jewish do-gooder who had betrayed HaShem, these Northern peoples, although less intelligent than the Jews, were able to establish strong societies and, as from the 15th century, great empires, stretching all over the world. The ancient civilisations of India, China and Japan were quite inert in comparison. Even a relatively small country like Holland became a commercial giant, a marine super power and the native country of marvellous painters in the 17th century. The Europeans who crossed the Atlantic Ocean with the Holy Book in their hands, made North America a blossoming land, partly owing their success to the impressive toil of the negro slaves. The curiosity of the Europeans, their perseverance, their daring to make mistakes and the constructive attitude to frankly discuss their mistakes, also led to an array of scientific discoveries in the fields of physics and chemistry, making Newton, Joule, Ohm and Volt household words to the present day. And all the time, the European peoples were aware of the existence of Torahism. Seen from their perspective, they felt connected with a Jew who had attacked the Torahists for their mendacity, materialism and moral indifference towards non-Jews.

So seen from the perspective of the Torahists, the Christian white peoples were and are the main obstacle between them and the realization of Moses's dream. Three factors led them to believe the time was right to start a psychological war, a Silent World War, against the whites in America, Europe and elsewhere.

In the first place, two events were already considered by the Torahists as promising indications that Christianity wouldn't last forever. The 16th-century Reformation had split the Church into a Catholic and a Protestant part, detesting each other, and the 18th-century Enlightenment made many European intellectuals turn their backs to the Church anyway. The pioneers of the Age of Reason saw to it that the Jews got the same civil rights as the European citizens had. After all, 'everybody' knew that God, HaShem or Allah didn't exist and surely, the Jews would soon draw the same conclusion, once released from the ghettos. This development enhanced the Torahist conviction that God was indeed HaShem, the patient God of Jewish supremacy, instead of the Christian 'softie' God, who left his followers rebellious and gullible.

In the second place, the rise and fall of Nazi Germany meant a severe psychological blow for the white peoples. Claiming that he acted in the interest of the white 'Aryan' race, especially determined to turn the Germans into a 'Herrenvolk', a people of masters, Hitler's dictatorship had led to the well-known misery. So after 1945, those who wanted the white peoples to maintain themselves in a respectable manner, felt afraid they unintentionally might do or say things which could be considered Hitlerite. Such was the impact of the Nazi horrors on the European mind, that doubts grew as to whether it was right to think in terms of 'maintaining a people' at all. The Torahists silently welcomed these doubts, understanding they could misuse this insecurity of the whites for their own purposes.

In the third place, the 1950s saw the rise of an electromagnetic gadget that constituted a formidable instrument to influence the spirit of the nations. A box producing entertainment, news, documentaries, expert opinions and smiling politicians in every living-room of the West! Television, with its vast potential to create confusion, must have been a bit of a HaShemsend for the Torahists. They didn't hesitate to get control of it as fast as they could.

And so, the Silent World War began.

Psychological warfare is based on the principle that once people start feeling weak, they will become weak. And once people are weak, they will not resist political decisions that will make them even weaker. So all convictions, beliefs, values that made the Christian whites feel strong, were to be undermined. The Torahists started misusing the old media to question, contradict and ridicule all their certainties in life, to destroy their self-esteem and their self-confidence, and to plant feelings of guilt, doubt, shame, insecurity, failure and loneliness in their heads.

The Torahists developed several strategies, to be carried out simultaneously.

Down-imaging over a longer period of time diminishes the target group's self-esteem and self-confidence. Both are necessities to keep one's footing in life. Two examples: the Torahists started down-imaging manly behaviour, making the man grow insecure about his role in marriage, his role in the upbringing of his children, his role in society. By down-imaging the history of the European nations, many Europeans started feeling bad and egoistic if they noticed an inner objection against the mass immigration from their former colonies. Furthermore, down-imaging a certain group hinders the realization of political decisions in favour of that group, whereas up-imaging a group helps that group realize political decisions to their advantage. That's because a nation's opinion climate is the permanent and most influential participant in nearly every room where decisive meetings are being held. During a political meeting, the attendants are reluctant to speak up for those whom they assume the others don't like. They are more inclined to propose to do something nice for those who they assume are popular with the others. The image of a group therefore plays an important role in politics.

The Torahists started hammering the false idea that all people are equal into our heads and they supported the call for equal rights for people who aren't equal by definition. The Torahist intention was to lure the 'unequals' into feelings of dissatisfaction, rancour and frustration and to amplify these feelings. Subsequently, the Torahists gave the most charismatic of the frustrated the status of media heroes. In this way, the Torahists artificially created 'pet' groups. The political goals of these pet groups were to be up-imaged in the old media, predominantly by the key word 'emancipation'. Influential people forming an obstacle for the pet groups were being accused of 'having prejudices', 'being old-fashioned', 'discrimination', 'bigotry', 'hatred' and so on. That continuous media pressure caused these opponents to bow ultimately. The clash between the pet groups and those who cherished traditional values would confuse, divide and thus weaken the entire society. In the long run, the pet groups were to be helped by the old media to get as much seeming political power as possible. In times of trouble for instance, the interviewers grant these pet groups the privilege to appeal to their 'equal rights' as well as to the particularities of the group they belong to, no consistency or modesty required. The Torahists knew that exactly the leaders of these pet groups would be their ideal puppets, prepared to go at lengths to keep the very media support intact that had elevated them to the high positions and salaries.

Society was full of groups of unequal people that could be set against one another. The students against their professors, the less talented against the more talented, those who don't do their best against those who do, the frustrated against the successful, the poor against the rich, the women against the men, the children against their parents, the supposed 'cool kids' against the supposed 'nerds', the workers against the manufacturers, the immigrants against the indigenous peoples, the non-whites against the whites, the left-wingers against the right-wingers, the homosexuals against the heterosexuals, the false prophets against the clergymen, the masses against those in authority, the coarse against the modest, the shouters against the thinkers, those with a bad memory against those with a good memory, the egoists against those with a sense of responsibility and duty, the pressure groups against those with an eye for the overall picture, the individual against the collectivity, the confused millions against the dissidents.

The Torahist media support for Torahist-friendly politicians, left-wing pressure groups, career women and non-whites became the most clearly visible.

Through television and the printed press, the Torahists began to create deceptive but compelling concepts of desirable and undesirable behaviour, which would serve their purposes. They know that most people simply want to belong to society's good guys rather than to get involved in complicated discussions about good and bad. The Torahists, the world's finest people experts, know that most people are followers and but few are trendsetters - they are followers themselves to begin with. Besides, the Torahists know how to use time as an ally brilliantly. Constantly exposing a nation to misleading ideas and a distorted world view for decades, will result in steadily more people unsuspectingly adopting the misleading views, since those who have witnessed other times and know better, will gradually disappear. 'The old will die and the young will forget', the Torahists are probably thinking. Their awareness of time is superior to that of the average European: the 21st century is their 58th century. Time is also helping the Jewish settlers in the Palestinian territories Israel is occupying since 1967. While the talks in Camp David, Oslo and elsewhere go on and on, the few accommodations of early Jewish pioneers become villages, these pioneers often having large families, the villages become towns, new roads connect the growing towns, and when the average Palestinian looks around him, he'll see that his horizon is ever more dominated by Israeli residential areas and Israeli-controlled roads. His children however will grow up not knowing any better than that those houses and roads have always been there. In 1972, there were 1,500 Jewish settlers there. Now they are counting 210,000.

Christianity teaches us to be kind and helpful to those who need it. The Torahists began to abuse this benign mentality by luring the Christian societies into being kind and helpful to those who don't deserve it. By means of the media, the Torahists began to blackmail the Christian countries emotionally. They'll interview a church representative or a Christian politician and they'll pluck at his heart strings. If they fail, they then incensedly ask what on earth Christian solidarity stands for, on behalf of those who won't estimate a helpful deed at its true value, on behalf of the low minds who want to parasitize on other peoples' good intentions.

A happy society is, among other things, characterised by a generally accepted fair balance between rights, responsibilities and duties. It's a plain human weakness however because of which we like to hear that we have rights instead of duties. So it became a Torahist strategy to emphasize and expand the rights of the individual as much as possible. In the long run, that would create a grim sort of society in which people lose themselves in hardening, egoism and courtroom wars. This too would damage the Christian white countries.

The Nazi era got a very important role in the Silent World War. Hitler had made a caricature out of just about every measure a government has to take in order to secure the existence of the nation. So there lay a strategic eldorado for the Torahist mediacrats in the 1960s. Any sensible government measure for the protection of the nation's morale, its youth, its safety, its spirit, its ethnic identity, its very existence, could now be made suspicious in the old media by malignantly associating that measure with one of the methods of Nazi Germany. ('Well, we all know where that has led to...')

Some examples: people showing concern about garbage 'literature' in the Western bookstores could be intimidated by images of the SA burning books in 1933 Berlin. People urging the government to give more power to the police in order to fight crime, could be made suspicious by insinuating remarks about the Gestapo. Unsuspecting people saying 'this is our country' could now be confronted with the 'Blut und Boden' theories of the Nazis ('blood and soil'). Scientists proving that the races differ in their talents, could be silenced by references to the Nazi academics who in their publications sought to define the 'Untermensch', the 'subhuman'. Pleas for a disciplined youth could be blackened by showing images of, well, it's obvious.

The old media have an important task in the indispensable anti-Nazi education of today's young people and future generations. However, stretching their impertinence to the limit, the Torahists could now smother the right that every people have to defend themselves against Torahism, by endlessly showing TV images of Jewish children with tattooed numbers on their arms, the ruthless experiments on Jews and Gypsies, the ovens of Dachau, the piles of bodies in Bergen-Belsen, which psychological misuse of television is a disgusting insult of the Nazi victims first of all.

In short, patriotism, the love of one's country, one's culture, one's people, could now be vilified as neo-Nazism.

On a racial scale: the self-preservation of the white race could now be undermined by claiming or suggesting that every necessary step would lead to nothing else than to a reopening of the national-socialist abyss. The fact that the white race has never given Hitler a mandate to commit crimes on its behalf, is always ignored. Those Germans who voted for him in 1932, 1933, were only a small part of the entire white race and Hitler's dark soul was invisible to most people at the time.

(By the way, do you feel unpleasant, now I am writing about 'the white race' so expressly? If so, why is that? Why should you feel uncomfortable when you read the words 'white race'? Might it have something to do with the zillion times the old media reported on Alabama, Apartheid, the black vote, the BNP, colonialism, discrimination, Enoch Powell, Jesse Jackson, the Ku Klux Klan, Martin Luther King, the National Front, Nazi Germany, Nelson Mandela, the Mosleys, racism, the slave trade, Steve Biko, white supremacists? Might it have something to do with the consistently negative context in which the words 'white race' are being used in those reports? The undertone there that is always mocking, depreciating, scornful, sarcastic? Many whites feel a dislike to their own race, but since the world's other races aren't notable for their moral superiority, this dislike must have been caused by decades of anti-white propaganda. The white race lives, it exists, and in my view, it doesn't have to apologise for its existence.)


In 1950s America, the Torahists decided to misuse the emotions of the negroes for their plans. If the Christian-white component of the US population was to be undermined, it would be necessary first to give the negroes the same social status as the whites. To weaken white self-confidence and to incite the negroes against the whites, Torahist Hollywood started releasing movies with Sydney Poitier among others, a charismatic actor who in many scenes was able to make his indignation about mean racist whites almost tangible through the film screen.

The TV series 'All in the family', that started late 1960s, was a showcase example of the Silent World War. The average white American worker was down-imaged as a half-informed idiot, who lost out time and again against his left-wing son-in-law Mike, his wife, his daughter and his young black neighbour Lionel. His Torahist creators gave Archie Bunker just enough funny lines and little victories to prevent him from becoming too unsympathetic, but their liberal-progressive studio audiences laughed at all the 'right' moments, so that the millions of viewers in the US and Europe felt pointed out what the 'right' liberal-progressive values are. Furthermore, 'All in the family' was a useful instrument for the Torahists to sow resentment and dissension in millions of white families. After all, whenever an American or European father aired his justified dissatisfaction about, let's say, non-whites getting jobs as a result of 'affirmative action', his children, already influenced by TV, biased schoolbooks, 'tolerance' posters and pop mags, would almost automatically say to him: 'You are talking just like Archie Bunker now'.

In American politics, the 'civil rights movement', led by the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, got full media support. Scientific reports on racial differences were ignored or its writers down-imaged. The Torahists simply need the lie that the average negro and the average white are equal. This lie was finally materialized in the Civil Rights Act of the Kennedy administration and many lying laws in the West would follow. This meant that the Torahist-American Empire, its rulers consisting of Torahists and white Anglo-Saxon Protestants until then, had become a Torahist Empire. The East Coast Empire had outpowered its host nation. The Torahist control of the US mass media had grown to such an extent, that they gained the power to make themselves invisible to the public. Only those who own the media, can forbid the media to report on them. And from then on, the only non-Jews who could make it to the political top, were the non-Jews who complied with the world view the Torahists had devised, whether these non-Jews were Republicans or Democrats, whether they were whites or non-whites. Other non-Jews simply could forget about any media support, and therefore about a political career. People don't vote for those they've never heard of.


The Silent World War bursted out in full in the 1960s. What was the situation in Western Europe back then? After twenty years of incredibly hard work, the European governments, entrepreneurs and working people had changed the 1945 ruins into thriving countries. Working class people could afford to buy cars, TVs, refrigerators, record players, stereo radios and other luxury goods for the first time in their existence. As if to suppress his own amazement, a minister told us: 'You never had it so good.' Everything seemed set for a lengthy prosperous future.

But then, in the 1960s, the TV started to show a parade of eloquent people who were much displeased with Western society. The woman urgently needs to be liberated, people said on television. Despite some modest progress, the blacks and the Hispanics in the US are still being discriminated, people said on televsion. The Viet Cong wants to free the Vietnamese people, people said on television. The price of consumerist economy is being paid by the poor peoples of the Third World, empoverished by European colonialism, people said on television, after yet another close-up of flies crawling over African babies' faces. Legalize abortion now, people yelled on television. It's pathetic how the authorities react to people smoking pot, people said on television. My divorce has made me happy, according to interviewed women in women's magazines. I have accepted that my daughter decided for an abortion, other women said in other editions. 'The woman is the nigger of the world', a smart man said on television. Marxism is being vilified, learned people said on television. Obsolete institutions like the traditional family, the army, the Church, are moulding people into obedient servants of capitalist economy, people said on television. Crime is only caused by social-economic deprivation, people said on television. Law & order? It was laughed away on television, or frowned upon by alert stern faces suspecting fascist inclinations. Christianity had to change, according to left-wing theologians on television. 'The times, they are a-changin', Mr Zimmerman sang on televsision. The prudish, hypocritical sexual morale had to change. The overall racist attitude of the whites had to change. Upbringing had to change, so many children had already been severely damaged for life by authoritarian upbringing, it was said.

Everything has to change, liberal-progressive people said on television. All kinds of ridiculous outmoded taboos have to disappear, they said. They insisted. Week after week, month after month, year after year. The stealth attack on the European nations had begun.

Numerically, the protagonists of the new ideas constituted but a very small percentage of the population. However, because the Torahist TV controllers overexposed and up-imaged them, while underexposing and down-imaging their opponents, the influence of these advocates became disproportionately large, a number of these 'pioneers' being Torahists themselves. So Europe's opinion climate started to change, as from the 1960s, 1970s. To be precise, the opinion climate changed in those spaces where decisive meetings are being held. The places where politicians, civil servants and pressure groups meet. The headquarters of the old parties. The cabinet room. The House of Commons and other parliaments in Europe. The universities. The local councils. In short, those places where the ordinary man has no say, if present at all.

Europe's new elites slowly distanced themselves from the mainstream values of the peoples, which were based on Europe's Christian roots by and large. Laws were passed that gave ever more space to divorce, homosexuality, pornography, juvenile sex, abortion, prostitution. In one word, 'progress' set in. The arts became 'progressive' too. In the field of architecture for instance, the idea arose that government buildings should symbolize everything but traditional values like respect for the authorities and national pride.


Another consequence of the post-1945 US supremacy over Western Europe, was that the governments were forced to introduce 'the multicultural society', as it was embellishingly called. The US original was a multi-ethnic patchwork, and the East Coast Torahists wanted the European nations to become its multi-ethnic copies. So the 1960s saw the beginning of the influx of the millions of West Indians, Indians, North Africans, Turks, Africans, Asians and South Americans in Western Europe, and after 1989, East and South-East Europeans, and people from the former Soviet Union. The number of migrants in Europe has risen to such heights now, that if anyone in 1964 would have predicted the current ethnic chaos, people would have said: 'That's impossible, you're crazy.'

Among the immigrants, there were labourers, honestly working in unpleasant jobs to support their families in their native countries; there were labourers who after working for some time, discovered that the European countries easily gave benefits; many Muslim fathers didn't care that their children would be puzzled and feel torn apart, by growing up in an environment, dominated by the very 'liberal-progressive' values which are rejected by good Muslims; there were people with an entrepreneurial spirit who believed that the West had a better climate for their businesses to flourish than their own countries, pestered by corruption and shiftlessness; there were real asylum seekers; there were people from the former European colonies without any confidence in the governing abilities of their own new leaders; there were immigrants who, after watching 'Dynasty' and 'Dallas' on satellite TV in their villages, got the wrong impression that the Western streets were paved with gold and simply decided to give luck a chance; and there were criminals and parasites who headed north after hearing unbelievable yet accurate stories about easy asylum abuse, easy money and soft penalties in the European countries.

The Torahists regarded this mass immigration as the perfect means to slowly destroy the white peoples of Europe within one or two centuries or so.

In the first place, introducing the 'multicultural society' meant that the governments had to demand 'tolerance' from their peoples. But 'tolerating' Islam for instance, boils down to mentally surrendering to a religion that is dividing the entire world in only two lands. The land where Allah is master, and the land where Allah is not master yet, but where he is bound to be master once, no matter how many promises to the infidels the Muslims have to break, and no matter how much time is needed before the Muslim children outnumber the non-Muslim children. So the very observation that non-Muslim governments were ordering their non-Muslim peoples to tolerate Islam, was regarded by the Muslims as a promising first and enormous mental victory over the non-Muslims, and as a proof of the inner rot of the Western governments. The tensions and disputes this would arouse, the Torahists figured, would corrode the inner stability of the European nations and put Christianity in the defensive for good. In their traditional contempt for non-Jews, the Torahists automatically assumed that a Muslim presence in society's lower levels wouldn't threaten their own high positions.

In the second place, the presence of enormous quantities of foreigners could be misused to sneakingly ruin the European nations by encouraging ethnic and racial mixing. The relatively higher birth rates of the foreigners would be helpful there too, while the women's magazines were telling the white women that the world's overpopulation was a big problem, so that having only one or two children was in fact a sensible choice, and that there was nothing wrong with staying childless. The whole scheme was so grandiosely, so unimaginably malicious, that it would be a piece of cake to isolate anyone who might accuse the Torahists of this plan, as nutters and neo-Nazis.

Considered to be pivotal for the success of their offensive, the Torahists massively deployed several well-chosen words in the old media. 'Discrimination', 'xenophobia' and especially 'racism' were devised to vilify everyone opposed against the multi-ethnic chaos they planned to create. The idea that the European countries have always been the countries of white peoples and that they should stay that, was to be smirched and tabooized. Protesters were publicly accused of being 'hateful' for instance. As hate is the most negative of emotions, this accusation has a big deterring and discouraging effect. People strongly resent to be associated with people who hate. So such words were meant to become smut words, words intended to corner the opponents of multi-raciality as the worst kind of people imaginable. World history had seen other examples of this kind of psychological warfare before. In medieval Europe, people were scared stiff to be called 'heretics' and 'witches' by the Church. In India the word 'pariah' got the same outcasting effect. In Stalin's Russia the newspapers ran terrifying stories about the arrests, trials, self-accusations and executions of 'enemies of the people'. And although the modern heretics weren't executed, the prospect of social isolation and political boycot, or 'le mort civil' as the French call it, was about as effective in silencing people as the violent methods of the past, and less upsetting too.

So from the 1960s onwards, the whites were unknowingly being confronted with that same mechanism. In the Silent World War, words like 'racism', 'hate speech', 'discrimination' and 'xenophobia' became weapons of mass intimidation.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the Torahists saw to it that laws were passed and constitutions were rewritten in Europe in such a way that the status of the foreigners was corroborated and that opponents of 'the multicultural society' could be persecuted. The European state started neglecting its core task, namely maintaining the nation. Naturally, anti-discrimination laws would protect the position of the Torahists too. The European peoples weren't paying much attention while this was happening. In the first place, they weren't warned by the old media, on the contrary, these only glorified the legal changes they had sought to further. Neither the old parties nor the old media informed the nations about the possible bitter long-term consequences of the new laws. In the second place, Europe, enjoying unprecedented economic prosperity, was too busy stuffing itself with microwave ovens, Benidorm holidays and exaggerated Christmas dinners. Whenever people felt irritated by yet another foreigner-idealizing politician on the box, well, they didn't do anything with their irritation. They remained passive, exactly the attitude the Torahists, a very active lot themselves, like to see in non-Jews. To upheld the illusion of a democracy in which everything could be discussed freely, the old media and the courts tolerated all opinions, except those which could make people aware of Torahism. In Britain for example, the opinions of the Tories were the farthest right-wing views that were allowed to be considered decent.

People were also put on the wrong foot about what was really taking place, because the names of the political parties didn't change, whereas their content did change drastically. The old parties rather silently distanced themselves from the idea that a country belongs to the people that live there. How drastical can a policy change get? So a name change like 'the Post-British Conservative Party' or 'Multi-ethnic Labour' would correctly and clearly have reflected their new convictions. These parties never altered their names though. They knew that very many voters rely on the familiarity of the names 'Labour' and 'Conservatives', in the same way people are relying on the quality of products with well-known brand names. Most people don't study the party manifestos thoroughly, much less analyze how these have changed over the past four decades and keep track of the realization of the promises. To this very day, countless people vote for 'Labour' because their parents or grandparents voted for Mr Attlee. They've heard from early childhood that 'working class people must vote Labour', an automatism that the current Labour top is glad to see remain intact. Countless people vote for the 'Conservatives', because they wrongly assume that the Tories are still engaged in conserving the things that are good about Britain.


As the illusory values of 1968 began to sink in, several social deteriorations set in the Torahists and many insincere non-Jews started making money on. The fading away of the Christian life attitude creates several money wells. For instance, a hardening mentality in society makes people less inclined to settle their differences in a friendly manner. This leads to more lawsuits and thus to more money for lawyers. More divorces lead to more lawsuits. The decline of family life and 'old-fashioned' upbringing creates generations of people with poor social abilities. That creates a fat market for all sorts of trainers and counsellors who are teaching people how to make friends, how to make their marriage work, how to raise their children, how to cope with setbacks.

The taboos on certain truths that haven't always been taboos, lead to a poor problem-solving performance of the government in several important fields, for instance in matters of crime, education and multi-raciality. But because the nation is demanding solutions, and because the politicians need to promise solutions in order to get elected, a meal ticket is created for that part of the civil service that is endlessly producing policies that will have no or poor results, as these policy makers are circumlocuting and ignoring the tabooized truths. Their policies therefore continue to be wholly or partly founded on errors. The nation, often not understanding why certain truths became taboos, is paying the bitter price for their useless policies and in the meantime, the responsible bureaucrats and the politicians get their nice salaries paid.

Furthermore, asylum abuse and the exaggerated possibilities for appeal are pumping lots of money to the asylum lawyers. The disproportionately large emphasis on people's rights is useful for the malevolent among the welfare workers, who claim they are protecting the weak and the underprivileged, but who are in fact interested in keeping the weak weak, since the government subsidies for the weak and the phoney weak also pay for their salaries. The 'multicultural society' means money for well-subsidized minority lobbies; the social significance of their activities is never thoroughly scrutinized. All sorts of hazy jobs came into existence, like 'professor of intercultural communications' and 'adviser interculturalization', while there is nothing hazy about the money they get. The drift of the whites to surburbia, humiliatingly called 'white flight' by the old media, generates an enormous money flow towards the mortgage banks. This internal migration first took place in America and it is happening in Europe now. The soft touch on drug addicts originates numerous crimes by which they pay for the stuff. The low penalties and exaggerated legal rights stimulate crime 'careers'. Many offences lead to many lawsuits and thus, again, to more money for lawyers. The sexual revolution and the pop culture have led to this amazing fixation on looks, which is sustaining a great money flow in the direction of the fashion and cosmetics industries. The loss of virtues like temperance, austerity, sobermindedness, once in high esteem, has strongly contributed to the all too high consumption levels of Western societies, generating riches for the elites in the economy.


The so-called 'unification of Europe' became the way to ruin the nations politically. The Torahists used their financial, economic and publicity power to push the governments further and further down that road. Slowly but surely, one step at a time, the sovereignty of the countries was to be corroded in favour of the increase of Brussels' power. (The laws of a EU member state consist for about 65% of Brussels directives now. Please mark how many times the European Convention on Human Rights originates unjust court rulings that are turning the world upside down.) What started as a peace-seeking ideal of French, German and other leaders in the late 1940s, gradually turned into an untransparent project to bring all the European nations under the dictatorial rule of economic interests. The Brussels bureaucracy was and is a totally obscure affair for most people (including me) and the Torahists were keen to keep it that way. Vagueness wasn't caused by poor communicative abilities of the politicians involved. Vagueness was intended to be one of the instruments to realize it. In 'The Downing Street Years' (1993), the now Lady Thatcher describes a meeting of the government leaders of Europe in 1990, discussing the procedure to realize the desired political union. Her speech, so she writes, made it clear that the other leaders either had no concept of what that political union was supposed to mean for their countries, or didn't want to reveal their thoughts about it. Italian Prime Minister Andreotti went as far as saying that it might be dangerous to define exactly what 'political union' actually means. A certain EU Foreign Secretary said in 2002: 'Had we told the public twenty years ago that we were aiming at the situation as it is now, we would never have achieved it.'

Clarity apparently equals danger in Brussels.

To dupe the general public, Torahist pro-EU propaganda started emphasizing and exaggerating the economic advantages. The old media began to report on EU matters in a tone of voice as if History itself commands the nations to subordinate themselves to Brussels. Unsubstantiated themes like 'after two World Wars, Europe's unification is necessary for maintaining the peace' emerged. Misleading headlines began to create the deceptive illusion of widespread enthusiasm for the EU. Three examples: in October 2002, a referendum was held in Ireland about the EU Treaty of Nice. The 2004 admission of ten new member states depended on this. 62% of the 48% turnout said 'yes', that's a 30% 'yes' in reality. Nevertheless, the headlines I saw claimed that 'Ireland says yes to the Nice Treaty'. So 30% of the Irish is equal to the whole of Ireland for the old media if it's useful for EU propaganda. In June 2003, the Poles were asked to vote for or against the EU entry of their country. 82% of the 56% turnout voted in favour of the entry. That's 46% effectively, thus a minority. The old media I've seen however falsely alleged that the Poles were 'overwhelmingly pro-Europe'. The same falsehood was published about the Czechs, of whom 42% had voted 'yes' (77% of the 55% turnout). The European media don't run headlines like: 'Minority votes are eroding the sovereignty of the European nations', which would better represent reality.

Another trick, applied for many years now: every EU milestone becomes incorporated in the questions of the interviewers to lower the mental barrier of the public for yet a farther step. This self-amplifying process has now entered the stage of: 'Now that we already have the Euro and a European Constitution in draft, isn't then a European President the logical next step? The word in Washington now is that they don't know who to call when they want to talk with Europe.'

EU propaganda became the art of cynicism. When the old media and the old parties say 'Europe', they mean 'EU'. They mean 'anti-EU', when they say 'anti-Europe' and 'Euroscepticism'. In reality, the EU itself is the big anti-European enterprise in disguise. It has always been traditional Europe's ethnocultural diversity that is so enchantingly European about Europe. Yet, it is the present 'unification' that is bound to 'de-Europize' Europe in the long run, as it stands for the deification of the economy at the expense of the quality of our lifes, for the vulgarisation of the peoples as a result of mess entertainment and the decline of the Christian values, and for the loss of national identities as a result of ethnic blending in each member state.


In 1989 the kind of capitalism the Torahists adore got a tremendous boost by the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. Before that, many a European intellectual tended to flirtate with far left totalitarianism. Communism had something going for itself, they argued, things like free education, free health care and the absence of thoughtless consumerist behaviour. The fall of the Berlin Wall however implied that the great ideological alternative for capitalism disappeared too. From the Torahist perspective, this meant that capitalism in Western Europe could be intensified. They forced the national governments to 'privatise' publicly owned facilities, like railroads, telecommunication companies, hospitals, even cemeteries and so forth. The communist downfall also meant that a megacapitalist assault could now be undertaken on the assets of the East. About 1991 for instance, deals over the vast gas and oil resources of the former Soviet Union made instant billionnaires out of a few fast moving business men. In Eastern Europe, the Torahists, always acting under the media cover of 'America bringing democracy', installed Torahist-friendly governments in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Sophia and other capitals and they seized control of the old media in these countries.

The victorious end of the Cold War left the East Coast Empire totally power-drunk. Whoever could challenge America's might (their might, that is) now? China was only a potential super power and there were no signs that Bejing would end its introvert attitude. The entire world, including all those Third-World countries that were Soviet friends once, could become the Torahist playing-ground, economically and militarily. Globalizing economy and mass migration could be furthered without limits. Their main toy America, the Torahists figured, should seize the opportunity and become a 21st-century Rome - peremptory, aggressive, imperialistic. So in the 1990s, Torahist Hollywood started to 'construct' the American mind for the forthcoming new American greatness. In films like 'Top Gun', 'Air Force One', 'Independence Day', 'Men Of Honor', 'The Siege', 'The American President', 'Saving Private Ryan', 'U-571', 'Pearl Harbor', 'Black Hawk Down', a TV series like 'Band of Brothers', the following deliberately created themes can be found:

America is a good-natured, well-meaning, noble colossus, that time and again is forced to take military action against evil governments and terrorists. The other countries of the world fit in five categories: Israel, fine allies, benign but weak countries, ungrateful countries and incubators of evil. The films are glorifying war. The US army is awesome. It's great to be a part of it. Soldiers' comradeship is beautiful. Bravery in the face of the enemy is great. Self-sacrifice is great. America's Presidents, well, they're not perfect, they might have innocent flaws that are in fact quite amusing, but they are bold leaders with an unequalled drive for Democracy, for Human Rights, for Freedom, and they won't hesitate to make rows with their closest advisers, they won't hesitate to barge right through all sorts of international agreements 'to do the right thing', whether that 'thing' is a spontaneous brilliant speech that deviates from the safe written version, or a controversial yet visionary law that will make the world a better place to live in, or a kick-ass bombardment on a bunch of thugs who have been asking for serious trouble all too long. In the rare case the President or a minister is a bad guy, the Torch of Justice, Righteousness, Liberty, Blah Blah Blah, is automatically passed on to the hands of a heroic loner who'll surmount breath-taking difficulties to save the honour of the noble colossus.

This world view, enhanced on a daily basis by the other old media, 'Fox News' for instance, and by the White House speechwriters, was created by the Torahists for two purposes. The Torahists wanted to prepare America for war and they wanted to conceal the true goals of the future wars: directing taxpayers' money to the weapons industry, the gain of concessions for oil and other raw materials for US corporate business, the gain of lucrative rebuilding contracts in the bombed countries, the installation of Torahist-friendly governments, the intimidation of other powers and the increase of Israel's power in the Middle East. The Torahists created this 'noble colossus' image, because they knew that young Americans are only prepared to die for the notion of an America that is a force for all good things in the world. Young Americans are not prepared to die for the sake of shareholders, Torahism or any other totalitarian ideology.


And then, on a Tuesday morning that separated 'sunny' from 'happy', nineteen young Arabs, living in the West, went aboard on four passenger planes in East America.

The terror attacks of 11th September 2001 meant both a surprise opportunity and a surprise threat to the Torahists, besides the human loss they suffered, many relatives of them working in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The threat was triple. In the first place, the Torahists suddenly realized that the large numbers of Muslims in the West harboured a danger for the Jews. Mohammed Atta and his eighteen comrades were the visible summit, but how about the rest of the Muslim iceberg? Opinion polls showed that many Muslims felt understanding for the terrorists. In his video addresses, Osama Bin Laden made it quite clear the actions were primarily aimed against the Torahist component of America. ('America, with its sinful interest', he once said.) So ironically, the ploy the Torahists had breeded to weaken the Christian countries, now hit back hard in their own faces. They must have felt like the Isaian drunk who slipped and fell in his own vomit. In the second place, America might start wondering why it was hated that much that a group of intelligent young men flew planes packed with people into skyscrapers packed with people. America might start asking questions, leading to answers the Torahists feared. In the third place, they worried that the Western peoples, appalled by the devastation in New York, would demand the departure of the Muslims in particular and the end of 'the multicultural society' in general. That wish would jeopardize the Silent World War.

The first threat was met by successfully demanding more state control over the citizens from the governments. In that way, the Muslim communities could be better monitored. The old media and the old parties sold these privacy-limiting measures to the general public with unfounded stories like 'we are all at war with the terrorists now'. The second threat, the awakening of America, was neutralized by giving an intimidating big mouth in the US media in the direction of those intellectuals who indeed publicly asked: 'Why are we hated so much?', like Norman Mailer. The Torahists ordered their editors and journalists to slander people with words like 'anti-Americanism' and 'anti-patriotism' abundantly. Another media decoy could be found in the political magazines. They started publishing long articles about a possible clash between 'the Christian world' and 'the Islamic world', a choice of words that kept the Torahists in the dark. The third threat, reviving patriotism, was neutralized by the theme 'radical minority, moderate majority', many variations on which appeared in the old media (and literally on CNN). The overwhelming majority of the Muslims, the nations were talked into believing, wants to live in peace and harmony and we shouldn't lose sight of that, only because of the spectacular terror of but a few fanatics. Accompanied by camera crews and photographers, Western politicians visited mosques and shook hands with imams to emphasize the seemingly cordial relations. Seemingly, because imams only act as if they have something in common with leaders who permit homosexual extravaganza, trade unions of whores, the wimpification of the male and the commercial exploitation of every human weakness. This political show was staged to drum it into the white peoples once more that the foreigners were here to stay.

So far for the threats - but now the mind-boggling opportunity!

It was recognized and translated into official US foreign policy within 24 hours after the collapse of the WTC. On 12th September, the American President said: 'This is war'. On the same day, the Secretary of Defence held out the prospect of 'twenty years of war' to the American people. By labelling the terror 'war', the whole machinery of US mobilization got in gear: ample mandates from an almost unanimous Congress, the increase of the US war budget from 365 to 510 billion dollar, foreign leaders offering help, like the NATO Secretary General, waving flags in the war logos of the old media, retired generals pointing at maps, celebrities rallying for public support, secretive military tribunals.

All attributes of war were there, with one noticeable exception - the enemy. The enemy was never precisely defined. Why should it? The clearer the definition, the sooner a limitation can arise, whereas creating an alibi for unlimited warfare was exactly what the misuse of "9/11" was all about. The enemy was only defined as 'terrorism'. And since everyone can be a terrorist - media reports have it that the internet offers building instructions for home-made bombs - this amplest of definitions enabled the East Coast Empire to declare the entire world its battlefield if necessary, misusing the sincere patriotic feelings of the manipulated American people. This aggressive stance became clearly audible in the Presidential threat: 'If you're not with us, you are against us', and in the announcement that America might decide for 'pre-emptive strikes', the euphemism for 'starting a war when we feel like it'.


Some results of this 'war on terror' so far.

The man in the Oval Office vowed 'to smoke the terrorists out of their holes' and he threw his heaviest conventional bombs on Afghanistan, killing 6,000, among them a 1,000 children, but Osama Bin Laden hasn't yet been arrested and I don't hear neither the US Congress, nor the US Senate, nor the US media asking critical questions about it.

Saddam Hussein, that trigger-happy demon, was itching to plunge the world into Armageddon with his weapons of mass destruction, but now, in December 2003, they haven't yet been found, and even if they will emerge in the future, that won't prove that the dictator was about to deploy them. The Iraqi oil is already flowing in the direction of the West, because, as I've heard the old media humanitarianly camouflage it, 'the proceeds are needed to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq'.

In the meantime, Israel got rid of a sworn enemy pretty smoothly, a strategic gain a number of young Americans and Britons paid with their lifes for; the Sharon administration is satisfied to see growing uncertainty in Damascus and other Arab capitals; the Israeli seaport of Haifa is gladly looking forward to become the Rotterdam of the Middle East, now the Iraqi oil will be stored there awaiting export; and no politician ever says on television that world peace is endangered by the combination of bellicose Jewish opinion leaders, Israel's atom bombs and the book that preaches genocide. (Nelson Mandela and Robin Cook admirably tried to bring Israel's weapons of mass destruction into the debate, but not the Painful Passages.) This political silence must have assured the Torahists once more that the Western opinion climate continues to be favourable for their goals.

Countries all over the world are amazed to witness that the United Nations ceased to be the world's platform to settle differences overnight, and it wasn't that much of a success anyhow. They are worried to observe that Washington is radically intensifying its traditional policies of bombing yesterday's ally and kissing tomorrow's enemy. Many countries are probably thinking: 'Will we be next? And when?' Nuclear powers like Russia, India and China are probably thinking: 'Do we have to accept that Washington calls the shots? Why should we?' So because of the war, all these feelings of concern, indignation and insecurity are coming up. So the war hasn't made 'the world a safer place', notwithstanding Mr Blair's media mantras, but a far more unstable place to live in.


The Silent World War is raging on to the present day.

The supreme commanders of the Silent World War are to be found in the boarding rooms of the big banks, America's East Coast banks in particular, the multinationals like General Electric that produces weapons and owns TV channels, the illusion factories of Hollywood, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the City, Frankfurt, high courts, the Brussels bureaucracy and other faceless powers. The persons involved are either Torahists or non-Jews who have subordinated themselves to Torahism.

The military of the Silent World War are chairmen of broadcasting corporations, film producers, press tycoons, music industry owners, publishers, senior editors, creative directors of advertising agencies, correspondents, reporters, script writers, actors and musicians, in short, the relatively few whose carefully selected words and images find their way to countless viewers and listeners.

The guns of the conflict are the old media: television, cinema, radio, DVDs, records and CDs, computer games, books, magazines, newspapers, billboards and posters, plus the websites these old media are mentioning.

Their ammunition is the distortion of facts, partiality, magnifying the news that suits them, minimizing or ignoring the news that embarrasses them, obscenity, violence, brain-killing shows and sitcoms, attention-diverting and mass-stupifying sport broadcasts and pop festivals, garbage 'literature', lies about history, lies and slander about the white nations, and the ridiculizing, blacking, interrupting or simply boycotting of those who (might) oppose.

The battlefield of the Silent World War consists of the minds of half a billion whites. (The whites constitute about 10% of the world's population.)


These are the objectives of the Silent World War on the scale of the individual:

To undermine the sexual morale of you, your wife and your children;
To erode the self-discipline of you and your family;
To replace traditional Christian values by a set of phoney values and to present these as the summit of decency and as eternally valid;
To complicate your life and that of your loved ones by the misery of rude manners, rows, crime, addictions, divorce, inner weakness;
To scour off national self-esteem;
To dissolve white self-confidence;
To brainwash you, so that you will comply with globalized predator capitalism, cultural impoverishment, mass immigration, ethnic mixing, the so-called unification of Europe and wars;
To distract your attention as far from Torahism as possible;
To suppress your natural urge to resist all these developments, to break your will to fight it.


In Europe, the long-term macro objective of the Silent World War is to reduce the peoples of this continent to a huge reservoir of race-less, religion-less, culture-less, memory-less, history-less, and finally, ideal-less, direction-less and will-less slaves. Slave workers, slave consumers and slave soldiers. Slaves without an iron ball attached to their ankles, but slaves nonetheless. The future slave will fully answer to the slavekeeper's ideal slave: the slave who isn't even aware of his slavery, and who will therefore never become a Spartacus. He shall never organize the likes of him to resist Torahism, simply because there won't be any likes of him left. People who don't have anything in common, can and will not organize themselves. All common denominators on which the resistance of a group of people can be based, such as history, language, religion, ethnic identity, culture, the recollection of better times, will have been destroyed forever.

If present trends continue, the ancient diversity of the European peoples will be annihilated, slowly and deliberately. The whites will dissolve into oblivion. Britain will become the victim of Anglocide. The peoples of Europe will become the victims of Eurocide. The nations will be atomized into millions of loners, strangers to one another, incapable of building lasting relationships, easily influenced by televised lies, mentally defenceless because of their cultural and spiritual poverty, their collective amnesia, politically helpless. Societies that were once characterised by people whose healthy family life made them strong and who were able to serve collectivities of vital interest such as the neighbourhood, the town, movements seeking justice, the Church, the nation, will irreversibly sink to a disconsolate existence. There will be ever more neighbourhoods where, as someone once put it, mothers are more interested in the whereabouts of their latest boy-friend than in the well-being of their children, and where ever more homes are plagued by tensions and rows over money, addictions and adultery. There will be ever more shabby areas where no-one feels responsibility for the common good anymore, ever more neighbourhoods where no-one trusts other people, where eye-contact can become letal. And those who can afford it, those whose skills and energy are still useful for corporate business, the oranges that still have some juice left in them, they will seek protection in residential areas that are secured by privatised police patrols, and in gated communities, surrounded by video cameras and barbed wire. This is already going on in the US for five, six decades now, and Europe is getting entangled in the same process more and more.

And finally, the old media will start massaging people's heads by saying things like: 'Now the peoples of Europe are looking more and more alike, isn't it time to get rid of those obsolete national borders? Wouldn't it be more efficient, more sensible, to create one strong European nation, offering justice, peace, prosperity, democracy and protection for all? Wouldn't that be more in line with the new great Euro People that are now coming into being?' And they will support the politicians in favour of that scheme, and boycot, attack or ridicule others once more, 'the hopeless nationalists', 'the manipulative populists, exploiting fear for the future', and in the last stage, once that single state has been realized, when the TV is showing the solemn inauguration of the first President of United Europe, hundreds of millions of viewers won't realize what they are actually looking at, this in sharp contrast with a very small number of TV spectators who do, captains of industry, high judges, bankers, mediacrats, bureaucrats, the real rulers of Europe, thinking: 'It took us a while, but we finally got there, baruch HaShem'.

My theory ends here. It's an educated guess only.



The theory about the successful Torahist influence on world affairs explains a number of events and developments common sense can't:


The following is the first part of the Unanimous Declaration of The Thirteen United States of America, 4th July 1776, in which the young nation announced its independence of the British Crown:

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffrance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." (Etc.)

How do the Torahists relate to this? They fanatically reject the idea that all men are created equal, as they are convinced that the non-Jews must serve the Jews, the Chosen People. They feel HaShem hasn't endowed the non-Jews with the rights of life and liberty at all. The Torahists think that only their pursuit of happiness matters, and that their happiness can only be based on the misery of the non-Jews.

Now, let's have a look at the Preamble of the 1787 Constitution of the United States:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Torahism is also conflicting with this text. The Torahists are not interested in contributing to the perfecting of any people's union. They don't care about justice for other peoples. They want to confuse the host nation and thus disturb its domestic tranquility. They want to destroy other peoples' defences, both moral and military defences. They are only interested in their own welfare and they don't want other peoples to enjoy the blessings of liberty, but subjugate them on the contrary.

So 1880s Washington had many reasons indeed to make it clear to the immigrating Jews that the US wouldn't tolerate Torah-inspired wrongs. The US Government never did however and therefore gravely forsook and is forsaking its duty towards the American people. The conclusion is quite shocking, especially if one realizes that the trumpets of Washington are sounding on 'democracy' indefatigably: for more than a century now, the US Governments are acting in defiance of the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, in favour of Torahism. The only possible explanation is that the US Torahists have more power than the US Governments.


The Nazis murdered at least six million defenceless people. The communists have murdered about 80 million defenceless people, if I am not mistaken: tens of millions in Russia, tens of millions in China, millions in Cambodia and elsewhere. The Second World War took the lifes of twenty-seven million Russians, an astonishing bloodshed for which not only the invading Germans were responsible. The Soviet Supreme Command resorted to life-despising tactics that made a mockery of everything that's being taught at military academies. In the post-1945 world however, Hitler and the Nazi movement have become synonymous with the absolute low in human beastliness, whereas a shared 'first place' with the mass murderers of the far left would be more appropriate.

Yet, the careful observer will notice some sort of a hardly concealed sympathy for communism in the old media many times. I already mentioned the European intellectuals who were allowed to talk appeasingly about communism. In the 1970s, there was this sympathetic interest for the 'Eurocommunism' of party leaders Marchais and Berlinguer, in France and Italy respectively. Former Marxist convictions of left-wing politicians are easily glossed over as juvenile sins. The hammer-and-sickle symbol is being used in fashion advertisements, political demonstrations, Russia-related communications without any ado, where the use of the swastika would cause great turmoil (as it actually did a week after I wrote this, a Hong Kong store introduced clothes with Nazi themes and Israeli and German diplomats were in a fury, source: CNN Text, August 2003). People fighting neo-Nazism are portrayed in a far more positive way than, say, US Senator McCarthy and other anti-communists. Adjectives like 'rabid' are quickly used for the latter, or they are being described as people who 'hate communism'. This suggests there is something wrong with them. The old media never describe anti-Nazi activists as persons who 'hate national-socialism'. Hollywood has made many movies and TV series about the victims of the Nazis, scarcely any about the victims of the communists.

This strange imbalance can only be explained by a Torahist influence on today's opinion climate, for the Jews were victims during the Nazi terror, but many Jews were perpetrators during the Communist terror. Lenin's first Politburo consisted of seven men, four of them Jews who remigrated from New York to Russia. I already mentioned Trotsky. During WW2 Stalin introduced the Jewish head of the secret police, Lavrenty Beria, to President Roosevelt saying: 'This is our Himmler.' The impression I get from texts on communist movements, is that the Jewish contribution to these movements is disproportionately large.


The word 'racism' has gained a huge psychological influence in society and politics. But how did this word get its importance? Not in a natural way. Let me try to explain this. From earliest memory, mankind has experienced that people differ in their talents and we have accepted that as a fact of life. Whenever two violinists play at an audition of a prestigious orchestra, and the better violinist gets the job, well, the other musician will accept it, maybe not immediately, but he won't grow a grudge against orchestras in general. At schools and universities, some students don't pass their exams, because they simply don't have what it takes to perform at that particular level of education. We accept that and we know how to live with it. A negative word like 'talentism' never arose.

Another example: all girls are beautiful, especially those who think they're not, well, in some cases most of the beauty is located in their character, in their gestures, which is lasting beauty by the way, but it is fair to say that every now and then, a girl comes along who is a regular knock-out in the eyes of most men. Well, that's another human difference mankind accepts as something natural. A negative word like 'attractivism' never originated. ('You don't fancy me, do you? Is it because you think I am ugly? You dirty attractivist!')

Now, until mid 20th century the same thing applied for the general consent that the human races are different. This taboo on saying it is relatively new in fact and it came to us through the old media. It is not so that somewhere in the 1960s people suddenly started reprimanding each other about 'racism' during their conversations at birthday parties and in the pub. I repeat, it came to us through the old media.

So this 'racism' cloud hanging over our country, is something synthetic. It is also inconsistent. The Painful Passages make it clear that Moses was the most appalling racist leader of all times. Here is a man who actually wants to enslave and-or wipe out 99% of mankind. It's almost unbelievable. Moses was undoubtedly the racisto di tutti racisti. He was the Supremo Racissimo. Moses was the mother of all racists. So if the old media really had sincere, positive, mankind-educating reasons for creating this 'racism' taboo, they would pay attention to Mosaic racism as well. Newsnight would make many items about it and Mr Paxman would fire questions at, for instance, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Questions like 'Can you imagine that the non-Jews are deeply worried by this? Wouldn't it be progress if the World Jewish Congress distanced itself from this burden of the past? Are you willing to take the initiative?' It's no coincidence that I am mentioning Mr Paxman here, because he is a Jew himself and therefore likely to be acquainted with the existence of the Painful Passages. In reality, the old media and parties never touch Mosaic racism. But if not all forms of racism are being condemned, the goal of their 'anti-racism' is evidently not to educate the whole of mankind. Today's 'anti-racism' therefore lacks an honest, consistent, positive intention and only the white peoples are being bombarded by the R-word.

(Please note, I am not alleging there is no such thing as criminal white racism. Unfortunately there is, and not only in our country. The first thing that comes to my mind now is the negro in Texas who was murdered by three white racists in 1998. I believe they were sentenced to long prison terms and rightly so.)


In 1994 two American scientists, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, published a book called 'The Bell Curve'. One of their conclusions: the human races not only have different skin colours, each race has also a different level of average intelligence. The world's most intelligent people are the Jews, especially the Ashkenazim, these are the Jews of European descent. Next in line is the Asian race, the East Asians in particular, like the Chinese and the Japanese. Then comes the white race. Then comes the negroid race.

Their findings weren't a big surprise for the small circuit of scientists in this field. Earlier on, in the 1950s en 1960s, American and British researchers had arrived at comparable conclusions. What's more, 'The Bell Curve' corresponded to what can be observed in the average white country, namely that people belonging to different races end up in different social levels. After all, intelligence is one of the main factors determining a person's achievements in our kind of society, because one's level of education is very important in the West. So 'The Bell Curve' provided for a good part of the explanation why the existing Western laws, prescribing that all races must be treated equally, are arousing frictions, frustration, alienation, unjustice and rancour between the races - these laws are bad laws. They are obsolete. They are based on a major untruth. And the gap between the ethnic groups is even wider because different cultures have conflicting core values and life-styles, and because our own culture is in a deep moral crisis (temporarily, I hope and expect). So one might have expected that the publication of 'The Bell Curve' would usher in a public debate about its political consequences. That important debate however hasn't taken place.

What did happen? The then President Clinton immediately condemned 'The Bell Curve', saying: 'This country is based on equality and I won't accept any effort to undo that'. (Quoted freely.) This is a remarkable reaction for three reasons. In the first place, it is noteworthy that President Clinton took the trouble to react at all. Numerous scientific texts on all sorts of subjects are published every year. So this one was apparently very important to him. In the second place, Bill Clinton may have been the President of the United States of America at the time, that still didn't make him an expert in biosociological matters. The only proper way to refute the conclusions of a scientist is to conduct a better research that clearly shows where he went wrong, and the research has to be carried out in such a way that everyone can learn something from it in the interest of science as a whole.

Instead of that, the West saw its highest authority, not scientifically competent itself, condemning the outcome of a scientific research, because that outcome was threatening to the beliefs of the authority, which are the cornerstone of society. When had the West seen that before? In early 17th century, when the Church condemned Galileo Galilei for proving that the earth is circling around the sun. So President Clinton successfully turned back the clock for more than 350 years, despite his 'progressive' image. In the third place, the US mass media didn't criticise him for it.

What did the other Western leaders do? Did they say: 'Well, we have to go about this carefully and we won't offend anybody, but a multiracial society with laws dictating racial equality isn't a very good idea after all'? No. What did the European media do? Did they start asking the politicians critical questions about obsolete laws and constitutions? Nothing of the sort, on the contrary. So apparently, the falsehood that the races are equal is a lie that must last. Both the old parties and the old media are still supporting that lie. There must be forces at work which fear that the findings of Herrnstein and Murray might lead to the political idea that a uniracial society is preferable to a multiracial society, or at least to the recognition that people should feel free to discuss these matters. Now, the only ones who can benefit from suppressing this freedom are people who want to mix the European peoples with masses of non-Europeans. If this mixing goes on long enough, the European peoples are bound to disappear in the long run, while not noticing it. And the only ones who want to slowly destroy other peoples without alarming them, are the Torahists. (By the way, I fully understand that these are very unpleasant things to read. It isn't fun writing them down either.)

Speaking of science, it has also been proven that the average negro is more likely to commit crime than the average white. (I don't know the exact publications.) Now, I would be glad for the negroes if this wasn't so, because they are probably suffering the most from it themselves, in their gang wars in the West and in their civil wars in Africa, but unfortunately, it is so. The world shouldn't be like that, all negroes and all whites and all Jews and Arabs and Eskimos should be nice people without firearms, but we have to deal with realities. There is nothing wrong with idealism, I am an idealist myself, but if you want to improve society by overlooking or denying realities, you will only damage society. Our politicians have to deal with realities first of all. So politicians of white peoples' countries with a true sense of responsibility, better not burden their nation with the immigration of people who will increase the levels of gun crime, to name one thing. The least they ought to do is to discuss it with their people beforehand. That's their democratic duty. Do we have such politicians? No. Do we have media pointing out this democratic failure to the politicians? No.

We have to realize that this combination of massive non-white immigration and the old media intimidating the whites is a unique development in the world, even a unique event in world history. It is not so that there is a similar flood of, let's say, millions of Danes to Remotistan, and that these Danes are slowly taking over the Remotistani cities, and that the Remotistani TV is constantly showing Remotistanis and Danes worrying about hateful Remotistanis, and that TB- and HIV-infected Danes are burdening Remotistani health care, and that Remotistani interviewers are pressing their politicians to appoint Danish MPs, and that Danish gangs are forging Remotistani ID cards, and that Danish drug dealers are wrecking Remotistani youths, and that the Danish lobby gets a lot of the Remotistani taxpayers' money, and that Remotistani TV spies are provoking Remotistani police recruits, and that indignant Remotistanis saying 'What are all those Danish freeloaders doing here?' are being asked 'Are you a racist?' by Remotistani radio reporters. This whole madness is only taking place in the European countries, don't forget that.

It's not only in the UK. An inhabitant of the South-Italian port of Lampedusa, watching a ship full of North-African immigrants mooring, commented: 'It's unbelievable. They are getting priority in housing, benefits, everything. It's the world turned upside down. It is as if they are the Italians and we are the Tunisians.' Colombian gangs are fighting drug wars with machine guns in the streets of Madrid. What moral right does Prime Minister Mr Aznar have to make life bitter for his countrymen? Moroccan youths have announced they will form groups to monitor Antwerp policemen in the streets, so that these won't 'discriminatingly harass' other Moroccans, although these youths contribute to crime more than their share. In 2001 the Schröder administration declared Germany an immigration country - without asking the German people anything. In 2000 French Foreign Minister Mr Chevenement said he expected 75 to 100 million Africans and Asians to migrate to Europe.


In the UN Security Council, the US always vetoes to Israel's advantage. Israel can and does violate agreements and UN resolutions at will. The US Governments may occasionally grumble about it, but at the end of the day, Israel gets its way - and millions of dollars from Capitol Hill annually. An example: in the summer of 2003, Israel began to build a second Berlin Wall, partly on Palestinian ground, cutting off children from their schools, Palestinian farmers from their orchards. The US President called it 'a problem', only to look like a discomforted schoolboy in his own backyard a week later, standing next to Sharon, when the latter announced that the construction of the fence would continue. Hanan Ashrawi, born from a Christian Lebanese family, has long been the spokeswoman of the Palestinians. In December 2000 she published an open letter to Mr Clinton in the closing weeks of his presidency. A fragment:

'It has been our experience, Mr President, that most American public officials, once out of office, begin to suffer pangs of conscience and inexplicable urges to express contrition in the form of public confessions pertaining to the injustice suffered by the Palestinian people. With an honest desire to spare you the fate of other high officials who develop after-the-fact immaculate hindsight and a drive for justice, I would like to point out that there is still 'world enough and time' to speak out - better yet - to ACT now.' Hanan Ashrawi then continues to challenge him to make a last-minute effort in the interest of the Palestinians. (The complete letter can be found at:

There are of course also Jews who perfectly understand that Washington's covering up for Israel is rousing resentment in the world. In the BBC documentary 'Israel's secret weapons', an Israeli woman disapprovingly said that Israel is behaving as if it is the most privileged country of the world.


After the anti-humane acts of Al-Qaeda, it is obvious that America had and has every right to persecute, try and punish all those involved. There was however no compelling need to declare 'war' to get justice done. The right choice of words is very important in politics. The present President has never explained why he declared 'war'. He did have another option back then. This was pointed out to him and his government during the memorial service in a Washington church. Evangelist Billy Graham called for a 'spiritual renewal' of America. Several negro preachers said similar things in the media. Because of their work in misery-stricken areas, they can understand why desperate people do insane things. So these preachers and Mr Graham wanted to convince America of the necesssity of a thorough self-examination. If a country is hated that much that it becomes the target of such incredible terror, then that country should muster the courage to admit it may have done wrong things, and a national self-scrutiny can be carried out while the hunt for the terrorists continues. Such a self-scrutiny wouldn't be a sign of weakness, but a sign of inner strength.

Washington nevertheless neglected this option and blindly chose for war. Noam Chomsky, an American Jew who is a pronounced critic of US governments, commented: 'The terror was a criminal act and it should be treated as a criminal act, but there is a more long-term issue. The more long-term issue is the same one that arises in case of any act of violence, no matter what it is. When Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, one possible response would have been to nuke Montana and Idaho. That is a possible response. Another response is to find out who is responsible, try him, convict him and try to figure out what lies behind it. Because something does lie behind it. When you investigate what lies behind such acts, you'll invariably find that there are some elements which are realistic. Those have to be dealt with, because these elements provide the background that of which these actions arise. That's true of any act of violence. If you don't want to look at the reasons, you're simply saying: we want to ensure that this continues.'

(Montana and Idaho are presumably states many inhabitants of which detest the federal government.)


The following fragments were among those aired by Newsnight:

'Europe's peaceful unity is one of the great achievements of the last half century. And because European countries now resolve their differences from negotiations in consensus, there is sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget how Europe's unity was achieved. By Allied armies of liberation and NATO armies of defence. And let us never forget, beyond Europe's borders in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal.' (...) 'The stakes in the Middle East could not be higher. If the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, anger and violence for export. And as we saw in the ruins of two towers, no distance on the map will protect our lifes and way of life.'(...) 'Your nation and mine in the past have been willing to make a bargain to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Long-standing ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet, this bargain didn't bring us stability or make us safe. It only bought time while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.' (...) 'Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, and the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with the placement of walls and fences. Leaders in Europe should withdraw all favour and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause, and Europe's leaders, and all leaders, should strongly oppose anti-Semitism which poisons the public debate on the future of the Middle East.'

I am interpreting this as: "The anti-Western sentiments in the Middle East have nothing to do with how the West is behaving. We in the West are the good guys. Terrorism is solely a product of the bad type of government in the Arab countries. So in the nearby future, the US will carry out more Iraq-type invasions in that region. How the Palestinians think about Mr Arafat doesn't matter, he has to be isolated. Israel should behave itself too, yes, but everybody has to mind their language very well, because anti-Semitism easily raises its ugly head." (He is assigning us a virtually impossible task. I've heard and read Jews saying things like: 'If someone denies he is an anti-Semite, then that doesn't mean he isn't. Besides, people can be anti-Semites without realizing it. Even supporters of Israel are unknowingly saying anti-Semitic things sometimes.')

Now look how the opinions of the 'Neoconservatives' and Israel's leaders I quoted before, are comparing to this speech.

Mr Sharon and Mr Netanyahu want Mr Arafat to be isolated, and now the US President wants Mr Arafat to be isolated.

Mr Sharon denounces criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, and now the US President warns Israel's critics of anti-Semitism.

The Neoconservatives want America to export 'freedom and democracy', and now the US President is announcing a 'forward strategy of freedom'.

Mr Peres says military intervention in other Arab countries than Iraq should be considered;
Mr Sharon says that Iran has to be dealt with after Iraq;
Mr Gissin, his adviser, announces that '9/11' is the harbinger of the Third World War;
the Neoconservatives are urging that America uses its force 'to help change the face of the Middle East';
and now America's President is preparing the world for more wars in the Middle East.

All in one speech.

Besides, they never explain how you can end terrorism by waging war. Is the purpose of wars in the Middle East to post a US soldier in every Arab house? But in that case, Washington will create police states, which is conflicting with the promise of 'freedom and democracy'. Is the purpose of future wars to install US-friendly governments then? But those will never be trusted by the Arab peoples. Such governments will always be regarded as Torahist-American puppet regimes, so that will only stimulate a further radicalization of anti-Western feelings. This will only stimulate terrorism. Egyptian President Mr Mubarrak once said that the belligerent way Washington is reacting to 11th September only will create a 1,000 Bin Ladens more.

These people seem to be trapped in a very dangerous three-leg tunnel vision, and they are getting full co-operation of the old media to air it.

'Good' = 'everything we define as good'.
'Bad' = 'everything else'.
The clash between 'good' and 'bad' is nearing.

Try to see the film 'Air Force One' with Harrison Ford some time. He is playing the role of a fictitious President and in the beginning of the film, he is giving a speech, right from the heart, with the following import: 'America should not be afraid to fulfil its moral obligation to fight for freedom and democracy. The bad rulers should be afraid now.' Compare that to: 'Liberation is still a moral goal.' Mass entertainment in service of political and military goals. Fiction, created to mould the American minds to accept future wars, and this film was made before '9/11' and before the elections of 2000 which brought the Republicans into the White House.


Three examples of Brussels' money obsession, which are defiant of what I assume is generally felt by most people.

You'll remember the apocalyptic scenes of the piles of cattle burning in the countryside after the outbreak of food and mouth, a couple of years ago. That was a direct result of a 1992 EU directive. The agriculture ministers then decided not to preventively vaccinate European cattle, because the necessary drugs would make the meat unsuitable for export to the US. The risk of an outbreak of food and mouth and the subsequent destruction of livestock was discussed by the ministers, but it was left to chance, because the export interests were considered to be more important. In the EU, greed had outweighed compassion for animals.

The deterioration of British Rail and other railway companies in Europe traces back to another EU dictate in the early 1990s. The member states were summoned to privatize these companies. Now, these used to be homogenous organizations in which all employees (more or less) felt committed to the common goal. The privatization however resulted in a split-up of the organization in segregated companies.This split-up enabled the stock market to make a profit out of the 'gravy' parts of the railway company. That's of course very nice for the money makers, but as a result of this, non-profitable things like maintenance and quality control became highly unattractive. The new companies got entangled in delaying rows over who should foot the bill for what. So in the EU, greed of the few outweighs the interests of the millions who travel by train.

The introduction of the euro was welcomed by corporate business, which now couldn't be surprised anymore by monetary fluctuations while planning to buy raw materials and semimanufactured products in other countries. Added to this, the introduction of one universal set of banknotes and coins would put an end to paying exchange rates. But do you know that the graphic design of these banknotes bears no reference to Europe's rich culture whatsoever? The illustrations on the euro banknotes show non-existing buildings, arches and bridges only. Some totally anonymous Brussels committee cooked this up to prevent quarrels over which nation's assets would adorn which banknotes, and to avoid problems may other countries become new members. So the continent that can take pride in Westminster Abbey, the Eiffel Tower, the Brandenburg Gate, Gaudi's Barcelona, the Akropolis and Saint Mark's Square in Venice is now stuck with soulless Monopoly money. In the EU, greed outweighs respect for Europe's culture. Besides, the euro banknotes prove to be much easier to counterfeit than the EU finance ministers have repeatedly sworn.


Each EU member state is subjected to a whole range of regulations and procedures. One of these procedures prescribes what must happen if a member starts misbehaving itself. It's an elaborate procedure with many phases, involving investigations, consultations and reviews. Ultimately, the member state may be boycotted. Now, in early 2000, the supposed far right party of Mr Haider took a seat in the new Austrian government. Television and newspapers were in an uproar and it was regarded as misbehaviour by the other EU member states. But instead of starting the correct procedure, it took them only one weekend to decide that Austria had to be banned from EU meetings. Vienna wasn't even offered the chance to give a comment in a EU forum on the stance of the others, if memory serves me right. So the EU closed ranks overnight, ignoring its own codes, the moment something happened in the EU the Jews didn't like.

Two years later, not one, but two far right parties, real far right parties that is, joined the new Israeli government. No media uproar. No worried politicians. Deafening silence.


The essay of the Jewish authoress I reproduced a fragment of in 5.12.2 revealed the existence of an idea to me that left me dumb-founded when I read it, in 2000. It was the first time it became clear to me that there are people who actually want all the peoples and all the races to mix. Not: leave it to chance, no, it must happen. If you re-read the fragment, you'll find that she believes that we simply have to endure things like intolerant Muslims and crime by foreigners. She wants us to regard it as temporary disadvantages on the road to her ideal Europe in which none of the ancient European peoples any longer exists. Now, let's assume this Jewess was not a Torahist. (She died early 2003.) Let's assume she was not writing misleading glamorizing stories about ethnic mixing to disguise ill wishes. Even then, who was she to decide for hundreds of millions of Europeans that their nations must be mixed away? In 2000, I've tried to get in contact with her about this, but she didn't respond. Later on, I came across the same idea in other books, also written by Jews. But if it's such a terrific good mankind-elevating idea, why then isn't it candidly and extensively presented in the mass media to the general public? Why are snooker, gardening, cooking and interior decorating getting incomparably much more attention than this idea, that directly affects the very future of our people?

What is the extent of the political influence of this idea anyway? Is it shared by those who rule over us? And if so, for how long now is this idea sparking off government actions? Is this idea perhaps the reason why anti-immigration people are always being attacked? Is this idea perhaps the reason why foreign criminals aren't forced to leave after their detention? Does this idea perhaps explain for the permanent undertone of 'the foreigners are here to stay' in everything that's being said by the old parties and media on all related subjects? Does this idea perhaps explain for the 'racism' tyranny of the old media and the old parties?

But if so, in which election year did we give our approval then? When did we give our go-ahead for the mixing away of the British nation? It so happens that we ARE the bloody nation! I always thought this is a democracy, isn't it? We've been told countless times that America and Britain and the other European countries are democracies. Now, as you probably know, the word 'democracy' is derived from the Greek words 'demos' meaning 'people', and 'kratein' meaning 'to govern'. A people govern themselves in a democracy. But what kind of a democracy is it, in which the 'demos' is supposed to vanish from the face of the earth without so much as a protest?


The President of the USA is urging the EU to accept Turkey as a member. In other words, he wants to add 100 million Muslims to the political and legal entity of 300 million Europeans, which in my view would mean a grave disturbance. Doesn't he have other things to worry about, he, the head of state of a country with two million prisoners, twenty million drug addicts and thirty million people without medical insurance? Let him mind his own business. In early 19th century, President Monroe launched the slogan 'America for the Americans'. I think the time has now come for Europe to tell Washington 'Europe for the Europeans', without losing its respect for the American and Canadian soldiers who fought in WW2.

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary too said that Turkey must become an EU member as soon as possible, right after the bombings in Istanbul. All over Europe, the governments suddenly discovered after '9/11' that the 'integration' of the Muslims already living here, is a highly problematic affair, but that doesn't stop Mr Blair and Mr Straw from facilitating the influx of millions of Turkish Muslims extra.

After the coup in Georgia, the new acting president Ms Burdzhanadze announced that Georgia would apply for a membership of the EU and NATO. Her main political ally Mr Saakashvili is a US-educated lawyer. But what has Georgia to do with Europe? (Or with the Northern part of the Atlantic Ocean, for that matter?)

Georgia is Asia! It's located at the other side of the Black Sea, for Pete's sake. Lenin regarded Stalin, born in Georgia, as an Asian. And Turkey is Asia too. The Bosporus has always been considered to be the border between Turkey's tiny European part and its big Asian part.

So what other explanation can there be for such weird exercises than that are forces at work with suspect wishes for Europe's identity and culture?


In April 2003, the Sunday Telegraph reported that senior Labour MP Tam Dalyell blamed Mr Blair for being influenced too much by 'the Jewish cabal', naming three people he believed are Jews: Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw and Lord Levy, Mr Blair's personal envoy to the Middle East. Mr Dalyell also said that Mr Blair was influenced by three Jews in Washington, namely Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. At the time, Baghdad had just been captured and Mr Dalyell justified his remarks by saying: 'The time has come for candour, now the question looms whether Iran and Syria also should be attacked by the US and the UK.'

'The time has come for candour'. That's the sort of thing insiders only say after they have been witnessing a whole lot of un-candour for some time.


Mr Blair, Mr Howard, Mr Kennedy, they all can do the things you and I can do: 1) read the Painful Passages, 2) read an odd twenty books on Jewry, only to discover Jewry never distanced itself from these extremely hostile parts in their holiest books, 3) monitor the TV for a while and see which main ideas are being reinforced and which main ideas are being weakened, 4) keep track of the public remarks of prominent Jews for a while (maybe you don't know how to recognise a Jew, but they almost certainly do) and 5) conclude that the influence of the old media and most prominent Jews is corroding the constructive values a people have to cherish in order to be united, self-confident and happy.

More than that, they ought to do something against Torahism, not I. They've been elected in 2001, I am just a powerless citizen. They are the politicians, they lead their parties, Mr Blair is Prime Minister now. They are saying they've learnt this-and-that from the past, but that they are determined to turn their new approach into a success for the whole of Britain now. They are coming to us in election time. They are saying they know what must be done in this country. They are saying we can trust them to lead the country.

Our country, that has fought so many times to hold its own, is in their hands now. They ought to do it, but they don't. My conclusion: they are wholly or partly owing their positions to being blind to, or to resigning themselves to Torahism.


These developments are:

1) The power shift from the European nations to Brussels.

2) The rise of non- and anti-Christian values in the political climate. A telling example: it looks like the forthcoming EU constitution will only mention secular values like 'pluralism' and 'non-discrimination'. The writers of this text (who are they?) are set to force the Europeans to 'tolerate' ever more ethnic and religious fragmentation. In the first draft of this constitution Christianity, Europe's spiritual foundation, wasn't referred to once, as if it never existed.

3) The mass immigration of non-whites.

4) The globalization of the economy, disrupting traditional ways of life all over the planet.

1) None of these developments has been preceded by discussions and consultations between the governments and their peoples about advantages, disadvantages and long-term consequences. The European peoples simply get these changes forced upon them.

2) These major political changes turn out to be precisely the developments most influential Jews are advocates of, when interviewed.

Today's West cannot be understood without realizing that about a century ago millions of Jews migrated to the US, and that Washington never demanded a ban on Mosaic activities from them. The Torahists among them therefore got the golden chance to confuse, dispossess and subjugate that whole mighty country with all its huge human and mineral resources, and after 1945 and 1989 Europe came within the reach of that Torahist power. The European nations are also targeted by the Torahist part of European Jewry, which is slowly recovering from the Shoah.

It seems to me that since the 1960s the Torahists are trying to pull the same thing as Napoleon and Hitler did, namely, obtaining absolute rule over an European empire moulded to their wishes, albeit with some remarkable differences: 1) they are not subjecting the nations by means of short 'hot' wars, but by a lengthy furtive war, 2) their Empire will not be commanded by clearly visible leaders, but by invisible leaders and 3) our country will not be able to keep its independence this time, but it will become an obedient part of it, forever and ever and ever.

You know, if a nation is robbed of what it has, the day may come it can reconquer its possessions. But if a nation is robbed of what it is, if it is robbed of its identity, its deepest beliefs, no recapture will ever be possible. In that case, there will be no way back.

There will be no way out.




The previous contains a number of facts that may make us very angry, they can raise feelings of hate, of anti-Semitism, sure. That's understandable. A number of readers will perhaps think: 'I've always suspected the Jews have something to do with this'. But we must not allow ourselves to become haters. Hate damages not only the hated, but the hater as well, as I wrote earlier. More than that - difficult as it may seem, we have to try to understand the other side. Mosaic brainwashing is inescapable for those Jewish children who are born in that environment. I've mentioned that several times now, but I don't mind becoming a bore on the subject. Jewry has been hit unimaginably hard by the Holocaust. More than half of the entire Jewish people got killed, if I am not mistaken, and it was preceded by a lot of Nazi mass manipulation. Toddlers, fourteen-year-old girls, pregnant women and disabled elderly were down-imaged as 'enemies'. The deportations were up-imaged as 'rehousing'. The Theresienstadt propaganda movie mendaciously suggested that the deported Jews didn't do bad in the concentration camps. After their arrival in the camps, the unsuspecting Jews were guided to what was embellishingly described as 'shower rooms'. These things have happened, year after year. So this Torahist urge to take revenge on Europe, well, it's something understandable to a certain extent. I utterly disapprove of it, this entire text is written to resist it, because we fought the Nazis for crying out loud, the occupied countries were violently suppressed by the Third Reich, leaving aside some collaboration, and today's Germans can't be blamed for what happened sixty years ago - but I can understand it. And my understanding for them is one of the reasons why I don't hate the Torahists, and I hope you won't come to hate them either. 'Love your enemies', Christ said. (Fortunately he never added we have to like them as well.)

If we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by hate, any spiritual counteroffensive against Torahism is doomed to degenerate into a very dangerous spiral of violence and counterviolence. This will not only create misery and pain for both victims, perpetrators, innocent bystanders and their families, it will also result in the failure of that spiritual counteroffensive. In short, anti-Jewish violence must never take place in Europe again, period. The same thing goes for anti-foreigner violence of course. So repressing even the very beginning of hate, in those corners of our minds only we ourselves can see, is the first battle that has to be won. It's easier said than done, because we will unavoidably become the victims of haters ourselves, but again, the battle against hate has to be won. It is in fact the decisive battle. We will surely lose all other battles, if we don't win this one.


The next step is, in my view, to rediscover and to revaluate the words of Christ. Why does the Union Jack consist of Christian crosses? Because we want to remind ourselves and we want to show the world that British society is based on Christian principles. And now that we are in such a mess, now that we seem to be trapped in this era of gilt rot, it only makes sense to find out whether Christ has said other things that can help us out now.


But before we do that, let's put things in perspective. Let's have a look at mankind first. Its cradle, to begin with - the universe.

No language has the power to make our slightly overdeveloped monkey brains truely realize what the dimensions of time and space in the universe actually mean. An effort, nonetheless. Once, nothing existed except the idea behind everything. The Big Bang ushered in the materialization of that idea. After the Big Bang, the atoms were formed. After that, the universe has become a spectacle in slow motion. For eons now, in a cosmic cycle, billions of stars and billions of planets are created, destroyed, created and so forth. Every star is born from amalgamating matter, condensing to such an extent that nuclear reactions arise, the star has a certain life span and finally it explodes, returning its particles to the emptiness.

The latest estimation is that there are 5,000 times a billion times a billion stars. That's a five with 21 zeros. There are more stars than there are grains of sand on earth. Every time I am at a beach, I simply can't believe that's true, but it is. I can safely assume that there are billions of planets, because at this point in time, already sixty planets circling other stars than the sun, have been discovered since 1994. By the time it's 2094, the astronomers will undoubtedly have proven the existence of some hundreds or thousands extrasolar planets more.

Most stars are clustered in billions of galaxies. One of those galaxies is 'ours', we call it the Milky Way. The Milky Way contains the Sun, and about 300,000,000,000 other suns. Would it make any difference for our imagination if that number had been 30 billion instead of 300 billion? To give an impression of the size of our galaxy: since the invention of the radio in 1920, radio signals are fleeing Earth in all directions with the speed of light. Now, it will take those signals 100,000 years before they've crossed the Milky Way. So astronomically speaking, these radio signals, travelling 300,000 kilometres a second for more than 80 years now, have hardly closed the door behind them.

The distances between the stars are very much larger than, say, the distances between the Sun and its planets. The nearest star to the sun, Proxima Centauri, is located at a distance of about 3,300 times the diameter of the orbit of Pluto, the largest planetary orbit in our solar system. Compared to that interstellar emptiness, one might almost think that the solar system with its ten planets is a crowded house, until one realizes that the distance Pluto-Sun is approximately 6 billion kilometres. The distance Earth-Sun is one fortieth of that, 150 million kilometres, or 8 light minutes. The Earth's diameter is a 13,000 odd kilometres.

Like the other planets, Earth probably started out as a huge disc of extremely heat gases. This disc gradually decelerated, cooled down and became a sphere. It's also possible that in the beginning of the solar system's history a giant planet like Jupiter and Saturn existed in the vicinity of the sun, but that it disintegrated for some reason (a collision, the Sun's gravity) and that its debris gradually turned into Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury, planets that are remarkably smaller than the remote giants.

Life on Earth originated four billion years ago, somewhere in an ocean, when a number of lifeless atoms changed into an entity with an instinct to feed and to breed. It was the beginning of all life, because these minute life forms multiplied and multiplied, their large numbers started to show variations, these variations proved to be more or less suitable to survive in different circumstances, so that different environments became the habitats of different life forms, the life forms became more complex, fish came into existence, some fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, some reptiles became mammals, a process that finally culminated in man. In 2002, the oldest human-like remains thus far were found in Africa. It was a part of a skull, 7 million years old. Man evolved into homo sapiens, the man who became aware of himself, about 365,000 years ago. He made charcoal drawings in caves 20,000 years ago, he started to write in clay tablets 5,500 years ago. A few years ago, he developed the DVD player. Someone once pointed out that if the era of life on earth is compared to one hour, you would have single-celled organisms for fifty minutes, animals for ten minutes, and man in the last one hundredth of a second.

Man's brain is his main glory as well as his main problem. The glory is awe-inspiring, when you come to think of it: man can reflect on good and bad, he has his own will (or he thinks he has) and he can create. Tools, tents, pottery, weapons, supermarkets, combustion engines, plays, sculptures, symphonies, the other arts, reasonings, philosophies, moral codes, religions, political theories, opinion climates, strategies, disturbing pamphlets. However, the main problem is that man's brain consists of two parts that don't cooperate nicely. The primal part belongs to the animal in us. It raises all our reflexes concerning the struggle for territory, food, posterity and our place in the hierarchy. The relatively younger part of our brains - the two halves - is what makes us humans, it enables us to create. Now, all our words and all our actions find their origin in either the brain's primal part or in the creative part, in a way that can't be predicted. Those parts can help each other, but they can also work against each other. As millions of years go by, the human evolution is granting the benevolent creator in us increasing influence. But right now, and you can read 'now' as '1004 AD' or '2004 AD' or '3004 AD', man is still stuck in a stage of his evolution in which his everyday life is burdened by the struggles between the beast and the creator in him, and the unpredictable outcomes of those struggles. We are steered by fuzzy logic, every hour of the day.

Sometimes the beast wins. An example: a number of company executives are discussing the best strategy to launch a product. They are thinking aloud about the name, the package design, an advertising slogan. Then, one of them comes with a really fine idea for the name. The chairman however immediately makes fun of it and everybody laughs. Idea exit. But wasn't it a good idea then after all? Yes, it was. In fact, its quality was immediately recognized in the chairman's mind, so the creator in him should have said: 'That's it! Fine idea, let's test it!', because the creator in him wants the best ideas turned into reality, regardless of the source of the idea. The creator in him wants to create a flourishing company. Too bad for the other guy however, and too bad for the company, the beast in the chairman swiftly overrode the creator in him, because the chairman and the idea man happen to fancy the same secretary. The competitor that's after the same female, must therefore be chased away. He must be humiliated, weakened. That beastly reflex suddenly got priority in the chairman's mind, although he is getting paid 250,000 a year to do his utmost for the company.

Yet, the creator in the chairman has won many times also. In his student years, he mustered the self-disciplin to excel at the university. By launching good plans and turning them into a success, he made a fine career, and one day he got what it takes to become the chairman of a major company.

So this is man: a still evolving creative life form, on a planet circling around a star that's somewhere halfway its existence, shining inconspicuously amidst 300 billion other stars, clustered in a galaxy amidst billions of other galaxies, all submitted to a perpetually repeating cycle of creation and destruction. The lifeless atoms that are shaping us and everything we see around us, shaped nebulas and other stars and planets long before the earth existed, and after the explosion of the Sun, due five billions years from now, those same atoms will shape new celestial existences in a remote future. We, mankind, are animated stardust with an expiration date. Sheer from a statistical point of view, it's extremely unlikely we are the only intelligent life form in the universe. The least you can say is that we don't have the instruments to prove that we are.

6.3.2  GOD

There are some points in the previous that in my view can only be explained by the existence of God. Why a Big Bang? No mortal being would have noticed its absence - for lack of mortal beings. Then, the origin of life on this planet. How can a number of lifeless atoms change into an entity with an instinctive urge to feed and propagate itself? I haven't come across a convincing explanation yet. Why does man have a sense for morale and aesthetics? Why does he have a will of his own? Why is our I-feeling so strong? Where do love, faith, hope and compassion for the enemy come from? Why do those who truely believe, truely believe? A 'conscience', what's that? Your conscience is God's embassy in your mind. Why does living feel like you've always been living, and like you will always live?

So here is the perspective I believe we should see ourselves in:

Since the Big Bang, the omnipresent eternal loving presence, God, is expressing itself in matter. Of all its numerous trial-and-error efforts throughout the universe to do so, the origination of mankind is only one effort. The evolution to which man is subjected, gives, in the course of millions of years, ever more space to the benign creator in him, which is the reflection of God. For the time being however, man is still half beast, half creator. This inborn ambiguity is burdening his life and that of others, so man's finest thinkers have always felt that he should suppress the beast in him as much as he can. Henceforth: Moses, Zarathustra, Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Christ, Muhammad and others.

I believe these insights can help some of us to get rid of superiority feelings. White supremacists, a number of Malcolm X fans, many Japanese, believing their people is the elite people, my friends with the Book, they all may feel superior, but they won't even be able to verbalize what or whom they are feeling superior to. To the rest of mankind? But mankind in this particular stage of its evolution is not the climactic event on Earth. Seven million years from now, the average man will be more refined, more civilised, more intelligent than we are, thanks to the evolutionary improvement of his brain. He will take one of our skulls in his hands and say: 'Well, it looks rather primitive, but it resembles ours more than that fourteen-million-year-old skull they once found in Africa.' So, although there are differences between the peoples, even relatively big differences, those differences can never justify arrogance or worse in the peoples' mutual contacts. We can't even substantiate that mankind itself, in whatever phase of its evolution, is the only intelligent life form and thus the ultimate goal of the creation.

Reality overstretches our capacity to imagine it. In the 1990s again - fruitful decade that - the astrophysicists were amazed to discover that all the forms of matter we humans can see, from the houses and the trees around us to the stars, constitute only 10% of all matter in the universe. 90% is invisible, 'dark' matter. They discovered 'dark energy' in 2003. The entire visible universe, with its billions of galaxies, including everything that lives in it, has lived in it, and will live in it, is perhaps nothing more than a side dish.


For the taming of the animal in man, Jewish thoughts have meant very much. We've seen that Moses and his successors deeply cherished the wisdom about life as recorded on the Stone Tablets we'll focus on hereafter. Their contemplations can also be admired in the Book of Proverbs, for instance. The main lesson is that the Jews should live cautiously, not loosely. They found that frivolous behaviour may seem to generate a lot of fun, but sooner or later a part of that fun will prove to be seeming fun, superficial fun, as its grim consequences, not foreseen during the fun time, cast a permanent shadow over the rest of the Jew's life, or even threaten it. The Jews came to understand that freedom is only phoney freedom, if you don't foresee all the consequences of your options beforehand, tempting as they may be.


There is only One God. If there were more gods, you'd need a 'senior God' to explain why one of them is not sufficient. Furthermore, the Jews didn't want to see a 'God' in any man. They refused to worship any emperor who had declared himself divine. Now, look at our own age in which so many people seem to need an idol, whether it is a pop star or a sportsman or a philosophical guru. They feel unhappy with their own lifes and to forget about that, they'll totally focus on someone else. Yet I believe they can't make their life perfect by fooling themselves into believing that someone else is. They'd better concentrate on what makes them feel unhappy and do something about it. They're worth the while, although they may not realize it, or even deny it. They're idols themselves, of God, we all are. God hopes the lessons of life once will lead us to discover the star in ourselves, I think.

This Commandment also teaches us we shouldn't see a 'God' in any man-made thing either. We shouldn't worship any man-made thing, whether it is an art collection, or many digits before the comma on a bank statement, or a Harley-Davidson in pristine condition, or a career, or social status. (The First Commandment, Exodus 20:1-3)

God is everywhere, but He, She, It, can't be seen with our normal eyes anywhere. His Presence can only be observed by, as someone once called it, the 'mental eye' we all have, although it may take many years before this mental eye opens up, and although it may never open up in some of us. So any attempt to portray Him, to visualize Him in the shape of a painting or a sculpture, is pointless. In fact, every attempt to portray Him, will depreciate Him, for some will find the portrayal nice, but others will find the portrayal unattractive. We always look in this way whether we find someone good-looking or not. To submit God to that automatical habit, would be a sign of ridiculous human arrogance, as God is the Presence at an immeasurably 'higher', 'better', or at least 'other' level than we humans are. (The Second Commandment, Exodus 20:4-6)

By avoiding to mention His name for idle reasons, we can show we feel humble towards the loving force that has created us. We ought to respect God. Not to curse is the least thing we can do to show that respect. In general, this Commandment helps us pay more attention to what we are saying. We are saying so incredibly much. To which part of it do we stand in the long run? (The Third Commandment, Exodus 20:7)

The sabbath or the Sunday gives us rest, the companionship of our family and an opportunity to contemplate the things we've done in the past week and our agenda of the future. The rest day reminds us we are working in order to live, not vice versa. On Sunday we can show to other people we don't know all the answers either, by visiting the church, provided there is a church around where those things are being said that need to be said. (The Fourth Commandment, Exodus 20:8-11)

Our parents are the single most influential people in our lifes by far. (I'll skip the single-parent households for ease of reading only.) Genetically speaking, we are carrying a number of their features in ourselves, not only some looks, but also some recognisable characteristics. Some people even have clearly inherited one or more qualities of a grandparent. Besides, the values of our parents, the way how they look at the world around them, the way how they relate with other people, become the standard for ourselves in our childhood. It's what we automatically assume is the normal behaviour of grown-ups. We, in our childhood, which is the most impressionable stage of our life, assume that our parents' ways are the ways of the entire world. We are therefore beginning our lifes with an enormous error. We soon find out about that error once we grow up, once we start getting acquainted with classmates, with colleagues, once we fall in love, when we are visiting other people's homes, where things are being said that amaze us, where we are confronted with viewpoints that are totally new to us. And that confrontation is healthy, I guess, it shakes things up in our heads, it's part of the natural process in which we will form opinions and beliefs of our own. The familiarity of our parents' world view will yet never fade away entirely, even when we arrive at opposite beliefs when we are adults ourselves, because that first world view and those first examples of social behaviour are so deeply embedded in us.

And once we have children of our own, we'll look at our parents with different eyes. The concern you feel for your children, a feeling that by no means can be explained to childless people, that concern, you suddenly realize, is the same concern your parents feel for you. You want to do your best for your children, like they've done their best for you. You want to avoid the mistakes they made while raising you, like they've tried to avoid the mistakes their parents made.

So by honouring our parents, we are honouring the chain of life in which we are links ourselves. If we don't even honour our parents, well, why should we then respect other people, people who stand farther from us by definition? And if we don't honour our parents, how on earth can we then expect our children to honour us? (The Fifth Commandment, Exodus 20:12)

The Commandment not to take a man's life, is presumably meant to say that one shouldn't commit a murder. A non-violent activist myself, I acknowledge that life-threatening situations may occur in which killing is unavoidable for one's self-defence or to save lifes. An attacked man may have no other choice than to kill the attacker, an attacked nation (physically attacked, I mean) must send in the army to battle the invaders. There is a difference between striking and striking back. Murder however is something completely different. I am glad I can't put myself in the shoes of a murderer, but it seems to me that the recollection of his crime will haunt him for the remainder of his life. It must be some sort of a nightmare, I guess. There must be so many moments when a murderer is forced to remember what he has done. When he sees a graveyard or people in mourning. When he hears other people worrying about the health condition of a loved one. When he sees an ambulance speeding, and other cars making way for it. When he listens to people around him talking, and he hears hints in their conversations that aren't in it. Or indeed are. When he fifteen years later meets a man who resembles his victim.

Abortion is murder, many Christians say. I agree with them, although I resent the fanatics who kill abortionists. I long believed that an exception should be made for the victims of rape. But I still have no answer to the argument I once read that by aborting the child of a rapist, you are giving the death sentence to someone innocent for the crime of his father. Even the pregnant woman can't predict she will hate the child once she has given birth to it. It should be for her to decide whether or not she wants to raise the child.

Besides, what is rape? The prevailing idea nowadays is that a woman must be able to dress provocatively, that she must be able to make sexually tinted remarks and jokes, and that it is normal when she challenges a man by the way she looks at him, but that the man is forbidden to consider these things as an indication she is physically interested in him. That idea however denies human nature. It isn't fair towards men. Am I allowed to write this? I am just wondering, since we live in times in which society's megaphones will immediately misconstrue the previous as a justification of real rape and so on.

This whole abortion discussion has been concentrating on the wrong questions since 1968, I believe. The main issue should not be how to deal with undesired pregnancies. (Caution! Blunt language approaching!) The main issue should be that we must not fuck around like mindless animals, and that we should teach our sons and daughters likewise, if need be with a firm yet loving hand. Many many generations before us have done the same. A young man has to respect the feelings of a young woman, and a young woman has to respect the feelings of a young man.

All these things cohere with the respect we owe to life. If we don't respect life, we won't respect all the profound emotions and vulnerabilities concerning sexuality either. We must cherish life and sexuality deeply. We are not greater than life. We are a minute part of it, minuscule in time and probably minuscule in space. We are allowed to be and we should gratefully and cautiously act accordingly. Rejecting abortion, Mother Teresa once said: 'If even mothers kill their own children, what then will stop people in general from killing each other?' (The Sixth Commandment, Exodus 20:13)

Everytime I see an older couple these days, just somewhere in a supermarket, forged together by life, and I think of the soaring divorce rates among people younger than them, I simply know there's something terribly wrong in society nowadays. We are unlearning how to build life's most important relationships. The percentage of married couples decreased from 65% in 1981 to an all-time low of 45% in 2001. "In a society where divorce is a taboo, many husbands and wives will turn their lifes into a hell", liberal-progressive opinion has it. That may have sounded plausible in the 1960s, but since then a development has set in that has now arrived at the other extreme, a society in which men and women are less and less inclined to show commitment to each other. This society makes egoists out of people, only willing to live together when things are nice, but unwilling or unable to stand by each other when things become difficult.

The taboos on extramarital sex and divorce have some very important advantages. It will rightly force young men and women to ponder thoroughly whether their characters, their lifestyles match or not before they get married. Looks are not unimportant of course, but I believe there is too much attention for appearances now. A young women should look carefully how her boy-friend keeps his footing in life, how he reacts to unexpected difficulties, how he talks about his colleagues in their absence, how he copes with his own responsibilities, how he deals with her feelings, how he deals with her temporary caprices, in case she has any. There is beauty in accepting that marriage and marital fidelity are lifelong commitments. There is the enriching confrontation of the male and the female perspective. There is the irreplacable 'nest' function of two people, challenged to set a good example for the next generation. In the first stage of the marriage, there is the paradise of passion, and in its closing stage, there is the mutual care for each other's declining bodies. There is beauty in that balance. It's also well put in the Koran: 'We are created in pairs.' (The Seventh Commandment, Exodus 20:14)

Theft corrupts. It corrupts everything. It corrupts the thief himself to begin with, for once he has passed the barrier to steal, which at first is a mountain, the next theft will be much easier, and the next and the next. After his tenth theft, he can't even imagine he found it difficult once. He may even get addicted to the tension of stealing. Theft corrupts weak minds in the surroundings of the thief. Maybe to their own amazement, they will suddenly follow his example, when opportunity lures in a ill-monitored shop or at their work, when everybody else has gone home. Theft corrupts a number of robbed people, starting to steal 'in return'. Theft makes the thieves indifferent to the sadness of their victims. Indifferent to the undeserved stain on the reputation of their children. Theft will make it harder for the thieves to find satisfaction in a job, now they believe they have found easier routes to wealth. Theft infects mutual trust, even among neighbours. A liveable society can't do without trust. Listen to the phoney justifications of the thieves: 'It's insured, innit?' - 'My boss steals from me by underpaying me' - 'The government is stealing from us by wasting our taxes' - 'They never chase the big thieves' - 'I have to steal, I am stealing for my children'. Marvel at the self-justifying creativity of those who usually don't create much else. (The Eight Commandment, Exodus 20:15)

Telling the truth all the time isn't easy. There are occasions it isn't even appreciated or considered polite. Speaking your mind isn't always necessary either. There are times it can be wise to keep silent. But by and large, in the long run, when we try to be as honest as possible, we will become pearls in our surroundings, because by being trustworthy and reliable people, we'll enlarge the joy in other peoples' lifes. The observation of that joy will make us happier too in return. We need each other, we are located somewhere between the 100% individualist and the 100% herd people. We need to know we can rely on other people, and they need to know they can rely on us. I think there is a deep-rooted insecurity in all of us, and that we spend a good part of our lifes hiding that insecurity behind the way we talk, behave, laugh, conform, seek support with our eyes. The truthful man however unknowingly mends our insecurity. It doesn't ache as long as he's around and that's why he is highly respected. Now I come to think of it: honesty, care and love must be close relatives. (The Ninth Commandment, Exodus 20:16)

We shouldn't envy other people for what they've got. If a man ardently, passionately, decidedly wants something, but he hasn't got the money to pay for it, there is, besides saving, a very simple and highly effective solution for that problem. When he takes the trouble to look around him, he'll always find people who aren't possessed by a similar longing for material goods. He can try to find out why they are content and he isn't. Only content people are truely rich people. Once he understands that, he can decide not to want it anymore. And by making that decision, he will acquire something of much greater value than any good: the knowledge that he stayed honest in difficult circumstances, and the knowledge that his material desires are not in control of him, but that he is mastering them. (The Tenth Commandment, Exodus 20:17)


The Ten Commandments are at the heart of the Jewish faith for centuries, when Isaiah comes forward. Isaiah is fascinating because of his inconsistencies. On the one hand, he seems to share Moses's vision wholeheartedly. Oh yes, those non-Jews must serve the Jews, they must work for the Jews, they must die for the Jews. The mere fact that they can be confused, simply proves they are inferior. What more proof do you want?

But on the other hand, doubts are entering Isaiah's heart. Do things really need to be as Moses has envisaged them? Isn't the cost in terms of distrust, tensions, isolation, paranoia, fear and suffering too high? Can't there be another future, a better future, in which the Jews and the other nations find peace together? His conscientious doubts make Isaiah write down several beautiful visions of that better future. Two examples:

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the LORD's house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
Many people shall come and say,
"Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths."
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore. (Isaiah 2:1-4)

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6,7)

So Isaiah is perhaps the first Jewish thinker for whom the Mosaic world view is not perfect. He sees the cracks in the ideological dome that is overarching Jewry. He utters his longing for a second great leader with better ideas, a man who will lead all the world's nations into joint adoration for a peaceful God. Isaiah, the despairing prophet, is longing for a Messiah and many of today's Jews have the same wish. One of the rabbis I mentioned earlier said in 2002: 'By every deed, you either speed up or delay the coming of the Messiah', expressing his belief that the Jews, or the whole of mankind, I don't know whom he had in mind, have to show they deserve his arrival.

6.5.1  YESHUA

And then, a long time after Isaiah, enter a young man called Yeshua. In his adolescence, it becomes clear that there is something very special about him. Yeshua is filled with questions. He feels deeply involved with the world around him. He amazes his parents by seriously participating in the complicated debates about God and life with leading intellectuals in the temple. Once grown up, he appears to have this gift of immediately fathoming people's characters and motives, like an X-ray scanner. A charismatic leader, he is admired by a number of men who leave everything behind them to follow him. Yeshua isn't much of a diplomat. By telling people the truth uncompromisingly, his heat scorches many of his listeners, as many people tend to lie, to themselves to begin with, and to others while they're at it. But they nevertheless love to listen to him, he attracts multitudes of people, for his light illuminates their hearts and minds, he makes them see the completed puzzle of which they only saw some pieces.

Yeshua admires the spiritual legacy of the great prophets. Out of love for God, and out of love for his neighbour, the devoted Jew should treat his neighbour in the same way he wants that neighbour to treat him. The other man or woman is like you. He experiences his joy in the same way you are experiencing yours. His happiness is making the whole world a shining place in his eyes, like your happiness is lighting your entire world in your eyes. His fears can become so big that they will reduce his life to a dark one-man tunnel, like your fears may well reduce your life to the same. Yeshua acknowledges that the Ten Commandments, the Book of Proverbs and other texts are priceless treasures, written instructions for a happy life. After all, in these verses, the full might of the intellect of the world's most intelligent people is compressed after centuries of studying man.


Yet, moved by the trust a Roman captain and a Greek woman put in him, Yeshua begins to realize that 'the neighbour' of the Jew isn't always another Jew. How about the non-Jews? Haven't they been created by God too? They are our fellow men, are they not, Yeshua figures. Yeshua begins to see wonderful symmetries. If God has granted us Jews the privilege of discovering the finest possible path through life, he argues, we should grant the non-Jews the same right. If God is willing to share the Ten Commandments with the Jews, we Jews should share the Commandments with the other nations. Our intelligence is not a result of our own doing. It is given to us. So it is wrong to keep the advantages of that intelligence for ourselves and treat the non-Jews like inferior beings. They don't ask to be born less intelligent than the Jews. It happens to them. And since we have been clarified by God Himself about the way to live well, we shouldn't fog the other peoples on that subject, on the contrary. We shouldn't be their cheaters, but their teachers, Yeshua is probably thinking, and he starts sharing the Jewish contemplations on life by addressing a large crowd of non-Jews - a breath-taking decision after one-and-a-half thousand years of Torahism.

In the meantime, the Torahist elite is watching him with increasing horror. Things aren't going that wonderful for the people of Israel as it is, now the country is being occupied by the Romans, that superstitious lot with their armies of stupid peasants, and to make matters even worse, this hysteric is wasting Israel's only lead, Israel's wisdom of life, by telling the whole world about it! What will come of Moses's long-term vision if his words catch on among the goyim? The man is a downright political disaster and the damned thing is he wins every debate, for everybody to see! Doesn't he understand that the Ten Commandments are meant for the happiness of the Chosen People only?! The more the non-Jews live without self-respect and self-disciplin, the more they lie to one another, steal from each other, alienate from their children and neighbours, have sex with strangers, buy rubbish, idolize nitwits, follow weak leaders, humiliate and murder each other, the better! We must help HaShem weaken the lowlife peoples, not sabotage Him, or He will kill us all!

But although Yeshua knows that his candour stirs up the hate of the powerful, that won't stop him, for he is completely overwhelmed by the beauty of the message he has to tell, a message that will stun the world, and change it revolutionarily.

In the following I will give my interpretation of several teachings of Yeshua, the carpenter's son we have come to know by his Latinized name Jesus Christ, Yeshua, the Anointed One, the man who gave his life for giving his words of love.

First my view on the Christian faith in general, then a number of thoughts on the political lessons that can be drawn from Christ's words.

The Kingdom of Heaven to which Christ is guiding us, is a state of mind. Once a man's mental eye opens up for the God of all mankind, and that moment is likely to take him by surprise, he sees that God is Love, Light, Rest, Consolation, Warmth, Understanding, the Answer to everything, the spiritual Reunion with the deceased, Peace for everybody, for eternity. He finds out that he is a rich man, because he has a soul, and he discovers that his soul is directly connected with God, and he instantly notices that all other people have souls too, and that their souls are connected with God too, so he actually discovers that God and he and all other people are connected.

He sees that the fields and the houses and the pavement and the cars in the street, but also all human bodies, only constitute the visible surface, the outside 'crust' of the omnipresent Love and Light of God, as if the atoms forming those fields and houses belong to a 'lower' level of one and the same beauty. He suddenly realizes how terribly frail the human bodies are, he understands why most people say 'good health' if asked after their desires. He sees that even the most admired human artefacts, say, impeccably cut diamonds, or the Mona Lisa, or the finest silkysmooth-running 6-cylinder car engine, are touching yet crude, makeshift, perishable rubble, compared to the perfection God stands for. Man's inner self, disappointed and restless, if not angry, because of his own flaws and those of others, now finally finds reconciliation to the imperfection of the human existence, a feeling that will ease his whole life. His faith immediately creates a gap between him and his former self, to whom, if he could travel back in time, he would find it very difficult to explain what he just saw and how he was changed by it. The awareness that God sees his every thought, including the thoughts he didn't know he was capable of thinking, inspires him to a relentlessly honest self-scrutiny why he is saying and doing the things he is saying and doing, and he will accept the answers, stunning as they sometimes are, as a further advance on the road to the discovery of who and what he really is. His faith overwhelmes him with love, or at least a willingness to understand, for his fellow man. He wishes all the other people to arrive at the same state of mind the sooner the better. His faith fills him with strength, and with feelings of sorrow if he is forced to strike back at those who persist in hating and attacking him.

His faith doesn't automatically make him a better person than those who don't believe and those who still don't believe. He is still prone to the classic human weaknesses, pride, avarice, voluptuousness, anger, greed, envy and laziness. But at least, and this is very important, his faith makes him see that he is prone to them, and it makes him see that he shouldn't be that way. His faith gives him the energy, the will, the power, to overcome these weaknesses, to go beyond his old self, not to be discouraged by temporary setbacks in vulnerable moments. He recognizes the great value of being caring, content, friendly, diligent, modest, patient, honest, generous, forgiving, mild, the qualities that will enrich his life and the lifes of those around him. He'll find inner security and courage. He'll be inclined to treat other people in such a way, that they realize he cares about their needs and their happiness. When they are happy, they'll see he is happy for them. He will do his best, and he may therefore do better than other people expect him to do, and their joy and their amazement, sometimes hardly perceptible, will be the reward he didn't seek, as much as their amazement will make them wonder in return why they underestimated him in the first place. So perhaps they'll find out there is something wrong with their expectations, which may be rooted in earlier disappointments with other people, or which may be rooted in the fact that they are living in a more egoistic way than he does, so that they may come to realize, in the silence of their hearts, that he is unknowingly setting a good example.

For me, finding faith meant that my soul had come Home.


If someone notices that others are about to make choices that will harm their own happiness in the long run, it's simply a question of human solidarity to warn them. Christ even sat and ate with those who were considered to be the riffraff of his days, and they apparently were curious what he had to say to them, as they sought his company of their own free will. Moralizing, as it's depreciatingly called today, does a fine job for the moralizer too. His opinions will compel him to lead an exemplary life, or else he'll make himself ridiculous. (Mark 2:17)

When a man gains new insights concerning the way he should live, he'd better adjust all his ways acordingly, or else things might torque. On a national level: the better political ideas can only work well for society, if they are not obstructed by (too many) compromises with the old order. (Mark 2:21-22)

A kingdom that is divided against itself, can't hold its own, Christ said. He used this argument, that apparently was generally accepted at the time, to expose a nonsensical accusation of his opponents. (Mark 3:23-26)

A strong man can only be robbed of his possessions, if he is tied up. On a political level: a strong nation can only be exploited and parasitized on, if its inhabitants are paralysed with uncertainty and fear. (Mark 3:27)

He wished well for all mankind, but Christ knew and taught that people aren't equal and that not everybody is willing or able to understand his message, that it even might incite hate. He invites us to strive for the highest level of inner nobility, but he realized that we all have different 'optimal' levels. (Mark 4:1-20, Mark 6:10-11, Matthew 7:6)

Christ was moved by his observation that people need leadership. Two aspects need to be mentioned here. In the first place, in early 21st-century West, political and moral leadership have become two separate things. Western politicians never show concern about divorce rates, the growing number of extramarital children, immoralizing TV and things like that. I think it would be better for the people (you and me included) if political and moral leadership would coincide more, simply because politics, morale and society are inextricably connected. A poor overall morale will weaken the individuals and henceforth society. The developments since 1968 show what you get if politicians ignore this, in my view. The only morale today's politicians are preaching is that one shouldn't 'discriminate'. In the second place, the brutal dictatorships of the 20th century have shown that there is such a thing as criminal leadership. So the observation that people need leadership, ought to be preceded by the observation that the leaders need leadership first of all. They ought to be led by the recognition that they can't found the happiness of their people on systematical terror or on the violent persecution of certain groups. The leaders ought to be led by the awareness that their ideals and their personal ambitions should serve the people, not vice versa. They ought to be led by the awareness that the decisions they are making, or not making, will influence the well-being of the people for decades or centuries to come. The leader should realize that power can corrupt him to such an extent, that he'll forget he might be mistaken about the valour of his ideals. The leader must be guided by his duty as a servant of the people, his is a tremendous responsibility. It is a very great honour indeed, a formidable privilege, to be granted by the people to lead them. (Mark 6:34, Mark 10:43)

In an argument over the observance of the Mosaic laws concerning kosher food, Christ emphasized that the only purity that really matters, is the purity of the heart. It's not what enters a man's mouth that might make him impure, he said, but what comes out of his mouth. Harmful plans, immoral conduct, the manipulation of other people, deceit, plots, they all start in one's heart and mind, and they make a man say and write the foul things that are necessary to realize such ill plans. If you combine this statement of Christ with his recognition that the non-Jews are the Jews' fellow men, then this was the moment where he strongly condemned all confusing activities, inspired by the Painful Passages.

This verse also marks an insurmountable difference between Christianity and Islam, although these two religions have several things in common, like their invitation to all ethnic groups and their aversion to money-hunting. Whereas the Islam tells its followers that it is alright to make hollow promises to non-believers if it's helpful to spread Islam in the long run, Christ disapproved of such hypocrisy.

And speaking of hypocrisy, Christ's statements make it also quite clear that there is no such thing as Christian hypocrisy. The phrase 'a Christian hypocrite' is a contradiction in terms. A man may be a church-goer, a vicar, a bishop, a cardinal, the head of the Church of England or a pope, but the moment he becomes a hypocrite in that position, he automatically stops being a Christian. God sees it right away, and the longer he persists in his hypocrisy, the more he will get entangled in all sorts of twisting reasonings and shady schemes, so that people will take notice of it too. The first and most impressive warning against phoney Christians doing and saying hypocritical things, came from Christ himself. (Mark 5:7 etc.)

Christ fully appreciated those who didn't follow him, but who made their lifes a joy for themselves and for others nevertheless. Christianity is not about forcing people into believing. Setting a good example is what really matters. (Mark 9:39)

Christ was deeply indignant over the sight of money changers and merchants in the temple. A peaceful man usually, he lost his temper and drove them out of the temple's court. He teaches us we shouldn't exploit our fellow men's religious, spiritual and emotional needs. I am also seeing an analogy with today's anti-globalization and pro-environment protests, the constructive part of the protests I mean, not the vandalism. The earth, our beautiful earth, with all its natural and mineral riches, has been given to us, reflections of God, as a temple. Only if we take care of that temple well, by developing friendly agriculture and industries and respecting the nations, the temple can take good care of us. Anti-globalization is pro-mankind. (Mark 11:15)

The old Commandments not to steal and not to commit adultery, were further refined by Christ. He pointed out that even the thought of stealing or cheating on your spouse was wrong. Like Zarathustra, who said 'Think well, speak well and do well', Christ understood that all our actions start as ideas. On a political level: a sensible nation should place stringent demands on those who are professionally engaged in spreading ideas: teachers, media, politicians. Better still: these groups should place stringent demands on themselves. (Matthew 5:21, 5:28)

If a man succeeds in finding the great spiritual strength that is needed for turning the other cheek after receiving a blow, he'll deeply impress the other guy, who will wonder whether he has the same inner fortitude. Furthermore, he'll grow a reputation for himself that will destabilize other potential enemies beforehand. Of course there will always be people who won't be inspired by such a good example and mistake it for weakness or dumbness. That's probably why Christ never said we should turn our other cheek twice. (Matthew 5:38)

Since God is the God who loves all mankind, and who is therefore willing to forgive our errors and flaws, shouldn't we then not forgive our fellow men likewise? It's another example of the marvelous symmetry Christ is showing. Time and again he mentions the relation 'God-man' as a reminder of how man should relate to his fellow man. God forgives me, so I should forgive my fellow man. God judges me with a mild eye, so I should judge my fellow man with a mild eye too. (Matthew 6:15, Matthew 7:1-5)

Christ was convinced that greed was the root of all evil. He didn't see a problem in making money as such. You might say that he endorsed a mild form of capitalism, respecting the rights of entrepreneurs, proprietors and farmers. Yet he made it clear that high ethic standards and the distinct desire for much money make poor buddies. The more money people make, the more they'll be inclined to make compromises in order to secure and to increase that money, quite disgraceful compromises in the long run, which stand out sharply against the outward grace of great manors, fine gowns, precious furniture. (By which I am not saying that everyone who lives in a great manor owes that to disgraceful compromises.)

Furthermore, money has the potential to unleash the animal in man. There seems to be nothing man isn't prepared to do for money. The attraction money exerts on many of us, might have something to do with the longing to compensate for our inner uncertainty. Many people phantasizing about winning big time in the lottery, delude themselves into believing that once they are millionnaires, nothing can happen to them anymore.

Christ wasn't fulminating against greed out of envy of rich people, by the way. He had all the personal talents that are required to become a very rich and mighty man himself. He however chose for the difficult road, the ill-understood road full of pain and humiliations, his Via Dolorosa, after passing through a life stage in which he pondered on both options. (Matthew 6:24, Matthew 4:1-11)

Christ compared living according to the highest of moral standards, to the troubles of walking on a narrow path behind a small gate. There are the people who are doing their best to find the best part in themselves and to keep in close contact with that part, the part God meant them to be like entirely. The big and proud gate tends to attract far more people, since it opens up the broad way, where things are seemingly easy and obvious, where majorities may agree for a long time that the road is leading them in the right direction, including well-meaning people in authority. It's the road of life where fundamental mistakes are easily neglected, thus originating ever more serious wrongs in society which will amplify each other until catastrophe is unavoidable. (Matthew 7:13,14)

Look out for the false leaders, Christ said, look out for the guides whose eloquence might be disguising perfidious plans. By all means, beware of me, the writer of this text, an anonymous guy who, sixty years after the world beat Hitler, is pointing his finger at the Jews and the black and the Asian communities and Westminster, waving with the book that has been misused so many times. Watch his every step very closely. Don't give him the benefit of the doubt. (Matthew 7:15)

Only fine trees yield fine fruits, Christ said.
Sick trees yield sick fruits only.
The fruits inform you about the condition of the tree.
This simple comparison has so much in it.
Results root in causes. Causes grow results. The result becomes a new cause itself.
Fine results root in fine causes, fine causes grow fine results, the fine result becomes a fine cause itself.
A man's nature and his choices will shape his life and what he gets from it.
If two energetic and fine craftsmen start a business of their own, chances are it will become a flourishing and well-reputed firm.
If two shabby men begin a business of their own, it will never be more than a shabby firm.
Bitter hearts think of bitter plans.
Better hearts think of better plans.
Ideas generate actions generate outcomes.
The outcome tells you much about the initiating ideas.
History is a cable, plaited from strands of ideas, actions and outcomes.
History is: situation A, influential people, developments, situation B.
1968 Britain, influential people, developments, today's Britain.
A people's nature and their choices will shape their history.
Christ emphasized the importance of paying attention.
The importance of paying attention to the cause.
The importance of paying attention to the result.
The importance of telling the difference between cause and result.
The importance of paying attention to those who are blurring or interchanging cause and result.
The importance of knowing the difference between good and bad, between fine and sick.
The importance of knowing how fine trees and fine fruits look like.
How they really look like. (Matthew 12:33)

The Jews, both the benevolent and the Mosaicly brainwashed, have often been persecuted by so-called Christians. They justified their murders by the verse in which a Jewish mob allegedly demanded Christ to be crucified, even if their own posterity would have to pay for it with their lifes. A false excuse, because sensation-seeking crowds, eager to watch a man being sentenced to death, seldom arrive at sensible remarks, whatever nation they belong to. Moreover, no-one is the owner of the lifes of his posterity, so any pretension of those particular Jews to dispose the fate of their future generations was as ridiculous as it was futile. It's quite absurd to blame a Jew, born in the 12th or 16th or 20th century for the blood-thirstiness of the mob that wanted Barabbas to live and Christ to die in 33 AD. (Matthew 27:25)

Furthermore, Christ is interesting for some words he never said. He never distanced himself from the positions of the earlier prophets Ezra, Daniel and Ezekiel on ethnic mixing. They pointed out that a 'multicultural' society boils down to the weakening of the country concerned. In his prediction for the future, Christ foresaw the continuing existence of the different peoples of the world. Apparently, he didn't consider ethnic diversity to be a problem. In other words, government measures to undo any threat to the identity of a people (let alone its existence) are perfectly in accordance with the Christian world view, provided those measures are answering to Christian standards.

After reading the Gospels, there remain some things I (still) can't understand or believe.

Whether or not God is One, is one of the disputes between Jewry, Islam and Christianity, as the current Christian doctrine teaches that God is a Trinity: God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. I have to say I share the criticism of religious Jews and Muslims, who are rejecting the three gods of Christianity. By accepting that Christ was a human, probably the noblest man that has ever lived, but still 100% a human, his wisdom and love only become the more impressive. Furthermore, I've never understood the difference between the omnipresence of God and the Holy Spirit. God is always there, in every cubic millimetre inside and outside our bodies, even when a million people are gathered in His name without sensing His presence yet. But once they do, there is immediate spiritual contact between every individual there and God. There is no need for an in-between. (Matthew 28:19)

So I don't believe that Christ was literally the Son of God, and I have three reasons for it:

The current Christian teachings say that God loves mankind so much, that he sent his only son to the world to save it. This belief is apparently based on the preassumption that mankind is the only intelligent life form in the universe, and that only mankind is having the difficulties that cohere with the evolution of the brain. But since we can not know for sure that mankind is a unique phenomenon, Christians can not know for sure whether Christ was 'The' Son of God, or 'A' Son of God. Other 'mankinds' probably do exist, regardless of the likelihood that we'll never get to know anything about them, because of the unconceivable distances in and between the galaxies, and they may very well have similar problems and thinkers.

Added to this, Christ wasn't perfect. He made mistakes, so he must have been human. He believed that the Messianic Empire was imminent and that its beginning would be witnessed by some of his contemporaries. Two millennia later it hasn't yet arrived.

When he blandly compared the Greek woman, her daughter and the other non-Jews to dogs, the Torahist tradition still echoed in his words. So Christ wasn't born understanding that the non-Jews are humans too. He only came to recognise that after developing his own thoughts on the issue during his lifetime. Had his origin been literally divine, I think he'd acknowledged that right from the outset. (Mark 9:1, Mark 7:27)

There is the belief that after the crucifixion and the burial, Christ's body was given life again, and that in the future, on Judgement Day, all deceased Christians will resurrect comparably. I can't believe this will ever happen. I do believe that after death, all our souls will reunite with God and with the souls of our deceased loved ones, and that that reunion will give us immeasurable joy and happiness. Other cultures in those days knew stories about miraculous resurrections as well, and I think that this element has been adopted by the early evangelists for the reason I mentioned in 5.8.2. I find the resurrection myth quite problematic actually, as it unnecessarily increases the barrier for people to accept the words of Christ. Christians shouldn't hinder his wisdom from filling people's hearts and minds by holding on to controversial elements that add nothing extra to that wisdom.

By not evading his crucifixion, Christ allegedly took all our sins upon him, he is said to have died to redeem us. Well, notwithstanding my deep respect for this man who died for the most altruistic of convictions, I simply fail to understand this. If it's me who has done something wrong, it's only fair that I, and I alone, pay the full price for it.

I also don't accept the concept of the original sin, the hereditary sin. What we have inherited from previous generations against our will, and what we'll pass on to future generations against their will, is the genome of a complicated being that is locked in an evolutionary process, and that genome seems to mutate extremely slowly in the right direction, in steps so small the separate generations don't notice it. So we don't need to blame ourselves for our susceptibility to give in to weaknesses, since we haven't asked for that susceptibility and those weaknesses while we were still fetuses. That's by no means an excuse to succumb to the weaknesses, because on the other side we have the ability to think about our choices and inclinations for good reasons, and we have a conscience for good reasons, but we shouldn't think of ourselves as born sinners. Christianity should not be about the feelings of dejection because of the beast in us, it should be about the joy of the chance to beat or to tame the beast. Christianity is a recipe for optimism.

I don't understand why Christ said he didn't want to undo a single letter of the Torah. His own teachings are clearly conflicting with Moses's teachings about the non-Jews. Did he consider the Torahist period to be a finite period, a stage with a beginning and an end the Jewish people have to pass through? Or is there a totally different reason? Have the Painful Passages been inserted in the Torah after Christ's death? Was the anti-Goyim attitude of the Torahists the result of a merely oral tradition until then? I have no idea. (Matthew 5:17-18, Mark 13:10)

Christ was convinced there is a hell after death. I don't think so, I think we are making more than enough hell on earth already. Like the French philosopher Sartre said: 'L'enfer, c'est les autres' ('The hell, that's what other people are doing, it's outside me') A nice way of putting that all of us, in different degrees, are responsible for the hellish part of earthly life together, because when you point at someone else to blame, and subsequently he points at someone else, and subsequently that person will point at someone else, and so forth and so on, one day, maybe many years later, someone will point at you, completing the chain of six billion people who hate to say: 'That's my fault, that's me alright!' (Matthew 5:22-30)

Yet, by putting forward some objections and question marks, I don't feel I am diminishing Christ and everything he stood for. I humbly honour him, with my knees in the mud, for he refused to compromise with all the filth in this world, he attacked it to inspire us to do the same, the bad things in ourselves to begin with, and he sacrificed his own life to underline it.

The few objections are easily bleached by the awe, the admiration for Christ's brilliance, his compassion, his rich language, his unconditional and unselfish love for his fellow men, his good will, his determination, his courage, his radical longing for sincerity and purity, his astonishing insight into human character, his care for everybody's mental health, there is this understanding for the joy he must have felt when he noticed his message caught on, although he knew that, as someone once put it, goodness is always perceived as a threat by the bad, there is the amazement that he, a man of humble origin, was able to score off the seasoned leaders and scholars of his time, and since he saw things about God, love and life no-one else saw before, things only few have vaguely seen after him, his own ideas may have overwhelmed him occasionally, almost too many insights, emotions and frustrations for one man to bear, but thank heavens he spoke his mind loud and clear, for his mind was a panoramic window on the splendour of God's love, and thank heavens for those who made records of his message, and spread his words despite persecutions. Christ lived two thousand years ago, but in my view, his whole appearance seems to represent the behaviour of future man, and I therefore find him the most progressive leader by far, this man standing closer to God than many a son to his father.

Obviously, there are as many interpretations of Christ's example as there are readers, so I won't pretend in the least that only my view is soul-saving.

Christ's ideas have been worked out extensively by later apostles. Paul for instance has written many things the converted European peoples came to adopt in their social and political fabric. He, or another apostle, is writing somewhere 'Investigate everything and preserve all good things', thus advocating a dynamic, curious, searching mentality. And yes, it's highly recommendable to rethink the main ideas every now and then, to try to have an objective look at things, as if you are seeing them for the first time after being abroad for 20 years, to see whether there is still room for social and political improvements, and to discuss whether all earlier improvements are proving to be improvements indeed.


After thinking things over, I believe our country needs a new party, the British Christian-Patriotic Party (BCPP). Because of the very very difficult and lenghty task this party will be facing, with all the odds against it, it has to be led by some very fine and wonderful people, or it will surely fail. I furthermore believe that a political program, based on the following outlines, has to be written and carried out:

1. Political decisions are preceded by the opinion climate. In order to clarify the present opinion climate, that marsh fog of distortions and omissions, the British people should demand a public debate on the editorial and creative guidelines of the old media, of the BBC to begin with. Confusing and undermining activities of the old media must be exposed and attacked with the aid of a website. The letters 'TV' should mean 'television' again instead of 'Torahism vandalizes'.

2. The elevation and the protection of the morale and the self-confidence of the British people. Reconsideration of the relation between church and state. The current separation of church and state has made the state vulnerable for infiltration by the mosque and the synagogue. They will never admit it, but Muslims and Torahists are looking upon Europeans promoting the separation of church and state, as naive people.

3. The restoration of our national self-respect.

4. A nationwide reconsidering of everyone's responsibilities, rights and duties.

5. The government sets a good example.

6. Optimalizing the relationship between the people and the government by the introduction of modularly elected forms of government.

7. The introduction of an optimal two-way exchange of information between the people and the government by means of ICT technology, but by means of really listening most of all.

8. The peoples of the Third-World countries will be offered bilateral partnerships with Britain. Our country has to behave as a fellow nation, without denying realities and without creating false hope, especially for those peoples who are being oppressed by corrupt, incompetent or otherwise bad governments.

9. Fair attention for the happiness of animals, our fellow creatures.

10. Exposing the man-hostile effects of the 'liberal-progressive' values by means of patient persuasion in a constant debate.

11. Ending the current multi-ethnic chaos by the gradual restoration of Britain as a white nation.

12. A gradual deceleration of the current consumption-production-madness in favour of a moderate capitalist economy based on real needs, respect for the customers, respect for the earth, respect for craftmanship, the manufacturer's love for a reliable durable product, and respect for worthy commercial traditions.

13. A serious battle against crime, both the educational and the repressive way.

14. Austere discouragement of all those who, either individually or in groups, tend to violently intimidate other people.

15. A reconsideration of Britain's membership of international bodies like NATO and EU and Britain's participation in existing treaties. A proposal to replace the 'Universal Declaration of the Human Rights' by 'The First Declaration of the Duties and the Rights of Individuals and Nations'. I am in favour of turning the 'United Nations' into caring nations.

16. The Jewish community in our country will be invited to make a proposal to roll back Torahism.

17. Discontinuing the BCPP once its ideas have been realized.


6.6.1  ON PROPOSAL 11

It is only fair to expand on proposal 11 firstly, since it will drastically change the lifes of millions of people if it gets realized.

There is no manner of saying it friendly or politely, so I'll put it straightforward: I am in favour of the gradual remigration of all foreigners who settled themselves in Britain in 1968 and later, including their here-born children, in such a way that families keep intact, voluntarily if possible and compulsory if necessary, with the exception of several categories.

Why? Let me repeat the undeniable threats to the British people I mentioned before.

1) The number of Muslims in our country, and in the other European countries for that matter, is growing disproportionately fast. The Islam is a religion that seeks to conquer the world, allowing its followers to cheat the non-Muslims over their intention to establish Islamic law. What the Muslims failed to achieve at the Battle of Poitiers in the 8th century and the Battles of Vienna in the 16th and 17th century, namely taking Europe by storm, they seem to be successful at now in a sneaky way, because of incompetent European governments.

2) The lifestyle of the average negro is conflicting with the lifestyle of the average white in such a way that the white is always paying the price. This will always grow resentment, and since the leaders of a nation are obliged to free society from as many tensions as they can, it's simply better to send the negroes back to their own countries. I don't hate the negroes, when I am neutrally observing that the average negro doesn't muster the same sense of responsibility for his children and their mother as the average white is able to, that he doesn't have the same desire to keep his neighbourhood tidy, that he is more inclined to develop a drug addiction and that he is more inclined to commit gun crime. The word 'average' is very important here. There are of course many individual negroes who are more hard-working, intelligent, kind-hearted loyal husbands than, let's say, I am, but that's not the point. Any perception of a political issue can be blurred by using carefully selected examples, the old media are doing it all the time. I am simply saying: we are investigating the long-term effects of fundamental choices for British society here and we therefore have to recognise and to ponder all qualities of all groups involved.

3) The kingdom that's divided against itself, won't stand, Christ said. Now, let's have a look at the kingdom located between Ireland and the Continent. In my view, it's deeply divided over its current multi-ethnicity. Millions of Britons are regarding other millions of Britons as racists and xenophobes, and, vice versa, as people in error or as fools. There must be numerous grandparents feeling a great gap between them and their own grandchildren, when they want to discuss immigration-related subjects, the former amazed by the hooey 'arguments' the latter have been brainwashed with by school and television to bring forward. The Muslim community is thinking 'time is on our side', while mocking us for our moral decline in their indoor world. Most foreigners ignore the feelings of the indigenous population and they are constantly looking for politicians and welfare workers who will endorse their particular interests, and with good result. Millions and millions of Britons feel an aversion to Britain's main political parties over all of this.

As far as this text is concerned: a lot of foreigners will already hate me, although they've never seen me. A lot of British readers will agree with this text, or with parts of it, whereas a lot of other British readers already got infuriated over this text many pages ago, only reading on to see whether I am writing (more) things that can be used against me. A number of Jewish readers are undoubtedly thinking: 'Once we know who he is, we'll tear the bastard apart in so many pieces, that any potential successor will feel austerely discouraged.' Other Jews will agree that the followers of Moses have been pushing their luck too far and that a counterreaction is bound to occur.

4) There is the grave possibility that the post-1945 immigration has been set up to mix away, that is, to slowly annihilate the British people. Not because we are British, but because we are not Jewish. This suspicion is fed by the following indications:

4a) The 'multicultural society' has been imposed upon the British people by the responsible parties without a public discussion about the possible long-term risks and without consulting the British people beforehand, although these parties claim to be democratic parties.

4b) The old media have never attacked the old parties over this flaw, although the old media claim to be the watchdog of democracy. (In my view, the interests of the old media and the old parties are unhealthily interwoven. The picture of some wordless deal emerges: the old media are allowing the old parties to build an image of decent, reasonable parties for themselves, as long as the old parties never mention Torahism. We have to realize that we've never voted for Mr Heath, Mr Wilson, Mrs Thatcher, Mr Major and Mr Blair because we know them personally, because 99.99% of us don't. We've voted for them because we liked their appearance in the old media. But who decides who is to be portrayed in the old media and if so, in which manner? Not the British voters.)

4c) Protests against the 'multicultural society', or against aspects of it, are wrongly but deliberately labeled as 'racism' by the old order many times. That same old order however hardly pays any attention to the racism of non-whites towards whites, or to racist behaviour of one non-white group towards another. Mosaic racism is never criticised by the old order at all, although it is racism of the most dangerous kind.

4d) Scientific proof that the races are not equal, is being pushed aside. We are being governed and informed by people who want us to deny facts.

4e) The idea that all the European peoples must be mixed with non-Europeans, does exist, but it is occasionally aired in the limited field of opinion magazines, some books and casual remarks only. Neither a Labour leader nor a Tory leader has ever expressed her of his views on that idea before a national audience at, say, the eve of a general election.

4f) The old media are encouraging racial and ethnic mixing and they are deceitfully presenting the 'multicultural society' and 'the global community', the posh terms for the multi-ethnic jumble, as unavoidable or positive things.

All these wrongs have caused an alarming situation to develop in which we can't take it for granted anymore that the British nation will always exist. But since the British nation has a natural right to exist, it has the right to neutralize all factors that endanger its existence, so it has the right to put an end to this 'multicultural society'.

This natural right outweighs the predictable counterargument of the old parties that the 'multicultural society' has a perfect legal basis, since the necessary laws have been passed by democraticly elected parliaments. If they are to use this argument, they'll actually say: 'In the past 35 years, we, the Labour Party and the Conservatives, ill-informed and intimidated you with the aid of ill-informing and intimidating media, but you nevertheless voted for us, so you have in fact authorized the ill-informing and intimidating in retrospect and all the wrongs in society that came from it, and you should therefore keep quiet now. Be good democrats now, we don't want you to complain when the British people slowly disappear in the decades to come, it's your own doing.'

How can the remigration be accomplished?

The moment the support for this proposal will grow, it is to be feared that a number of young British white thugs will wrongly feel encouraged to harass and intimidate Jews and foreigners. They must be severely punished within days and their convictions must be made publicly known loud and clear to set a deterring example. This to ensure that the remigration will take place in an absolutely orderly and patient fashion. It may well take us into the 2020s before it is completed. So long as there are foreigners in our midst, they must be treated respectfully.

Britain will get in contact with the countries of origin which, under the charter of the United Nations, are obliged to take care of their own people. These countries therefore have to welcome their own nationals and they must restore the original nationalities of those who have British passports now. If necessary, we'll offer each of these countries to build new infrastructure in the interest of the remigrants, such as hospitals and residential areas, maybe even a complete new town. If the countries of origin can't temporarily cope with a large number of remigrants for good reasons, we'll get in contact with the neighbouring countries. If the country bluntly refuses to admit their own people, we'll find ways to persuade them into reconsidering their refusal.

Once a deal with a home country has been made, a law will be passed that retroactively undoes the British naturalizations of the foreigners involved and their descendants as from 1st January 1968.

The remigration has to be carried out on a 'first in, first out' basis in order to show the foreigners and the world we mean business. So those who arrived in 1968, are among those who have to leave first. My mentioning a year as far back as 1968 almost sounds insane, but if the remigration proposal gets much public support, the 'liberal-progressive' protests on the TV screen will not be any less than if I'd written 1988. The emotional blackmail will not be any less. It would take the old media three or four days to saturate the screen with foreigners telling heartbreaking stories about how they wanted to immigrate on 30th December 1987, but they missed their plane so they arrived in Britain a week later, and now they must return to that other country, what's so Christian about that, and so on and so forth. Besides, those few decades of ethnic folly constitute but a very short episode indeed, compared to the thousands of years of British history.

Those foreigners who have worked hard to establish a business of their own, will be guaranteed by the state to get a fair selling price for their belongings (reference date 23rd December 2003). It would be unjust if Britons and Jews made a profit out of their compulsory repatriation by offering too low a price.

Those who have been employees, will get a sum co-based on the number of years they have been working here. That will help them to restart their lifes in the countries of origin. The open vacancies will be filled by our own unemployed people. The welfare state has mollified quite a number of our fellow countrymen. The lazy ones among the unemployed will be put back on the right track by means of a thorough training in the good old values and habits of people who prefer to work for their money. That training will be compulsory if necessary.

Certain categories of foreigners will be excepted from the journey back home if they wish to stay. With regard to the exceptions, it's important to verbalize a well-considered set of clear criteria beforehand, in accordance with what can be defended as reasonable and humane, and not to deviate from these criteria once they get out in the open, in spite of all the predictable turmoil, possibly stirred up by backhanded forces. Examples of these exceptions are: the half-British marriages, the elderly, the severely disabled and the incurably ill and some direct relatives for their help. A temporary subsidy for plane tickets will enable remigrated relatives to come to visit them regularly.

But in spite of the alleviating measures, the remigration will of course be a harsh affair, especially for the here-borns. However, they can't reasonably blame us for claiming Britain back for the British people. Their parents could have noticed that they had arrived in a highly abnormal situation. Their parents could have understood that a government that is constantly taking sides with the foreigners against its own people, is a highly abnormal government. Their parents could have understood that an opinion climate, in which TV and radio reporters are always presenting things from the perspective of the foreigners and are always putting cornering questions to the own population, if they ask them anything at all, is a highly abnormal opinion climate. Their parents should therefore have understood that there was and is something fundamentally wrong in British society, and that that situation can and will not last forever. So if the here-borns want to blame someone, they shouldn't blame us, but their parents and grandparents. In fact, the sooner the remigration begins, the better. The here-borns now still have their older relatives who can make them acquainted with the way of life in the countries of origin. That soothing factor will steadily disappear as time goes by.

In 2001 I once heard an argument that took away my last doubts. We, the present generation of the British people, don't own this country. We are only managing it to pass it through to future generations. We therefore have to manage it well. We can't allow a situation to continue that, in the final analysis, means we are giving this country away at foreigners. We can't shut our eyes for the present demographic developments, which are to our disadvantage. Yes, the remigration will be a harsh measure, but if we don't decide for it, we'll be even harsher to our own grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They will grow up, they'll find out what has happened in these times and they will rightly blame us: 'How could our grandparents and great-grandparents let this happen? We, the British, are now an ethnic minority in Britain!'

There is nothing wrong with saying 'Britain is the country of the British people'. There is only something wrong with the massive down-imaging of those who are saying it. The down-imaging, the psyching-down is the real problem, the probable psychological warfare behind it.

And, of course, when you look around you nowadays in those streets and neighbourhoods where the coloured people are in the majority for years now, filled with exotic shops and mosques and all non-white schools and colourful posters in languages we can't read and what have you, this whole remigration idea seems something totally unfeasible, the very proposal seems preposterous, surrealistic. I can vividly imagine that a lot of people will say: 'It's impossible, you're crazy.'

But then again, that's the same thing people would have said in 1964, if anyone would have predicted the present status of the UK back then - and it came into being nevertheless.

I hope the time will come that we're all going to live in our own countries again.

The continued presence of foreign criminals and parasites in Britain should never have been tolerated in the first place. The future state should perhaps investigate the legal possibility to sue the old parties over the misery their negligence and indifference have caused.

6.6.2  ON PROPOSAL 1

Until now, the unknown few who are controlling the media belong to the best-informed people of the country. They determine which part of that information is be transferred to the nation and in which tone of voice. The nation doesn't know anything about the criteria they are applying for the selection, and the nation doesn't know anything about the criteria they are applying for the tone of voice, the tenor. That unbalance can be revolutionarily improved with the aid of internet. The British people must be made aware of the influence of the old media on their vocabulary, their opinion forming, the feelings they get hearing this opinion and that opinion, things like that, and the internet offers a host of possibilities to do so, such as:

Frequently monitoring and analysing of films, series and soaps to expose which main ideas are being reinforced and which are being weakened.

Frequently monitoring and analysing of the way news items are worded and presented. Analysis of the questions of the Eslers, Frosts and Simpsons of this world. Exposure of the silent suggestions these questions are conveying, if any.

Open letters to the interviewers, directors and producers of films and TV programmes, inviting them to throw some light on the editorial, dramaturgical and creative choices they made while producing the film or TV programme. Their names are shown in the credits and it can't be hard to track down the addresses of the companies they are working for. They can always ignore a private letter, but if such a letter is published at a future Christian-Patriotic website, visited by millions of people, they are likely to give polite answers to some polite questions. Because, if they are always making film and television with an anti-national, anti-white, anti-male, anti-law-and-order, anti-common-sense bias, and they won't answer some polite questions about it, the visitors of the website will understand that these media people have negative reasons for doing so. (It's Question Time indeed, Mr Dimbleby.)

The same thing goes for the people who benefit from commercials and the shows between the commercials, broadcast by the private-owned channels. They are the product managers, trying to increase the sells of the products they are accountable for to their bosses. In case the commercial or the soap they are sponsoring has a nasty bias, open letters can be addressed at them too. They will be friendly invited to remove such undermining elements in their next broadcasts. If they persist however, they are silently admitting that they are contributing to a psychological war against our people. In that case, the possibility of a temporary buyers' strike can be considered, or even a total boycott. Why should the British people buy products that are promoted in commercials reinforcing the wrong ideas? Why should we finance our own moral and national decay? It doesn't make sense.

We can publish open letters to politicians, asking them the very questions the old media always seem to forget somehow.

Short leaflets with up-to-date news or with summaries of longer texts can be downloaded from this future website, so that these texts can be photocopied and spread in local communities.

Because of the highly sensitive issues the BCPP will be raising, it is only fair that the old media will fire extremely critical questions at the party. That's totally justifiable and understandable. Everybody has the right to be thoroughly informed about the people, the proposals and the intentions of the BCPP. At the same time however, this future party has to defend itself against all attempts of the old media to down-image the party as a suspect organisation. If a journalist writes an insulting article about the BCPP, he and his senior editor will be asked in an open letter to openly discuss the allegations. If they do so, but they can't substantiate the damaging allegations, they will be asked to apologise for it in another article in their newspaper, having the same place and space as the earlier article had. If they ignore any of these reasonable requests, their names and insulting utterings will be stated in a website column called 'Slanderers and liars in the old media', in alphabetical order. The moment they yet apologise, these statements will be deleted. The BCPP can also take legal action of course.

In case a newspaper continues to down-image the BCPP, in spite of several attempts to bring them to reason, a boycot of the paper, and a boycot of the products advertised for in that paper, can be considered too. More than the half of the average newspaper's income consists of the fees the advertising manufacturers are paying. The other part of the proceeds comes from the subscriptions and the newspaper stand sells. The country's leading newspapers must be focused on firstly.

These are all unpleasant ideas, but since the BCPP will be very vulnerable for malicious attacks on its integrity, it mustn't take any such effort lying down, because passivity will subsequently be misused too. (Stories with angles like 'The BCPP keeps quiet now, so they are in fact admitting to our earlier conclusions.')

Fair criticism of the BCPP will be extensively discussed at the same website too. The website must be a platform of dialogues.

(I believe that some prominent media people are full aware of such (still theoretical) possibilities of the internet, and that they are worrying about it.)

The internet offers great possibilities to clarify the public over even the most serious political problems. These possibilities have a great significance for improving our democracy, since better informed people will better be able to decide which party to vote for. The problem can be explained to the public without any bias. By neutrally verbalizing the problem, the silhouette of the best possible solution already becomes visible in many cases. Suppose, in some region there is a prolonged controversy over the desirability of a new motorway. At present, the old media alternately show the proponents, eloquently making their case, and the opponents, eloquently making their case. Because the matter is dragging on for years, both the advocates and their adversaries have polished their case to perfection. They both have found the words that sound the most convincing, so the average viewer will find it hard to assess which case is the best. Occasionally a studio 'debate' with the both of them is being held, and such debates seldom bring any light. The average studio debate is full of half-spoken sentences, interruptions, suggestive questioning and a sudden end after eight minutes because the next item is waiting to be aired.

The web however provides for a much better platform for opinion forming and problem solving. For instance, you invite both the pro-road-man and the anti-road-man to write an article. These will be published at the site. The goal is then to collectively rewrite the two articles into one the most neutral article, so that the public will be optimally informed. The visitors of the website are invited to comment on both articles. Among the visitors, there will always be people who can demonstrate they are experts on the matter, or on aspects of the matter. Using this incoming flow of expert information, the strong points and the weak points of both articles will gradually emerge. Simply by numbering every sentence of the articles, the webmaster can even create subdiscussions on these sentences and then incorporate the 'subresults' in the main article. Allegations, the general public initially didn't recognise as irrelevant, nonsensical or distorting, will be removed from both articles, or replaced by better, more truthful wording. In this way you get a self-improving informative process in which the facts will get ever more separated from the hooey. At the end of the day the best case will indisputably appear, indicating which solution will work best. So by means of the internet, the squabbling of conventional political discussions in the old media can be replaced by a balanced presentation and some serious weighing of the facts - and no-one gets boycotted, interrupted, suggestively laughed at, cross-examined about side issues and so on.

In the long run, you can make accurate up-to-date internet dossiers on every major problem, consisting of a summary and the full McCoy. On the one hand this will help mobilize public opinion in order to solve the problem, on the other hand this will help neutralize distorting and propagandistic influences of the old media, because journalists who keep on repeating nonsense in their articles, can be asked in open letters why they are doing that.

6.6.3  ON PROPOSAL 13

In my view, these are the causes of crime:

The increased secularization has detached many people from the Christian message, that warns people of the danger of feuds, addictions, obsessions with material goods, and that seeks to inspire people to behave in a friendly, gentle, self-controlled and modest way.

The 'anti-authoritarian' propaganda of the 1968 movement has made many parents insecure, hindering them to raise their children with a firm yet loving hand. As a result of this, ever more young people have come to mistake careless egoism for 'freedom'.

Society's overall focus on materialism.

The state is too soft. It has partly been mollified by the EU. The current legislature has too big an emphasis on the rights of the individual and offers too many escape routes for lawyers misusing technicalities.

Crooks and phoneys in high places get away with things other people would be punished for.

The police don't feel backed by the media and the old parties and they are trained to deny the racial facts of life.

The low detection rates are lowering the barriers to commit crime.

In areas that are struck by mass unemployment, people get bored, especially the young, and bored people start to look for thrills.

Contempt for our people co-inspires a number of foreigners to commit crime here.

Foreign criminals have a fair chance to arrive in this country as illegal immigrants.

Foreign convicts aren't expelled after their detention.

Foreign criminals are telling likeminded spirits in their home country all about Britain's follies over the telephone, thus attracting more criminals and so on and so forth.

Despair of those who in spite of a well-behaved life-style, really can't make ends meet, is also a cause of crime, be it a minor cause in my view.

The wrong influences of the old media. (Just another example. In October 2003 the BBC broadcast the Panorama documentary 'Crack UK'. It contained a scene in which reporter Shelley Joffre was interviewing a cocain dealer in a car. Nothing in her posture betrayed even the slightest indignation or aversion towards him. Her naive - or seemingly naive - questions enabled him to talk nineteen to the dozen about how much money a courier makes for a trip to Aberdeen and how low the risks of getting caught are. In this way, he was able to spread the wrong ideas in the living-rooms of those who are susceptible for the prospect of 'easy money'. At one point, the reporter asked him some questions about gang competition and she concluded that more than one gang evidently can make, I quote, 'a decent living' for themselves in the same town. During the entire programme, she talked about drug dealing in the vocabulary of marketing.)

So if we want to fight crime successfully, all these problems have to be simultaneously encountered with a long-term multi-track policy. It may look impossible now, but not only bad developments tend to amplify each other, the same goes for good developments as well. So you simply have to begin somewhere, make a wise and lengthy effort and things will slowly begin to change for the better.

(I hope to inform you on my other proposals in the nearby future, I've set December 2003 as a deadline for the spreading of this text.)





Whenever people are separated by distrust, enmity, fear and hate, there remains always the consoling thought that language may convey emotions, insights, perspectives which will spark a beginning of understanding at the other side, and this is such an effort.

Firstly, let me tell you something about the indoor world I was raised in.

My parents didn't have a bible and my father wasn't born British. He was a hard-working and gifted mechanic whose pride was a second-hand Rover saloon he was able to keep in good shape for many years. My father had also a keen interest in history. He loved to read about ancient peoples. He was raised in a left-wing environment, my grandfather had been active in the social democratic movement in the 1930s. In a juvenile burst to fight the troops of Franco, my father once tried to hitchhike to Spain, but he never got there. My father had a German mother. In the first year of the Second World War, my father voluntarily went to work in Germany, not out of affection for the Nazis, because he hadn't any, but because he wanted to escape the tensions in his elderly home and this seemed to be the best option to him. Life is complex. After a year, he tried to return to his occupied native country, but he was caught by the German police and did some time in jail. In the remaining years of the war, he was ordered to work in Germany's war industry, which he did. In the summer of 1942 he was invited to visit a NSDAP office. A party official there offered him to become a 'Volksdeutscher', a form of German citizenship that was open to people with one German parent. Had he accepted that, life would have become much easier for him, but he refused out of patriotic loyalty. When he explained this, the party official was amazed to hear a foreigner turning down that great offer, because Germany's expansion was at its peek then, without anyone realizing it, the Wehrmacht being victorious in Southern Russia and Northern Africa at the same time. Later on, my father survived many bombardments on German cities. In the streets of Stuttgart he saw the asphalt burning, and things he never even thought flammable, as a fire storm laid the city in ashes. Do you know what a fire storm is? Fires need oxygen, so great fires need a lot of oxygen. The fire can become so big, that the air flowing to the fire becomes a storm, which will of course fan the fire, which will increase the storm, and so on. Fire storms incinerated countless German elderly, women, children and babies. And during all these years, my father saw the Nazi news reels in the cinemas and he read the Nazi newspapers.

Their propagandistic contents got to my father long after the war. While we were watching TV in the years I grew up, the 60s and 70s, Hitler's allegations about the Jewish media came to his mind and he told his family all about it. I was an easy victim, because I fully understood what my father was pointing out, I came to see the undermining things too. My father, who had had Jewish friends before the war, had become an anti-Semite and during my twenty-two years stay in my elderly home I, and both my brothers, were drenched in his anti-Semitism. The characteristics of the Jewish face, the gestures, the Jews want to rule the world by the force of money, they want to deceive the other nations, typical Jewish surnames, the lot. As the country started to degenerate, he became to admire Hitler in hindsight. He watched all TV documentaries on the war and when the narrator would say something like: 'This was Hitler's first strategic blunder and many were to follow...', he became angry sometimes, saying: 'Hitler made only one mistake: he should have won the war.' My mother did try to curb him for our sake, but she was much younger than him and her factual knowledge didn't match up to his. Besides, her own parents weren't exactly great friends of the Jews either. As from early childhood, I've heard nothing else but 'the Jews are no good, well, OK, they're not all bad of course'.

Although I've never been a Nazi, the Hitlerite brainwashing my brothers and I couldn't possibly avoid, has left some embarrassing traces in me. I've seen every documentary with a swastika in it. I can't help being fascinated by German tanks, a rather un-Christian fascination. I used to build plastic scale models of them, when I was a teenager. I have wandered about in the city centre of Berlin many times, intrigued by both the Wall and the remnants of the Reich. Although I am neatly making a distinction between Torahist and non-Torahist Jews in this text, simply because I know that there are non-Torahist Jews, I never catch myself saying 'damned Torahists' in private when I am cross. Someone I know calls me 'Bobby' sometimes, the name of one of the Hitler clones in 'The boys from Brazil' - and then we laugh. It's a shame to admit it, and I don't want you to misunderstand me, but then we laugh. The awareness of being brought up with the wrong ideas creates an uncomfortable feeling, a nervous outcast feeling, that needs to be laughed away.

So whenever the issue is parental indoctrination, I know what I am talking about.

I know that I am telling you a number of highly delicate personal things here, of my own accord, which candour can be used against me in disgusting ways, my opponents will get even more ammunition later on, but I feel that the suffering your people went through gives you the right to know where I am coming from.

Back to my adolescence. Everything my father was telling me, got a sinister ring on an evening in the early 1970s, when the TV series 'The World At War' paid attention to the Judeocide. I was utterly shocked by the images of the medical experiments. I was utterly shocked by the images of a shovel in a death camp and what it was shovelling. I sharply remember I then looked at my father. His face was petrified and he stammered something like: 'Well, I don't approve of that'. I found that sounded rather clumsy, but at least I was glad he felt appalled. So that's where it all has led to, I realized, this is what Nazi Germany has done to the Jews. This is what anti-Semitism has led to.

(By the way, I would never have published these things if my father were still alive. Ours was a complicated relationship, but I loved him. He died in 1994, may the love of God embed his soul.)

The images of the death camps, and an impressive film like 'Sophie's Choice', have been locking me in a dilemma for decades. On the one hand, the indignation, the concern, the anger sometimes about what the media, the Jews and their political friends were saying and doing, and on the other hand, the inner ban on anti-Semitic feelings, painfully aware what such feelings had once caused. My dilemma was aggravated by my growing up. I went to school, I got jobs, a girlfriend, I started to read books and magazines my father never read, I started to participate in society. And that society, I quickly discovered, was full of people who abhorred anti-Semitism, racism and deviating opinions on Hitler. I felt I had a terrible secret to protect, a secret that made me feel lonely for many years. Even my closest friends I have never told the things that I am revealing now.

And as years went by, I started to develop my own view on politics. Although I never ruled out the possibility of dark Jewish ways entirely, I began to understand that some remarks of the old man were simply paranoid. I read all interviews with politicians, especially those I strongly disagreed with, because I was eager to find out which convictions were driving them. I noticed I was glad with every 'nice' Jew saying something nice in the media, as if they were curing me from anti-Semitism, as if I wanted them to prove my father wrong, horrified by the Holocaust as I was, and gradually, I began to believe that the liberal-progressive dominance in the opinion climate was just an understandable and good-natured reaction to the excesses of national-socialism and colonialism - until my first political experience in June 1999.

A year later, in 2000, I read an interview with Horst Mahler. A bit of a Teutonic fundamentalist, he was associated with the far left terrorists of the Rote Armee Fraktion in the 1970s, but he is now a member of the NPD, which party is regarded as far right by Germany's current rulers. The NPD wants to give Germany back to the Germans, there are now eleven million foreigners there, and the party says it is rejecting violence. Its opponents however say that people 'in the vicinity' of the NPD do commit violence. In the interview, Mr Mahler said some things I agreed with rightaway. About the globalization for instance: 'The only task of today's states is to suppress the resistance of the peoples against it'. Towards the end of the article however, Mr Mahler came to speak about the Jews. He alleged that the Jews were the driving force behind the globalization, the Jewish bankers of the US East Coast in particular. And then he added: 'Their holy books are summoning the Jewish elite to do so'. Now, my first thought was: 'A German attacking the Jews. Here we go again'. But later on in that year I found Mr Mahler's website, and in one of his texts he quoted Isaiah 34:2,3, and that's how I found out about the Painful Passages. (The argument that we are managing our countries for our posterity, was his, I learnt it in a later interview with him. Mr Mahler has also a number of views I reject.)

In hindsight, I find it amazing that I discovered these texts so late. Hasn't my father ever told me anything about them? I have only some vague recollections he did, but he never opened a bible to show me where they could be found. In the first classes of primary school we read fragments of the Old and the New Testament. I can faintly remember the 'expelling' bit.

In 2001, I re-read the New Testament and I was profoundly touched by it. I came to understand the essential difference between the Mosaic and the Christian faith. What do you do with the things you know but others don't? Do you use your 'knowledge surplus' against them in order to get on top of them, even to harm them, to ruin them? Or do you share your surplus with them, for the benefit of both parties? Is knowledge to be used as a weapon or as a tool?

Needless to say that my discovery strongly influenced my political views. The fairy-tale of the great Jewish conspiracy wasn't a fairy-tale after all: the Painful Passages are black-on-white, for everybody to see, instructions for it. When today's schoolbooks and media are claiming that 'the Jews have always been persecuted because the other peoples made them the scapegoats in times of trouble', they are distorting things at best and downright lying at worst. I discovered that the Painful Passages provide for a solid explanation for the anti-Jewish hate throughout the centuries. I remembered my dad saying: 'The Jews were hated by the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Spaniards, the French, the Poles, the Russians, the Germans, the Hungarians and so on. Now, what's more likely, that there is something wrong with the Jews, or that there is something wrong with all those other peoples?'

An extremely awkward question has to be asked and answered in full detail. This will hurt your feelings and I am sorry for that, but if I don't address this issue, my silence will be used against me. Did my discovery of the Painful Passages originate even the slightest form of approval for the Shoah in me? No, it didn't, but let me be perfectly honest with you. Hitler's world view was predominantly shaped by the horrors of the First World War, in which he served at the Western Front. He has seen the naked bodies of his comrades hanging in the trees after artillery barrages, only wearing their boots, because the blast of the explosion had disintegrated the fabric of their uniforms, but not the leather, and prominent Jews probably played a dark role in the continuation of that demonic conflict, I'll come to that later. In 1941, Hitler was probably worrying that a revolution, led by Jews, could cause Germany lose the war. Before the October Revolution, Europe's left expected the first communist revolution to occur in Germany, not in Russia. Reveling in his anti-Semitism, he seemed neither willing nor able to have some understanding for the Jewish background. Hitler may have read the Painful Passages. And by reason of all of this, I can mentally reconstruct the moment that Hitler, perhaps in a rage, gave Himmler the fatal order. Please note: mentally reconstruct. Not: justify. Not: gloss over. Not: approve. Not: play down. Not stealthily sowing the beginning of any of these verbs. Just: reconstruct. But what I can't possibly imagine, is that he didn't cancel the order within ten minutes.

I don't know what God wants us to do. How could I? I am just a fleshy ant, tripping around on one of His billions of driplets of cooling lava, just like you are. But I am sure He doesn't want us to chase elderly, unarmed men and children and drive them into gas chambers, whichever filthy intentions they can be associated with. I am also pretty sure He doesn't want Israel to bomb European cities, for that matter. Can you imagine I am worried sick by Jews talking about nuclear wars? Are you too?

Later on in 2001, I suddenly realized that there haven't always been Painful Passages. For many millennia, there must have been a Jewish people in existence before Moses stretched his first papyrus scroll to write on it, and that insight has liberated me, to my great relief, of most of the anti-Semitism I've been indoctrinated with. And the residue of it, well, I genuinely feel that I am the master of it. It took me a long time to get there, but when I see a Jew today, I firstly see a fellow man, and then a Jew. And these thoughts gave me the idea that I was ready for writing this text.

I am anti-Nazi, but I am also anti-Torahist and I haven't discovered any contradiction in that. Why should I accept that members of your people confuse and slowly ruin mine? I don't. Does that make me an anti-Semite? You give the answer. Does that make me a hater of the Jewish babies, born yesterday and today, all over the world? You give the answer.

What do they know about the Torah now, lying in their cradles?

You give the answer.

Maybe Mr Sharon will call me an anti-Semite, but that would be slander. Do you know when my anti-Torahism would also be anti-Semitism? If others were at the same thing too, and I wouldn't mention that. Suppose, a number of Fins were worshipping a god called Yahwehouualua and they were learning the Finnorah and they were building fynagogues everywhere, and I wouldn't worry about that, only about the Torahists, then I would be an anti-Semite.


It is not true that the non-Jews have a Jewish problem. Both the Jews and the non-Jews have a Mosaic problem. Now, take a deep breath, for here it comes: you and I are allies, in a sense. What I am hoping for, is that your generation or a future generation will take a step back in order to have a neutral look at Moses's writings, as you are now approaching the age you can do some serious thinking of your own, and here are some thoughts I invite you to reflect on:

Moses isn't anywhere paying attention to what you might call 'the cheat's hell'. Oh, things may go very well for the cheat a long time. He is dazzling the fools around him with aptly put nonsense, with nonsense that even seems to have a strong logic, and his inner self is laughing about the sheeplike expression on their faces while he is cheating them, and he is able to make a nice living out of it. But not all the fools around him are equally stupid of course, in fact, some of them are pretty smart, and one day, he hears an lengthy and friendly argument of one of those not-so-stupid fools and, well, he isn't directly able to point out what is bothering him, but that argument seems to contain a couple of sentences or words, that, no, it can't be... although... is that man silently saying that he is seeing what the cheat is up to? No, it can't be, he looks so friendly. But then again, many fools are saying the same thing about him. After all, they are fools.... How on earth can he find out whether or not the other guy has found out about him? Who is that man talking with when he is out of sight? And about what? And about whom?

The Torahists - your parents, aunts and uncles, rabbis, politicians - are constantly living in the cheat's hell that Moses has created. I once read a book written by a Jewess, not the same I mentioned before, in which she was analyzing texts and remarks of anti-Semites, alleged, real or neither. That was some reading stuff. Constantly suspecting double layers, and layers beyond the layers and layers behind the layers, I was exhausted when I finished reading. The post-Holocaust trauma couldn't explain for it entirely, in my view. What are the Jews doing to themselves, I then thought. Later on, it didn't amaze me to learn that Jews are seeing psychiatrists more than their share.

Moses is presenting HaShem as a wrathful force. If the Jews lose their respect for the ethics HaShem dictated, he will ruthlessly take revenge on them. Moses foresees that a future disobedient Jewish nation will come under attack of a mighty enemy, that will serve as HaShem's instrument of wrath. But there are two psychological mechanisms which Moses doesn't mention. In the first place, he must have had the insight that Torahism would grow the Jews a bad reputation amongst the other nations, and that some of these nations would come to think: 'We'll keep those Jews from harming us by striking them first'. Moses must have understood that this idea would arise. It's predictable. The second thing that Moses doesn't write, is that, no matter how decently and chastely a people may be living, every now and then the reins are slackened. 'Sure, we have to behave ourselves, but now let's fool around for a while.' It's something in mankind. It is as if the longing for excesses slowly accumulates in the people, until it bursts out in the open for a while. (Even those who will now object that the moral decline of the West is perhaps caused by precisely that, have to admit that that is no excuse for media owners to make matters even worse.) But Moses doesn't mention this human quality either. Why doesn't he ask your attention for these two things? Because he doesn't want the Jews to realize that they are being attacked because of the malignant activities he is ordering. The moment the Jews come under attack, Moses wants them to think: 'There you have it, we have been massively immoral fifty years ago, or hundred-and-fifty years ago, and HaShem is now punishing us.' Moses is misusing a weakness that every people have, to distract the attention of the Jews from the true origins of anti-Jewish violence, because he doesn't want the Jews to doubt the necessity of Torahist activities.

By means of the Torah, the late Moses is confusing the Jews.

There is this part in which he is talking an angry HaShem out of a plan to hit the Jews and he brings in the argument that HaShem will look like a failure in the eyes of the peoples around them. Well, we can't blame Moses for not knowing the things we know today, but do you think that the creative force behind 5,000 times a 1,000,000,000 times a 1000,000,000 stars, going back 13,000,000,000 years, can be impressed by this kind of two-bit spin doctoring? And speaking of the universe, how can your rabbis believe that the Jews are the Chosen People, when mankind can't even be sure that earth is the Chosen Planet?

What kind of man was Moses anyway? Let's have a look at some of the things he wrote about himself. As from early childhood, he is being told that his is the future of a prince, a mighty man, perhaps one day reigning over the most astonishing civilisation of his time - Egypt, the Empire of the North and the South. Moses is a brilliant man, an unequalled connoisseur of the human psyche, probably intellectually superior to everyone else around him. But fate tragically struck him, as his great mind is twarthed by a speech defect, scrambling his fast thinking and sublime analysing into the jabbering of a sputterer. How must life at court have been for him, handicapped by that flaw, in those harsh times? When he hears errors in the advices of the counsellors, he isn't able to quickly expose them. Think of the nearly invisible contempt of the servants, smiling at him in that indefinable way you can't in fairness let them castigate for. The generals with loud voices that fill the hall, boasting about the war plans they are presenting to the ruler of Egypt and his company, and who then look at Moses and say: 'And now we are all very curious of course what Moses has to say about this!' Think of the frustrations, the humiliations. But every day, he is holding on to time that will once put him in charge.

And that unhappy man finds out he isn't born for the throne at all. He is not even Egyptian, but the son of miserable slaves, he nearly got killed when he was a baby. The world around him, initially promising him power and glory, now surprisingly shows its true grim face to him. It spits him out as if he is an insect in a bite of food. The world has been deceiving Moses all this time. He feels being screwed by life itself. He sees an Egyptian overseer maltreating one of his newfound brothers, and he deliberately kills him, not on the spur of the moment, but after some consideration, for he looks around him first as to check whether there are any witnesses. Moses becomes a murderer. Later on, he finds out that there have been witnesses. Moses is a clumsy murderer.

Moses. A well-mannered, well-educated stammerer. A clumsy speaker and a clumsy murderer, known to be a murderer. A man with shattered hopes, utterly humiliated. A desert for a palace. A man whose grandiose misfortune fills him with fury and hate against the entire world, and he becomes obsessed to leave his mark, no matter what it takes and no matter how long it takes - and Moses is still a brilliant man, he is still an unequalled connoisseur of the human psyche. And the moment he realizes that the Jews are the most intelligent people around, he, a man who is trained to lead a people, starts thinking of ways of posthumously becoming the absolute ruler of an empire, incomparably much greater than the kingdom he was denied during his lifetime.

A spiritual pioneer, he teaches your people about the omnipresence and omnipotence of HaShem, and about ways of suppressing man's beastly urges. He sees that the moral arrears and the lesser intelligence of the other nations can be used against them. Moses sees that knowledge can be used as a lethal weapon. He looks at the three-year-olds and four-year-olds of his own people, playing with sand and pebbles, and he thinks: 'They must become my obedient instruments, and their children and grandchildren too'. He founds this indoctrinating culture that leads the Jews on a road that's actually a circular and thus endless tunnel with only one entrance and no exit. Moses wants to be the eternal hostage-taker of the Jews, and your older relatives are his hostages to the present day, fully answering to the hostage-taker's ideal hostage: people who aren't even aware of their imprisonment, and who will therefore never try to break out. He deforms the Jewish identity into Judeocentrism. Moses wants the Jews to be distrusted and hated, for that will make them stick together, wherever they live. The Star of David can be seen as a hexagone, one of nature's basic shapes, surrounded by six sharp Vs, pointing aggressively at the outside world. Of course he foresees that his plan will cost many Jewish lifes, but he doesn't give a damn, because he is only interested in his own legacy. He already plunged your people into a civil war during their stay in the Sinai to purify them from rebellious inclinations. Moses wants the Jews to be hated, because he knows that only the fuel of Jewish vindictiveness, replenished generation after generation, can produce the enormous amounts of energy a small people need to fulfil his megalomaniac ambitions.

Despite his undeniable qualities as a leader, as a philosopher, despite his great literary talent, Moses was, in the final analysis, a man who was deeply confused himself.

That isn't Moses-bashing. There have been other pioneers in whom genius and insanity got intertwined. Nietzsche got insane, Van Gogh, others. There have been other leaders, who were totally impervious to the suffering of their own people: Robespierre, Pol Pot, others.

Next time you are reading the Painful Passages, just ask yourself: 'Am I reading the words of a man who loves me, or the words of a man who loves his ambition?'


The Jews are neither Moses's invention nor his property. So in my view, the people of Israel need a second Moses to bring them back from the desert of loneliness the first one led them into. Maybe that guide will be one of your grandchildren, or one of your children, and why should we rule out the possibility that it is you? What must be the Jewish attitude in life? That's for you to find out. Try to find out how those ancient Jews were looking at things. Try to connect with Isaiah's better moods. There have been a pre-Mosaic, pre-Torahist people of Israel, so there can be a post-Mosaic, post-Torahist people of Israel. You and I both know how important the written words are in Jewish culture. So please take a piece of paper and write 'the post-Torahist people of Israel' on it in Hebrew. Do it out in the open, in a field somewhere. Be a sitting duck for HaShem - Yahweh, that is. I predict you won't be struck by lightning.

These are perhaps not the right times to raise the issue. There is no peace in the Middle East and I can almost hear the Torahists saying: 'Now it's us! We warned the world of Hitler, but the world didn't want to listen and look what happened. So now we deserve to get on the top of the world and we will, we've got six million justifications for it! Now it's us!'

On the other hand, some important men have set admirable examples. In 2000 Pope John Paul II apologised for the former wrongs of the Catholic Church. Russian President Vladimir Putin exonerated the Germans from the Nazi crimes against his people, when he addressed the Bundestag in 2001 and said that no people should suffer from feelings of guilt forever.

Anyway, you and future generations will not allow the Mosaic madness to go on for another 3,500 years, that I am almost sure of. Your people can do better than this.

Don't you see? You don't need Torahism to maintain your people. If Torahism really was indispensable for the Jews to preserve themselves, there wouldn't have been any Jews around for Moses to write a Torah for. You don't need Torahism to prosper either. Since you belong to the most intelligent people, you and future generations will always do well economically. You will always see life's opportunities earlier than other peoples. OK, you're the smartest, so be it, someone has to be. In fact, only non-Torahist flourishing will be real flourishing. Only non-Torahist-flourishing will be flourishing without the paranoia, the distrust, the non-Jewish unhappiness, the hate, the revenge and the counterrevenge. Without the phonecalls to keep things out of the news.


We, I'm referring to the mankind 'we' now, are all in this "Earth" thing together, so why not develop and refine ways to make our temporary stay as nice and relaxed as possible? We can have such a nice planet. We have quite a lot of things at our disposal that can help us get there. We have gone through so much joy and misery in the past millennia, and we have records of it, so we can learn from earlier mistakes, enabling us to pass the pitfalls former generations have fallen in. We have the internet that offers us unprecedented possibilities to analyse all the major problems and to discuss the best possible solutions. We have this unprecedented level of technology that enables us to make almost everything happen almost everywhere. There is love and there will always be love. There is mutual care and there will always be mutual care. There is this desire for sincerity and justice and there will always be a desire for sincerity and justice. There is this longing to be able to trust other people, even those you don't know personally, and there will always be a longing to be able to trust other people. There is hope and there will always be hope.

But any effort to fruitfully work at that future, is pointless unless we realize that all our urges to gain wealth at the expense of other peoples' happiness, have actually become our own worst enemies, because our weapons have grown way above our heads. Their destructive powers break all records, which is of course the highly regrettable drawback of advancing technology. When the Second World War started, no-one could possibly foresee it would be concluded by two explosions of what were to be called 'atomic bombs'. In 2001, the world witnessed the destructive capacities of three passenger planes.

So in order to survive our urges to go to wars of conquest, we have to go to war against those urges - and conquer them. The nations shouldn't damage each other the 'hard' way (the Battles of the Somme, Operation Barbarossa, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dresden, Hiroshima, chemical warfare in Vietnam), and the nations shouldn't damage each other the 'soft' way, the subversive way (Britain and Holland smuggling opium into Asian countries, the Russians psyching-down the inhabitants of the occupied Baltic countries after 1940, the Western media pressure since the 1960s). We have to put an end to our damaging, before our damaging puts an end to us. It doesn't even take a religious conviction to arrive at that conclusion. It has merely become a matter of common sense. We simply can't afford to behave like predictable imbeciles any longer, so that goes for you too.

So, live and let live.
Be teacherous, not treacherous.
And don't enlist for the Silent World War.
In case there is any.

Long live the Jews, down with Torahism.




The United Kingdom will never become your Nehemian zoo.

End of address.




How about a spiritual war on Torahism, Mr President? I believe you have a decision to make. Either you're with America, or with the Torahists. You do know that the Statue of Liberty doesn't carry a Torah, do you?




Dear Mr Blair,

Firstly, my best wishes for your health. I am writing against the politician, not against the private man. Although, it isn't so much against the politician, as it is against the system that produces politicians like you. Had Mr Howard been in office, this letter wouldn't be much different. (When I was younger, I used to laugh at people talking about 'the system', and 'fighting the system', but I've stopped laughing.)

A foreign writer once praisingly described our people as a people that are accustomed to speak their minds candidly. That spirit is retreating for years now, but I am determined to help restore it, because of its vital importance. As a start, here are some questions I hope you will once answer:

Have you ever thought: 'After the fall of fascism, national-socialism and communism, the West is now being challenged by a hidden totalitarian ideology'?

Have you ever thought: 'The British people ended up at the victorious side after the three major conflicts of the 20th century, only to find themselves in a situation in which they can't even freely discuss the factors concerning the very existence of the British people'?

Have you ever thought: 'The old media are portraying the values of 1968 as superior to those that have prevailed since Bede the Venerable, but the likelihood is that the generation of 1968 is wrong, and not the very many generations before them'?

Have you ever thought: 'The Jewish influence in the Western media is overtly discussed in the Arab world. Why should we always assume that the Arabs are wrong? Because they are Arabs? Now, that would be a racist reaction, wouldn't it?'?

Have your ever thought: 'It can't be true that the British people have been deceived for more than three decades, but then again, the Soviet media deceived the Russian people over the blessings of communism for seven decades, and the Chinese media talked their huge people into believing that Mao Zedong was the greatest man alive for a long time, and we British are not smarter than the Russians and the Chinese'?

Needless to say I have.

The old media are in favour of the EU, globalizing capitalism and the multicultural society, and they are probably run by Torahists.
Prominent Jews are in favour of the EU, globalizing capitalism and the multicultural society, and they are probably Torahists.
You, our Prime Minister, are also in favour of the EU, globalizing capitalism and the multicultural society.

The old media are worrying about racism - but never about Mosaic racism.
Prominent Jews are worrying about racism - but never about Mosaic racism.
You are worrying about racism, but never about Mosaic racism either.

The BBC suggested war against Iraq was inevitable.
Prominent Jews wanted a war against Iraq.
You actually ordered British troops to fight in Iraq.

Are you aware of the similarities?
Do you have a comment on these similarities?
Is there something wrong with these questions?
If so, can you then please substantiate what's wrong about them?

In November 2003 you said: 'The great thing about democracy is that people can express their view'. Does that in your opinion include the view I am unfolding in 7.1.4?

According to the CIA factbook, there are 350,000 Jews living on our isles. Now, let's assume that 20% of them are Torahists. That would imply that 70,000 men and women, belonging to the world's most intelligent and best organized people, are busy confusing, dispossessing and slowly ruining Britain, that lost half a million lifes fighting Nazism and Japanese imperialism.

Please, can you tell us what your governments have been doing since 1997 to prevent them from harming the British people? In case you didn't know the Painful Passages, please can you tell us what your plans are, now you do know them? If tactical reasons obstruct you to speak openly about it, please, can you then weave the following sentence in one of your forthcoming speeches?

'My government is committed to protect the British people against every evil ideology, regardless of its origin'.

It's safe, it's a sentence that doesn't mention the words 'Jew' or 'Painful Passages'. But at least it will put the hearts of a number of my readers and me at rest, and the Torahists will immediately understand that you won't forsake your duty towards the British people.

If you are now thinking that your own ambitions have cornered you in a situation you can't get out of, then please leave No. 10 now. Making mistakes isn't something bad. Only persisting in them is. You can always make good use of your new insights by giving a resignation speech that will help direct this country to a better future.

If you, or your successor, don't do any of these things, it is obvious at whose side the old parties are standing.
In that case, we need a second Glorious Revolution.
A revolution without broken windows or fearful people, but a revolution nonetheless.
It can be done in a nice manner, you know.
The East Germans peacefully walked and talked the communists away.

Britons never never never ever ever will be anybody's slaves, Mr Blair.
Dieu et mon droit, and all that.

With regards,






I am not the right man to do the actual founding of the BCPP, for a reason I can't mention for the time being, I am sorry. It's not cowardice. In the course of January 2004, I will send the Prime Minister and BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies a diskette with this text, and my full name and address. I'll probably end up in jail for this. I haven't studied which laws I am now possibly violating.

So I have been mailing this text in the hope that it would come to your attention one day - and now it has. Now, other readers will be amazed to notice that I am taking it for granted that some people I don't know will once found a BCPP. What makes me feel so sure about it? That's because, although I can imagine a lot of things, I simply can't imagine that the story of the British people has now entered its final chapter. Today's wrongs are so obvious to me, and one can notice so much concern, incomprehension and indignation among the people, that I am convinced that a turn of tide for the better is nearing, hopefully in the course of this decade, and I am sure there are still some brave men and women around who will dedicate themselves to that cause.

Have a look at today's Britain, with its shortsighted rulers, living in a bubble together with their media and EU buddies, alienated from their own peoples.... When was the last time we've seen Mr Blair or one of his predecessors engaged in what you might truely call a free exchange of thoughts? Wasn't that the basis of a democracy? It's all 'soundbites'. We are only hearing 'soundbites', and we are only hearing media people saying this is the age of the 'soundbites' and politicians saying this is the age of the 'soundbites'. But Britain shouldn't be led by those who excel in 'soundbites' to massage the people, but by leaders who are connected with what this country is all about. And Britain is not about 'soundbites' and 'spin' and 'focus groups', copied from Mr Clinton's campaigns. Britain is not about Prime Ministers who after six years in office suddenly want to listen to our opinions, on filtered subjects only, undoubtedly. And Britain is not about fear. It has never been about fear. Britain, in my opinion, is about the appreciation and pursuit of honour, decency, common sense, clarity, loyalty, faith, courage, sincerity, inner nobility and neighbourly love. We are not a perfect people, but we've always known we must do our best to be a good people. Britain is about accepting the consequences of your own choices, not troubling other people with it. Britain is about people showing character in bad times, it's about fairness, it's about the search for the truth. Britain is about building, not destroying, because Christianity is about building, not destroying. And that Britain, covered by carloads of hypocrisy and idiocy nowadays, is not dead and it will never die and it will therefore once stand up again, and you and I and many others will have been helping there.


In the following I will my share my views on the modus operandi of the party to be. I hope you'll notice you know more about these matters than I do.

The gravity of the task laying ahead for the BCPP can hardly be overestimated. To free itself from the present confusion, Britain has to rediscover its own essence, and changing anti-fascist Britain into a Britain that isn't troubled by fascists or Torahists, will require nothing less than a historic effort. The opponents of the future BCPP will have everything going for them. The interests of agglomerated business, the present laws, international treaties and institutions, the old media, and millions and millions of well-meaning Britons who believe that the current order is OK. Millions of Britons will reject a party that must do its level best to get them out of the mess they are still not aware of themselves. The taboos, the psychological barriers the party has to level are enormous. The entire Western world will hold its breath while watching the party in action (if it ever reaches the public eye, that is). Governments all over Europe will (rightly) fear that a successful BCPP will ignite comparable initiatives in their own countries.

The Torahists, perhaps at the pinnacle of their influence after 3,500 years, will do everything to destroy the party. Everything. You and I can't think of something they won't be prepared to do, except for murder. (If a Torahist would kill a Christian-patriotic leader for giving his opinions, the public support for these opinions would only grow. It would only enhance and solidify the basis for his successor. So seen from the Torahist angle, the minor advantage of taking out a troublemaker will automatically and irreversibly turn into a major disadvantage. Murder can't kill words, ideas, courage, hope, or a Torahist's conscience.) But even if the party, once founded, never gets any substantial success, the Torahists will hate it because the party will have compelled them to show their true nature to the world. The party can only be oppressed by methods that will make many people realize that things aren't that 'free' and 'democratic' in Britain as today's opinion leaders want them to believe.

And because of all of these difficulties, the party will need to meet the highest of standards. So what kind of people are needed to build that party?

Upright people.

Diligent people.

People understanding the gravity of the task.

People who, when things come to a head, are prepared to efface themselves in the interest of the task, and who then don't walk to the old media to tell spiteful stories.

The pioneers.

The optimists.

The resilient.

An occasional good-natured bastard.

People understanding the necessity of ballots. Of keeping up pace. Of clear agreements on responsibilities.

People maintaining high standards in their contacts with each other. People allergic to gossiping, intriguing and pejorative language. People who'll always try to see and respect each other's strong qualities. Who put up with each other's weaker qualities or comment on it for positive reasons only. People with the self-disciplin not to sink to the same low levels some opponents will sink to. Their misbehaviour must remain their problem, not ours.

People with a strong personality, yes, but not with egos so big they can't properly co-operate.

People who can muster the greatness to frankly admit to their own mistakes, knowing that others can learn from that.

People who understand that impatience can spoil a lot. Just like prolonged hesitating and headstrong actions.

The BCPP will need people who will do what they are saying and who will say what they are doing.

These are the people you have to keep at a distance, I think. Those who underestimate the nature and the size of the problems. Those who haven't made it in the old parties for reasons they won't make it in the BCPP either. Those who will tell their friends in the old parties they will join you, to keep the BCPP from becoming 'too radical'. People who can't separate political standpoints from personal feelings. People who can't keep a conflict under control. People who don't stick to agreements. Everyone joining the BCPP must be absolutely trustworthy. People who will wrongly regard the BCPP as an organization in which they can play the role of a VIP. The BCPP will not need people who 'take' all the time, but people who 'give' all the time. Only with such fine people, the BCPP will be able to give itself to the country.

The organisation of the party has to be near-perfect. Let's study how the old parties were organised in their best days, when their voters still felt strongly connected with them. Let's study organisations that have survived many centuries, like the Church of England and the Catholic Church. These are really marvelous institutions, leaving aside their religious significance. And the organisation has to carry the party leaders, not the other way around. If some people are carrying the organisation, the party becomes vulnerable, as people might unexpectedly drop out. Because of personal misfortune, unbridgeable differences of opinion, inexcusable blunders. In spite of such unfortunate incidents the party organisation must remain intact and active. I don't know much about party organisation, but I feel it has to be something like a self-lubricating, self-repairing engine block.

Once the party has been founded, it has to set its own agenda and it has to stick to its own pace. The party must never ever decide something in a hurry. Party members should never give answers to tricky questions in a hurry. The party should always take one step at a time, and think through every step very carefully. For Britain's sake, the BCPP has to find a path through a political minefield, and the opposing forces will go at lengths to get the BCPP staggering.

The party must observe the highest of standards in its contacts with other people. In case party members do something wrong, the party itself must immediately tell that to the public at its own website, without any beating around the bush and without describing it in such a way that others might feel wrongly blamed. In case the party does something right, it should tell that also naturally, but without making tall stories about it. The party should make a website list of its successes and failures, so that during election time people can fairly judge the party's overall contribution.

The BCPP should participate in public discussions indefatigably, in its early years preferably on the internet. The internet will be our bridgehead. Patient persuasion is the key term.


The emotions, the anger of the opponents have to be met with a realistic degree of understanding. It can be very difficult, and sometimes it will be impossible, but the best way to treat opponents is to treat them as future allies. Most opponents mean well. (Even most Torahists mean well. The problem is they are clinging to the definition of 'well' by Moses.) In case BCPP members get entangled in incidents, we have to look into what has exactly happened before we give a comment. At our website, we'll describe the whole process, so that people don't get the impression we are trying to keep silent about such incidents. In case opponents accuse BCPP members of provocative actions, we'll have to neutrally look into that too. They may be right. It's as simple as that. In case some opponents are accusing the BCPP of provocations ten times a year, and time and again our own strict investigations show the accusations were false, the public will come to distrust those particular opponents in the long run, that's how these things work.

In our relation with the Jewish community, we must behave in such a way that the Torahist part will understand we will never deviate from our principle of non-violent resistance, and we must behave in such a way, that the non-Torahist part will feel inspired to talk their Torahist brothers out of their dark schemes. The non-Torahist Jews are not likely to go public with stories about their efforts, but that doesn't matter, they don't have to, although it would be very welcome if they did of course. It would drastically contribute to real progress in today's world. The predictable Torahist bluff, slandering, innuendo, name calling, have to be endured with dignity, patience, understanding and so on, to such an extent that the public don't come to think of us as masochists. Take care - Torahist propaganda will deliberately use very dangerous words to sow very dangerous ideas into peoples' heads, but we will always have our website to point this out, and the combination of foul instigations and our calm analysis of that will only make more people aware of what's really going on. In case BCPP members become the victims of violence, which Heaven forbids, we'll go to the police and keep track of the course of justice at our website meticulously.

In short, everything we do and don't do has to serve the purpose of convincing ever more people of the integrity of the BCPP and of the justness of its proposals. We will be gentlemen revolutionaries. We must always aim for the long-term success, we must accept that short-term defeats can't always be avoided, and that is something we may have to teach some of our own supporters sometimes.


If you are invited by TV makers, demand to appear in live studio broadcasts only, half an hour speaking time at least, make an agreement with the TV makers on the rules of the interview and publish that agreement at the BCPP website beforehand. Don't accept the presence of a studio audience, since they may harbour helpers of a malevolent interviewer to trick you. ('Now, let me introduce you to Mandy over here! Hi Mandy, how are you, love? Now, Mandy has an English mother and a Jamaican father. But if we understand you correctly, Mandy shouldn't even exist in your opinion, should she?!', demagogic things like that.) The BCPP has to draw people's attention to those long-term, large-scale developments that are ignored by the old order, and the party should avoid to get entangled in fruitless discussions about the choices of individuals, no offence intended of all real Mandy's and their English mothers and Jamaican fathers. The same goes for moral issues. I think the party should moralize, as a counterweight to the massive immoralizing in the old media, but the moralizing remarks should not go any further than 'we find that people in general should', 'it's good for man to etc.', and party members must not comment on the moral behaviour of any individual.

If TV interviewers approach you in the street and you don't feel like being interviewed, ask them why they are bothering you in your private life. They have the right to ask you some questions, but you have the right to refuse an interview, and they don't have the moral right to harass you, and you should say so before the camera. Just say in the camera you ought to be able to prepare yourself for an interview, since the BCPP is raising complicated and sensitive subjects. Say in the camera you are willing to make an appointment for a studio interview later on, if they ask it politely. They will perhaps go on filming you while you walk away, and the interviewer will walk along with you. This will make the impression as if you have something to hide, as if you are running away from something. It's just one of those television tricks. Tell the interviewer the public are getting a wrong impression of you now, and ask him if he and his colleagues are doing so on purpose. Describe the whole meeting with the TV team at your website afterwards. If they only broadcast a manipulated report of their conversation with you, the website visitors will know what really has been said.


Meet your nearby future. Distrust. Mockery. Hate. Scorning fools. Social isolation. Harassment and violence. You might lose your job, maybe lose your family, the pressure on your wife and children (if you have them) will be enormous too. (Perhaps, hopefully, a temporary separation will do.) You'll face prosecution because you are a modern heretic. There will be many times you'll feel terribly lonely. You might get compliments from those you don't want to be complimented by. On the spur of the moment, you might phrase something clumsily, and you'll be sad to notice that your remark has grown distrust in someone important to you. Things like that. You'll be a political equilibrist without a safety net and your chances of falling are big.

But you will endure it, because you are realizing what's going on, just like I am, and you can't stand it, just like I can't. This text was perhaps the final push you just needed.

You will endure it, because you don't wait for anyone's permission to do the things you find necessary, after you've went through a period of thorough self-examination into your own motives. This is what makes you a leader. Major political changes always start in the hearts and minds of a few, or even one man. Think of Gandhi for instance, a man for whom I feel much admiration.

You are not afraid to risk the big chances of failure, because you are trusting that some day a successor will come, who will add your experiences to his own ideas, so that your failure will enhance his chances of success.

You will endure your nearby future, because you are the sort of man who, standing in front of a mountain, can imagine the valley behind it, not to be unsettled by those around you who are complaining during the climb.

You will endure it, because the potential support for the BCPP is as formidable as the difficulties you have to surmount.

And if the BCPP succeeds in directing Britain to a better future, Britain may well be guiding the whole of Europe into a promising epoch that isn't threatened by any totalitarian ideology anymore - at last.


The internet is not the only place where the British people can resist the grievous wrongs of the old order. We have to become aware that the current psychological pressure is getting at us wherever we are, wherever we talk with other people. We have to become aware that by duplicating the words the old media are full of, we fall a victim to the wrong ideas. So what we have to do is to learn and master a new vocabulary, that will free us from our current defensive, underlying positions in whatever dialogue may arise. Some examples:

Suppose, in a conversation at his work, a party or a meeting at his children's school, a man says something 'politically incorrect' about non-whites. In today's Britain, someone is then bound to say: 'Are you a racist or something?' Now, chances are the first man will shrink into an apologetic stance and say: 'No, I am not a racist but....'

The better thing is to say something like: 'Realism is not racism and the racial differences are a reality. Haven't you heard of those two American scientists who proved that the human races vary in intelligence?....' - Man No. 2: 'You can prove anything with statistics and science' - Man No.1: 'You can prove everything with nonsense too, but I prefer the proofs of science. Besides, people working for multinationals can also tell you that races and peoples are different all over the world, just like our dads and granddads noticed when they were serving the British Empire, and just like we can witness for ourselves now in this country'

If the man says something like that, he'll rightly put the 'racism' accuser in a defensive position the latter won't get out of, simply because the truth can't be refuted. One of the venomous things about the word 'racism' is that it silently suggests that any recognition of racial differences can merely be based on hate, so we have to free ourselves from the pressure of that malicious suggestion.

Another artificial low-class word is 'xenophobia', literally: the manic fear of foreigners. A comparable expression in other European languages is to be translated as 'hate towards foreigners'. It's a disgraceful word. In ever more European residential areas the foreigners are beginning to outnumber the indigenous people. The old order however calls the latter 'xenophobic' to suppress their natural feelings of uneasiness. If someone copies the term 'xenophobia' in a conversation with us, we can reply to that by saying something like: 'Most people want to live in a group which they feel familiar with. There is nothing wrong with that. It's an innocent desire. There is only something wrong with the efforts of media and politicians to smudge that desire.'

To those who try to silence us by yelling 'racism' and 'discrimination', we can say: 'We don't accept that any minority wants to decide for us that our people have to be mixed away, for whatever strange ideal, or any other European people for that matter. As if you should apologise for it, if you want the British people to continue to exist! How did things ever get this far? It's an outrage.'

If someone steps forward and says: 'I am anti-fascist', we can say: 'We are even doing better than that, we are anti-totalitarian. We believe that the bullets of the far left are as deadly as the bullets of the far right. We are anti-fascist, anti-Nazi, anti-communist, anti-any minority that wants to rule us dictatorially. Why don't you call yourself anti-totalitarian?'

If Jewry, the Painful Passages and anti-Semitism are brought up, and someone says: 'I am a Jew', we can say: 'That's good for you. Are you in sympathy with the Torahists or with their victims?'

If someone calls us 'anti-Semitic', we can say: 'No, we are not. We are just saying "Long live the Jews, down with Torahism", because Torahism is the "ism" of that peculiar part of Jewry that feels it must confuse, dispossess and slowly ruin all non-Jews.'

If someone says: 'You are old-fashioned', we can say: 'Why did some fashions become old and why did other fashions totally disappear? Apparently, there are a limited number of fashions with a timeless merit for human stability and happiness.'

If someone reproaches us with having 'prejudices', we can answer: 'Over the years we and earlier generations have learnt that certain groups of people have certain pecularities. Why should we ignore our own collective experiences?'

If a person says: 'The world belongs to everybody, we are global citizens', a possible reaction is: 'Who are you to decide this for the whole of Britain? There has never been a national vote in which we deliberately gave up Britain as being the country of our people. The foreigners have two countries now, but Britain is the only country we've got and it is diminishing under our feet. If the foreigners want economic wealth, let them study the ways we acquired ours and work hard for it in their own countries, with our help if necessary, instead of slandering us for our colonial past all the time. They are far from being perfect themselves.'

If we meet people who despondently say: 'Britain has gone down the drain already, it is too late to do something about it', we can say: 'Yes, there is a crisis, but let's regard it as a temporary crisis. We have had bad times before, yet we've always managed to flourish again.'

All in all, we British need to become people with an attitude again, in the pleasant moderate sense of the word. Self-confident people. But please note, we have to go about this with much care and respect for other people's integrity and opinions. We can't blame many of our countrymen, especially the younger generations, for using the words the old media have been hurling into our living-rooms for decades. And if we get involved in a hefty discussion, let's show some understanding for other peoples' emotions, since these are all very sensitive subjects, and when feelings run high, let's simply stop debating. That's really the best thing we can do. Quarrels will only work against us.

And finally, let's never blame one particular Briton or one particular Jew or one particular foreigner for today's problems. The mess we're now in is the result of bad laws that have been passed by British MPs. These laws haven't been written by the foreigners. These laws haven't been passed by the Sikh policeman giving us a speed ticket. The man is doing his job. These laws have been passed by people we've voted for, let's not forget that. These politicians ill-informed and intimidated us, yes, but we, in our passivity, have permitted them to do so far too long.



I am a working-class man with grammar school. After getting my diploma, I've been in an array of jobs and studies for ten years in which I found no peace of mind. All that changed in 1986, when I read a book of David Ogilvy on advertising. This is the world I want to work in, I then thought. I pushed my way through into an advertising agency where I became a copywriter, and I started to make something that looked like a career. Three raises within half a year in my first job, a lease car, a prize, fun with the colleagues, the discovery I had a talent and other peoples' recognition and appreciation of that talent. In 1992 I began working for my own account as a freelancer. Copywriting is up-imaging products without believing they're great yourself. So one might say I've been a professional liar, a professional cheat for many years (by which I don't want to offend the people I have worked with in that period). My conscience never bothered me much, I have to admit. I used to think: 'OK, I am trying to manipulate the public, but people know it is just advertising.'

Now, I have always had a keen interest in politics and I have always felt an inner aversion to the direction in which society was moving. Yet, I always assumed that one day, someone would step forward saying all the things that need to be said to usher in a better era. When a magazine or a newspaper printed an interview with someone who had started a new political party, I was very eager to find out what he or she had to say. They always disappointed me though. They always made me think: 'What you are saying is just beside the point.' Now, making a nice annual income by working about 15 hours a week, I had a lot of spare time to think. And as years went by, I more and more came to think of my materialist work as useless, meaningless. And in 1999 I was so fed up with the current establishment, I undertook my first political actvity I hope to tell you more about in the future, and I've incorporated everything I learnt from that experience and everything I read and understood afterwards, in this text. I have never had any personal problems with Jews or foreigners, by the way. I've never worked for a television company or a newspaper, so I've not been betraying tricks of the trade above.

There are times I feel unworthy of the initiative I am trying to launch. Mine has been a life that doesn't quite remind one of saints. I despise the pig in me that has 'enjoyed' itself with prostitutes, pornography and roulette. The first two are secrets of my indoor world. If this text becomes the success I am hoping for, my success will become my punishment too. Furthermore, I once declared my love to a girlfriend of my wife's. I am a divorced man.

So why then open my big mouth by writing and spreading this, while my personal life is making me so vulnerable for the sort of attacks I maybe can't handle at all? Why taking the risk that my loved ones, especially my two young children, will be troubled by riffraff? My two children who can't help it that their father is crazy enough to think he can change the world? I am a shy man, I easily sweat when I feel cornered, I am suffering from panic attacks occasionally. I sometimes wake up at night, struck by the terrifying thought how some things I have written, can easily be misconstrued. I have the feeling a million other people would do a better job. So why not keep quiet, like so many others do? It's simply because I am seeing what's going on, and I can not not resist it. No typing error that. I can not not fight it. I've tried to ignore it, to shut my eyes for it, but I couldn't. I have to resist it. Why are people causing each other so much trouble? I can't really understand it, and I've always felt it doesn't have to be like this.

So I don't consider myself the right man for this task, I think of myself as a candidate-Christian only, and I can understand many people will never put their trust in me, for all the awkward things that I have told about myself, but things must change, they really must change, yet they won't change out of their own, so someone has to give the kick-off, but nobody else does, so I am doing it for lack of someone better, and that's exactly how I feel about it. And I am well aware that according to today's standards, I am a misogynic, xenophobic, homophobic, hateful, far right, narrow-minded, short-sighted, anti-Semitic, fascist, racist reactionary, but since I am pretty sure I don't hate anyone, I believe that there is nothing wrong with my views, but with today's standards.

And now I have to ask you to prepare yourself for a strange twist in my story, given the many times I've preached about 'honesty' and 'sincerity' thus far. Am I totally honest to you myself? No, I am afraid I'm not. Irony has it that in order to warn you of deceit, I am trying to deceive you over one thing, although you presumably already noticed what it is about. I hope the day will come I can explain why I felt forced to do so, and that you, my readers, will accept my apologies. The important thing is: it is not a lie to do anyone any harm.

Back to the truth. I've tried to get in contact with Jews over the Mosaic doctrine before, but in vain. From November 2001 to March 2002, I participated in the discussions on the website of, an organization calling itself anti-fascist and anti-racist. Under the pseudonym 'Harmonist' I sent in several mails. In one of them, I quoted a number of the Painful Passages. In the following I'll duplicate some other posts I published on that website. This was the first one:


The Torah is a threat to the Jews too

Sun Nov 18 13:58:45 2001

Shalom, peace, to all Jewish readers:

What if the Jews found out that the elite of some non-Jewish nation, the Swej, cherished five holy books, called the Harot? And that the chapters Sudoxe and Ymonoreteud of that Harot contained the following passages: 'I, Hewhay, the Lord your God, will confuse for your sake every Jewish community you'll be in touch with. You will lend money to the Jews, but shall not accept their loans, so in the end you will reign over the Jews. If you think 'how can we dispossess these mighty Jews', remember that I, Hewhay, the Lord your God, also managed to get you out of Tpyge. And if these Jews are not prepared to serve you, they will be utterly ruined'?

Won't you be appalled?
Won't you say: 'We must monitor these Swej very carefully'?
Won't you become an anti-Harotist?
Of course you would and rightly so.
You would have every right to defend yourselves against the physical and psychological aggression of the Swej.
In fact, I would be on your side.
Let's talk.

Kind regards,



No Jew replied, but someone called 'English Bloke' suspected 'sinister motives' on my part. My reaction:

The Torah is a book and Jews are my fellow men

Mon Nov 26 11:06:33 2001

1. You are neglecting my question about the Swej, so you probably have difficulty answering it. Yet, the answer is quite obvious for all civilised men, to whom I reckon you, because I always start trusting other people, although I am getting used to the fact that many try to put me in suspect categories, as you did in your post.

2. I am trying to argue that in the final analysis, the Torah is a source of wrong ideas. Sure, the Torah has its merits. The Ten Commandments for instance were an major step forward in the development of men as beings with a moral conscience. But those who teach the Torah to new generations of Jews, teach them it is okay to confuse the goyim, the non-Jews, and it is okay to enslave them economically by lending money to non-Jewish nations. The observation that this is wrong, does not make me an anti-Semite. Why should I hate Jewish (and Arab) babies? The minds of Jewish babies are just as clean, innocent and unprejudiced as mine was when I was born. I object to the ideas a part of the Jewish children is indoctrinated with. So I am fighting ideas, not my fellow men and women.

3. Why, if you worry about other people's 'sinister motives', do you start questioning my motives? You can't read my thoughts, can you? Why don't you worry about the sinister motives, as exposed in the bible books Exodus and Deuteronomy? You can read, can't you? If you want to worry, start worrying at the right place.

4. It is true that anti-Jewish feelings have once been cultivated by a state and it is a grim reality that Hitler's and Himmler's orders led to the mass murdering of European Jews, disregarding their way of life or political views, and I believe it is everyone's duty to prevent the comeback of these horrors.

Kind regards,



'English Bloke' opposed all forms of capitalism and denounced Christianity as 'hypocritical'. My reaction:

The better idea

Tue Feb 5 11:05:51 2002

Dear English Bloke,

I disagree with your conclusion that capitalism can only exist in the negative shape you describe. In current times, as aggressive megacapitalism sweeps over the earth, you seem to be right. I oppose it as much as you do.

But I believe in the possiblity of changing people's minds, changing attitudes in life and since there has been (and in many places still are) milder forms of capitalism, I don't rule out the possibility of a benign form of capitalism.

You simply ignore the fact that an employer can be a person who cares about his employees and who is interested in making durable products that are useful in people's lifes.

So we must battle the supergreedy spirit in which the wrong kind of capitalists fill our department stores with carloads of muck, exhausting the resources of the earth, squeezing out all the energy and creativity of their employees at the expense of their family lifes.

The key difference between the Torah-Jews and Christ is this. The Torah urges the Jews to obey the Ten Commandments, because these promote a moderate, respectful life style that will make Jewish society prosper. But at the same time, the Torah incites them not to share this wisdom with other peoples. On the contrary, the other nations are there to be confused, dispossessed and destroyed, be it fast or slowly. (I want to make it perfectly clear that I don't blame one single living Jew for the existence of the Torah.)

Christ says: 'No, we Jews must not keep the wisdom of life for ourselves, the other peoples are reflections of God too, let's honour our common Maker by setting a good example for all the nations.'

You are writing: 'I find any religion which uses another's in its fundamental doctrine but at the same time criticising it entirely to be hypocritical.'

Indeed, Christianity uses the Ten Commandments as a basis, but adds the respect for other nations, condemns cheating and materialism and even promotes self-sacrifice for the good of all ('love your enemy'). I don't see any hypocrisy in that.

Do you resent hypocrisy? Read the New Testament and you may be astonished by the discovery that your indignation with hypocrisy is the same as Christ's indignation. Indeed, rulers, company executives and even church leaders have said 'love thy neighbour', but didn't act accordingly. But their hypocrisy cannot deflourish the beauty of the Christian message. Church leaders ought to be the compasses directing towards the North Pole of Christ's wisdom and love. So if they fail, let's blame the faulty compasses, not the North Pole.

The Old Testament is partly wrong, Christ wants to share the good part of the Old Testament with the entire world, because he wants the whole of mankind to prosper, so He is right. He has the better idea.

Kind regards,



Someone called 'Flemish Skin' uttered some extremist views. My reaction:

Hate will bring the white nations nowhere

Thu Jan 10 11:25:49 2002

Dear Flemish Skin,

I can understand your anger, without approving all your words. It is true, the Belgian and other European peoples have got mass immigration imposed upon them since the 1960s, without their governments ever asking or consulting them about it.

Instead, all those who made justified objections, were and still are made suspicious by the old media, and whites who happen to use the wrong words for their complaints, are dragged into the courtroom right away. Both the European states and the European media are waging a psychological war against their own peoples.

In this undemocratic climate it is understandable that people like you, loving their country, tend to support extremist political points of view. But you must understand that extremism, based on hate, will lead you nowhere. We Europeans have had our share with fascism and Nazism in the previous century and we must realize that these forms of extremism are a door we must never enter again.

Not with violence, but with the weapons of the mind, with an appeal to reason and justice, we must and can resist the forthcoming Eurocide, the soft killing of the European nations by ethnic mixing and decreasing birth rates. If handled with care and sincerity, internet offers us a perfect platform for our resistance.

Please keep cool. Be strong. Don't allow hate to take the better of you. And start reading a lot. Read fifty or more books on politics, history and biographies of leaders, then read the Torah (= the first five books of the Old Testament), then the New Testament, especially Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and chances are you'll understand what to do. (Please read my other posts.)

Very important: don't hate the Jews either. Every Jewish family in Europe, Israel or America have been hit hard by the Holocaust. Imagine it had been your father or grandmother or aunt who was deported and murdered.... You will accomplish nothing if you don't have any feeling for the Jews, their losses, their pain and their fears. So don't spread talk about 'governments obeying the Jews', unless you have solid proof for it.

Don't insult the negroes, the Moroccans and other non-white peoples either. It is not your personal merit you have been born as a white. All people, no matter what their race or ethnicity is, are reflections of One and the Same, and we owe it to Him that we make each other's lifes as bearable as possible, since no-one asked to be born.

Kind regards,



According to Flemish Skin however, hate was something natural. My reaction:

Don't hide behind 'nature'

Thu Jan 17 12:52:32 2002

Why do you try to justify your hatred by referring to 'nature'? Mankind has a choice, animals don't. We can choose to defend our territory and our peoples in a non-violent way without hating our enemies. Killing your enemy is just a phoney victory. True victory is changing his mind.

Kind regards,



Some neo-Nazis also sent in their views, claiming that Hitler was right. My reaction:

No, Hitler was wrong then, you and Pierce are wrong now

Mon Feb 25 13:19:51 2002

Although it is true that post-war history is always being written by the conquerors, so that we lack an unbiased review on the Third Reich, and although it is true that Hitler was able to boost German economy against all predictions, and gave hope, work, social welfare and, not the least important, respect at millions of workers, farmers and their families, the balance of his contribution to mankind tips over to the negative side clearly and irrevocably.

Hitler was wrong in degrading a culturally refined nation to a totalitarian dictatorship in which only the opinions and caprices of one man mattered.

Hitler was wrong in his assumption that he was so infallibly right about everything, that he saw no problem in maintaining his regime by intimidating, police spying and violence.

Hitler was dead wrong in declaring war on the world's biggest nations within half a year, while the war against Britain wasn't over yet. On 22nd June 1941 the Wehrmacht invaded Soviet-Russia, the largest country of the world. On 11th December 1941, four days after Japan raided Pearl Harbor, he declared war on the United States, the biggest industrial nation on earth. By doing so, Hitler astonished his own Foreign Office, because he had no obligation as an ally to do so. Japan wasn't attacked, it had been the aggressor itself.

Hitler was wrong in pursuing the war after February 1943, although he himself had declared that the battle for Stalingrad was decisive. He was wrong in continuing the war after July 1943, when the Kursk offensive, set up as an all-out effort to regain the initiative at the Eastern Front, failed. He was wrong in continuing after the summer of 1944, when the Anglo-American forces succeeded in breaking through in Normandy and when the Russian armies annihilated his Army Group Centre within a few weeks.

He was criminally wrong in not surrendering after January 1945, when the Ardennes offensive turned out to be a failure and he himself said to his incrowd that the war was lost.

He was criminally wrong in labelling all Jews as 'destructive bacteriae' and 'genetical parasites' (just like American neo-Nazi Pierce is writing now) and Germany was wrong in giving this maniac full dictatorial powers, leading to one of the gravest crimes in the history of mankind.

He was criminally wrong in waging a 'war of annihilation' against the Russian people.

By all his wrongs, he has burdened Germany with a tremendous, paralysing feeling of guilt, which, it is difficult to write down and to accept, is being amplified and abused by the malevolent and revengeful among prominent Jews nowadays.

NSDAP Finland wrote: "Hitler was right, when he gave the world a vision of a nobler world."

In the concentration camps, the Nazi doctors carried out experiments on children. One of these experiments was breaking the child's arm, then curing it. When the arm was OK, they broke it again, then cured it. When the bone was mended again, they broke it again, and so on, just out of curiosity how often this could be repeated until the arm wouldn't heal anymore.

So much for Hitler's "nobility".



So I sent the aforementioned posts to, hoping that a or some Jews would react. But on 15th November 2001, I also tried to start a dialogue with a Jewish website directly. I randomly picked I can remember I was quite nervous when I started to type my e-mail. Here I sat, with all my feelings about Jewry, wondering how the other side might react, and I have no difficulty admitting that, even though I used a pseudonym, I felt afraid when I pushed the mouse button to mail my 'Swej' questions to them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- replied:

Hi Harmonist,

Every ethnicity has founding myths; we do not judge the Greeks by the excesses of the Greek gods. Secular Jews, the vast majority of Jews, see biblical tales as just that, and only that. Even most religious Jews do not see every word in the Torah as literal, and certainly not as a model for current living (the Talmud is slightly more instructive here). This is in contrast to Islam, where every word of the Koran is literal and instructive on pain of death. Also - correct me if I am wrong - but don't you and your group read the 'fpmak niem' as literal and instructive?



I then wrote to

Dear Stav,

Regretfully you are assuming I am a member of a neo-Nazi group. I can understand that reflex, I guess your inbox receives a lot of Nazi junk daily, but I have to correct you, for you are wrong indeed: I am not a Nazi.

But why did you feel attacked by me right away? What's the use of inviting people to contact, if you are not willing to discuss things on a basis of benevolence and trust? Have I insulted any Jew in my first e-mail in any way?

I believe in God and I believe all humans are reflections of him. We are all a part of what He is and we should honour Him who gave us life, by making each other's life as bearable as possible, as we were all born unasked for. It is in that spirit I want to live, I want to think and I want to discuss things with my fellow men, even if I am insulted by the ignorant and the prejudiced sometimes.

I leave it up to you if you wish to discuss this any further.

Kind regards,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- didn't reply.


In December 2001 I wrote to

Dear Stav,

Some weeks ago I wrote I'd leave it to you whether or not to discuss Torah matters with me. Unfortunately you keep silent. It is a pity. Yet, I want to add something.

In your e-mail you wrote that the excesses of the gods of the Greek mythology give us no reason to distrust modern Greek, and in the analogy, Yahweh-inspired excesses can't be a reason for non-Jews to blame modern-time Jews.

At first sight, the comparison looks plausible. But the key difference is that no modern Greek teaches new generations of Greek that the ancient gods are still to be worshipped, whereas a part of Jewry does exactly that with their youths.

Although I think you are right when you say they are a minority, the Torah-Jews are still teaching their children that Yahweh is the only God, and the Torah-Jews are living all over the world. So the Greek gods became extinct, but the worship for Yahweh is a reality in the world of 2001.

Now, I guess that the man who is answering questions asked at must be an intelligent person, so I gather that you were well aware of the aforementioned before my explanation. Am I right? If so, here is a question I hope you will ask yourself. If you bring in the Greek gods when people are asking you about the wrathful and Jews-preferring Yahweh, how do you justify for yourself you are trying to cheat these people? Or did I really tell you something new in this e-mail?

You don't have to answer me, I expect you will not, but I hope you'll give yourself a straight answer, because it is the content of all our hearts combined that shapes the world.

Kind regards,



Again, no reply.


The silence of annoyed me. I felt insulted and I felt disappointed, because they had reacted in a way one almost could have foreseen. But above all, Stav's reaction contained an important confirmation. I decided to publish my e-mails to and their single reaction on the website of After doing that, I sent this e-mail to

9th January 2002

Dear Stav,

This is to inform you that I have published our e-mails on the anti-fascist and anti-racist website, discussion section. I admit it was not polite of me to do this without asking your permission first; my apologies for that. Yet, I did it in the hope that one day, our minds will meet and understand.

Kind regards,


I also informed the Antifa visitors I sent the e-mail. kept silent.


Maybe it is a good idea to send my Swej-questions to more Jewish organizations, I then thought, and recognising I had perhaps come to somewhat bluntly, I wrote an introduction to my questions, in order to make my position perfectly clear:

(begin of message)

Shalom, peace, to all Jewish readers.

I have some important questions to ask you, but first, I want to tell you something about my points of view on Israel and the Jews.

a) I wholeheartedly endorse the existence of the State of Israel. I believe all nations are entitled to live happy in their own country, so the Hebrew nation has the same right. (I also endorse the Palestinian longing for their own state, I don't support the settlement policy and I think Israeli governments have done many wrongs, but these are other discussions.)

b) In all their dialogues with the Jews, the European nations in particular have to understand that the Holocaust, ordered by the Haman from Austria, has inflicted terrible losses upon the Jewish nation, and that therefore the Jews, most understandably, will monitor and fight any revival of Nazism and I believe that all civilised men ought to support them in that struggle.

But now my questions:

What if the Jews found out that the elite of some non-Jewish nation, the Swej, cherished five holy books, called the Harot? And that the chapters Sudoxe and Ymonoreteud of that Harot contained the following passages: 'I, Hewhay, the Lord your God, will confuse for your sake every Jewish community you'll be in touch with. You will lend money to the Jews, but shall not accept their loans, so in the end you will reign over the Jews. If you think 'how can we dispossess these mighty Jews', remember that I, Hewhay, the Lord your God, also managed to get you out of Tpyge. And if these Jews are not prepared to serve you, they will be utterly ruined'?

Won't you be appalled? Won't you say: 'We must monitor these Swej very carefully'? Won't you become an anti-Harotist? Of course you would and rightly so. You would have every right to defend yourselves against the physical and psychological aggression of the Swej. In fact, I would be on your side.

In November 2001 I've put this 'Swej' subject as a topic on the worldwide antifascist website, discussion section.

Let's talk over there.

Kind regards,


(end of message)

In January 2002, I published this message on the internet 'guest book' of the federal organization of Jewish students in Germany, Furthermore, I mailed the same message in February 2002 to four other Jewish organizations in Europe, namely:

In Sweden: to Anglagard, which organizes leadership seminars for the Jewish youth in Sweden.

In Hungary; to the PR officer of the Lauder Javne Jewish Community School.

In Italy: to the 'Jews of Italy'. (URL not valid anymore)

And finally, in Britain: to the Union of Jewish Students of Great Britain and Ireland. ( at the time)

I informed the Antifa visitors about my sending these e-mails. I also published the following posts on


How a Jewish propagandist admitted the danger of the Torah

Thu Feb 14 13:38:34 2002

If you read's only reaction to me carefully, you'll see that even their man Stav, who insulted me for no reason and who is silent for weeks now, admitted that a part of the Jews take the Torah literally. He is not the only one. On the Israel-based website of the World Union of Jewish Students, I read: "The Torah needs every letter, and Israel needs every Jew". (

So there are Jews who really believe that the Torah cannot do without the letters c, o, n, f, u, s, i, n and g; it cannot do without the letters d, i, s, p, o, s, s, e, s, s, i, n and g; and finally, that their holiest book can't do without the letters d, e, s, t, r, o, y, i, n and g. claim they are a minority. Don't mention a percentage though.



None of the Jewish organizations sent a reaction to, or to my Harmonist e-mail address. I therefore wrote:

7th March 2002

Look how I walked along a wall of silence

From November 2001 onwards I have tried to initiate a dialogue about the Torah with several Jewish organizations, but in vain. The Jewish school in Hungary, the Swedish-Jewish training centre, the British-Jewish students, the Jewish students in Germany, the Italian Jews,, none of them responds.

What might be the nature of their silence?

Is it the silence of confused people, not knowing how to react?
Is it the silence of misconducting people, embarrassedly caught in the act?
Is it the Torah-Jewish routine to ignore all those who criticise their "Yahweh"?
Is it mere arrogance?
Is it fear?
Is it contempt for non-Jews? No, that can't be it, for they don't know whether I am a Jew myself or not.

But it is not me who has to reflect on this Jewish silence actually. It is up to themselves.

What fascinates and worries me, is how a book can have so much influence on its worshippers, generation after generation, that it is able to divide people, who were born even 3,500 years after its publication, so profoundly.

Many of them won't like to realize it, but this is one of the things which the reading Torah-Jews and I have in common: when we were born, we hadn't got an inkling we were put in a world that has a Torah and we hadn't got the faintest idea that one day, that book would originate a huge mental gap between 'I/we' and 'he/they'. These thoughts and ideas came up only later, when we grew up.

I hope and expect that that gap will be crossed one day. I know it sounds odd, but on that day, the Torah-Jews will understand that the Torah is essentially an anti-Semitic book, for it brings not only the non-Jews, but the Jews too, both secular and Torah-Jews, into deep trouble time and again. Why shouldn't the World Jewish Congress propose to revise the Torah in order to delete the nation-hostile passages?

Kind regards,



A tribute to a peaceful Jew in our time

Thu Feb 14 13:51:26 2002

New York rabbi Michael Lerner founded and leads the Jewish Renewal Movement in America. I once read an interview with him in a Jewish magazine. He said: 'Many Jews are ethically blind and insensitive to the fate of non-Jews. That troubles many young American Jews. They feel torn apart. At home and in the synagogue, they are brainwashed with a Jewish-chauvinist and even hostile attitude towards the people among which they live. On the other hand, these Jewish students notice that the outside world is full of media and politicians denouncing racism and discrimination. This leads to many young Jews abandoning their faith. I am in favour of a renewal of our relations with the Gentiles. We Jews must put an end to pointing at the Holocaust all the time and we must make a fresh start. We Jews are the sons of Jacob, the non-Jews are the sons of Esaw and we must reconcile in the interest of our common future.'

I find men like rabbi Michael Lerner most inspiring. He has a fine name, because 'Lerner' resembles 'lernen', the German-Yiddish word for 'to learn'. I think we can all learn from him. I am not pleading for forgetting the past, the Holocaust shouldn't ever be forgotten, but true human progress lies in the acknowledgement that the dead can't rule over the living, and that every day is the first day of the future of all mankind. In our times, which are full of cynicism and physical and psychological violence, that sounds soft and sentimental, but I think it is the only way out.

Kind regards,



Then, the webmasters of carried out some nasty alterations in the site, and I sent the following e-mail to them in April 2002:

Dear Sirs,

The Torah is a 3,500-year-old source of racism and fascism. It is a book that tries to indoctrinate its Jewish worshippers with the malignant and hostile idea that all the other peoples only exist in order to serve the Jews. From November 2001 to March 2002, I have fought the ideas originated by the Torah at the discussion site of

While doing so, I didn't insult anyone. I paid my respect to the victims and the survivors of the Holocaust. I denounced Nazism elaborately. I went into serious debate with other visitors. I didn't talk about the Jews behind their backs, but invited them to join the debate instead.

Then, you moved my posts dealing with the Torah to a second page and installed a 'next page' button on the first one. A few days later, you deleted that button, deleting my texts with it. Then, you installed a new 'forum', deleting everybody's former texts. Now you have even closed the forum.

Why did you do these things? And what do you think you will achieve by it?

Kind regards, Harmonist didn't answer.



I'll also mail this text to The Times, The Guardian and The Independent in January 2004. In the same month, I'll publish this text on I am prepared to enter any serious debate in due time. I know and accept I have a lot of explaining to do. Now, if this text gets publicly known, several reactions can be expected:


The old media might describe my text as a surprising stimulus in the debate on the relation between themselves and the public. They will interview me, they will publish my observation that Torahism is the only totalitarian ideology that is never publicly condemned, they'll ask politicians how they feel about it, the newspapers will print lengthy investigative articles on the issue, and perhaps some journalists will even praise me for my alertness.


A number of Jews might react in the conciliatory spirit of rabbi Lerner and, in this country, rabbi John Rayner, who once denounced the Book of Esther as anti-Goy.


A number of Jews might react like this: 'Ah, we Jews have seen this so many times before. The world is changing fast, politics has trouble solving some major problems, people feel insecure and then, we are blamed for it. It's the eternal anti-Semite, now disguising himself as a 'Christian-patriot', a word that much resembles 'national-socialist' by the way. The common denominators are 'long live our nation' and 'ideology of solidarity'. And isn't it strange that a man who is worrying about conspiracies so much, never mentions the very un-candid secretive operations of Opus Dei and the Jesuites?

The racist anti-Semite, or anti-Semitic racist if you like, can't understand why the Jews, bullied, humiliated, persecuted and gassed, show solidarity with the blacks, who have been bullied, humiliated and lynched. The anti-Semite doesn't want to understand that Israel is overreacting sometimes, because it was founded by those who survived the death camps, and their descendants are not sure nowadays if they will survive their next bus trip or a visit to the disco.

We Jews have suffered from anti-Semitism so many times and the 'funny' thing is, most of the time the anti-Semites have always been making up new words for it. The Catholic Church called it anti-Judaism, and the Nazis were against what they called plutocracy and Judeo-Bolshevism, and the Arabs are calling it anti-Zionism, like the Marxist students of the 60s and 70s used to, and some left-wing protesters are now calling it anti-globalization, and this pathetic monomaniac now tries to coin a new phrase: anti-Torahism. And why are the old and the new anti-Semites constantly making up new names for it? Because deep down in their sore hearts, they know they are haters and they know it is wrong to hate. And because they know it is wrong to hate, they simply deny it is hate, except for the Nazis. They don't hate the Jews, come on! They are only protesting for the sake of the Palestinians! They are only defending the Christian faith! They are only disapproving of Sharon's policies! They are only defending Europe! They know there are millions of nice Jews, sure! This one too, he is quoting this nice Jew and that nice Jew and yet another nice Jew. In fact, this anti-Semite goes about it particularly clever. Because, by saying he is still struggling with 'a residue of anti-Semitism', this poor victim of a Nazi father, he is creating an escape route that will serve him well in case he lets his tongue run away with him in a debate or an interview. He can then apologise: 'Oh my goodness, did I really say that? It must have been my residue churning up again, I am so sorry!' Yet, he and others may pop up with as many euphemisms for it as they can, it was, it is and it will always be the same squalor: anti-Semitism. No offence intended, of course.'


People might state things like this: 'The mind of the fascist is full of war. His thoughts are thought in the vocabulary of war. Offensive. Destruction. Mental fortress. Devastating blow. Annihilate. Decisive battle. In the mind of the fascist at least one war must be going on somewhere, because he is always at war with his own inner troubles.

This fascist is making a nauseating exhibition of his, and he has now discovered a new war all on his own! He is seeing the wars everybody is seeing - that is, if I am still allowed to use the word 'everybody'! - and he is even seeing a war no-one else is seeing. So we had the First World War, and the Second World War, and the Cold War and the Gulf Wars and the Media Wars and the Cola War, and he is now bravely warning the Aryan race of the 'Silent World War'! Never heard of it before? How could you, it is silent! And because of all these wars raging on in the fascist's mind, he can neither see nor hear people who are just trying to realize their ideals, to fulfil their hopes. He has neither eyes nor ears for politicians simply doing the best they can, doing a fine job here, making a mistake there. No no, they are all plotters and pawns in his Silent World War! The problem with paranoiacs is that the moment you tell them they should see a psychiatrist, they'll think you're up to something. The Jewish conspiracy exists, because the word 'conspiracy' exists! Don't you see?!

The fascist is easily impressed by magnitude and he likes to impress others by magnitude. He needs magnitude to compensate for the depressing desolation and emptiness of his views. Hitler wanted to impress the world by his mass rallies in Nuremberg, Speer wanted to impress the world by architectonic pomp and this fascist is obsessed with verbal grandiosity. 'Millions and millions of British living-rooms'. 'Millions and millions of tons of solid rock'. 'Billions of driplets of cooling lava.' '5,000 times a billion times a billion stars.' And so on and so forth. The post-war fascist knows he can't seduce the people by the vulgar propaganda of Goebbels and Streicher anymore, so he has to 'up-image' himself by posing as a reasonable, civilised and peaceful man. Yet, he'll always leave some clues which betray his true mustard-brown inner self. The problem however is that he and the likes of him might appeal to quite a lot of disappointed voters again.'


They might use television to demonize me and the BCPP, if it's ever to be founded. They might show black British girls, weeping together with their white girlfriends, the latter saying they feel ashamed being British and white, since that party of criminal lunatics wants to send their best friends away. 'Why doesn't somebody stop them?!' They might interview indignant Christian authorities, saying they can't think of a more shameless, more confusing blasphemy than crypto-Nazism camouflaging itself as Christianity. They might show a reporter, standing in the middle of the slums of a Third World country, who will zoom in on the open sewer in the streets, and on a crying mother, wringing her hands, saying she doesn't know where to get some food for her children tomorrow, and the reporter will then look into the camera and say: 'Remarkable concepts of Christianity they're cherishing in the BCPP, for this is the poor country they want to repatriate thousands of people to who weren't even born here in the first place!'


In the future, they might broadcast a spot like this:

(Close up of an old man's face) This Richard is talking about the Second World War a lot....

(Close up of some military distinctions in his hands) ....but I have fought in it.

(Close up of a wartime photo of a laughing soldier) That is Joe, the friend I lost in Tobruk....

(Close up of a tear in his eye's corner)

(Images of him reading the paper, shaking his head) Now, there are times I really don't understand what they are up to, in Westminster....

(Close up of his face, looking resolved) ....but I didn't serve my country to see it changing into a police state that will deport my friend. (He relaxes, looks aside.) Shall we have another beer, Glenn?

(Close up of Glenn, a negro, smiling) I'd like that, Arthur.

(Images of Arthur and Glenn, opening the beer cans, toasting)

(Close up of Glenn, contemplating) Well, perhaps that remigration thing isn't such a bad idea after all....

(Arthur's face, very amazed)

(Glenn, with a big smile) I can hardly wait to see that BCPP remigrating to the gutter where they belong.

They both laugh.

(No offence intended of the families and mates of the real Joes who were killed in action in Tobruk.)


The old media might propagandistically misuse Jewish philanthropists, using their wealth for building hospitals and orphanages. They might intensify their persistent Torahism-hiding broadcasting. They might intensify their down-imaging of people who love this country as neo-Nazis. (Both patterns could be found in one episode of the BBC series 'Absolute power', 8th December 2003. A group of countryside people, calling themselves the Real Country Union, invite the PR advisers to their manor. During dinner, one of the hosts brings out a toast 'for a cleaner, fresher, more invigorated, more English England'. Once they believe they can trust their guests, it becomes apparent that these patriotic country gents are actually neo-Nazis: their relics are a number of Hitler's water-paintings and the desk of the Kommandant of Auschwitz. The existence of Torahism was also concealed in this episode. One of the neo-Nazis says: 'The Hebrew. It's always him. In two thousand years, nothing has changed.' - The adviser played by Stephen Fry, replies: 'Well, I have never really understood this thing about the Jews, that they are such a menace, I mean, they look and behave exactly like us?!' - The countryside man, looking clever: 'Exactly!' Yet, the British people, for all their shortcomings, have never worshipped something like the Painful Passages as holy texts and behaved accordingly.)


Opponents might utter tainting dishonest accusations one can't possibly refute ('silent hate' for instance), and repeat these accusations non stop, deterring other people from joining the discussion. The opponents will most probably present the current situation in our country as a normal situation, give or take some problems, and portray this action and the support I am hoping for as a great danger. They might intimidate anyone who defends our right to give our own description of the current situation in public. And I hope it will always remain an 'if', but if regrettable incidents do happen, the other side will perform the most miraculous acts of verbal acrobatics to talk the guilt away from their favourites, and to pin it on me and my supporters. So therefore, please always remember the following: he who has done it, is the one who has done it, no-one else.


Psychiatrists might violate all ethical-medical codes by publicly giving their professional judgement on me, whilst not diagnosing Mr Blair, Mr Howard, Mr Kennedy, Mr Davies, Mr Yentob and Mr President at the same time. So if this happens, the sole purpose of these doctors will be to discredit me and to smirch my views by trying to portray me as a mentally deranged person, not unlike the way the Soviet Union discarded with dissidents.


People might misuse the shameful things I've told about myself to wipe the slate clean. So-called artists and others might think of all sorts of nicknames for me, seeking the laughter of that cruel beast, the incited crowd: Richard, the Christian-patriotic pornitician, Saint Dick, Adolf Peepler, things like that. Their aim will be that people in the streets copy their insults to me and my loved ones, wherever we are, hoping that we will lose our temper and get entangled in fights. The goal of their vulgarities will be to break us psychologically, and those who will stir up their audiences against me, will always hide behind the very 'freedom of speech' they are begrudging me.


In short, they might do anything to distract people's attention from some facts there is no getting away from. The existence of the Painful Passages. The influence of these passages on a number of Jews to this day. The US welcome to Torahism for more than a century. The Jewish dominance in the mass media. The silence of the old parties about Torahism. Some long-standing inconsistencies concerning anti-racism. The flaws in the democratic decision-forming process on society's major changes. And Britain's decline. They might go at lengths to prevent a constructive public debate from originating. They might do anything to cover up, deny or ridicule the danger of Anglocide.


There is also the possibility that the BBC, The Times, The Independent and The Guardian won't pay any attention to the facts I've marked at all. That will however prove that they are instruments of Torahism, and all my readers will then know they are just that. In that case, these media controllers will be betting that a political initiative that isn't made public by them, doesn't stand a chance. They will be betting that Britain's capacity and will to defend itself have already decreased to such a low level, that an action like this, using the new media, is doomed to fail. They will assume that Britain's back and spirit are already broken. Only time will then tell if their calculation is correct.


I am really very grateful you have been willing to read this. May I be so bold to ask you to re-read the text within a couple of months or so? You'll notice that the contents will sink in much better then, especially if you are now feeling I told you many things you didn't know.

I'd like to ask you something that's very important to me. Please, send me an e-mail. That's the only way I can establish whether people are reading and mailing this pamphlet. That said, I advise you to go about it with some caution. If you agree with my views, it may be wise not to mention that explicitly in your e-mail. Regretfully, it is technically possible for unknown parties to intercept and read other people's mail, and I don't want you to get into any trouble by expressing your support for me. It is bad enough as it is that I will wind up in trouble by doing this. So you might simply write 'I read your text and I don't agree with you'. Please don't get me wrong, but in this particular stage, it's more important to me that you send me an e-mail, than what you write in it. Hopefully we'll have some fine discussions in the future.

My e-mail address is:

If you really disagree, I am sure you'll find the right words to make that quite clear to me.

There are ways to help me that require somewhat more courage. You might mail the text to others. You might publish this text on your own website.

You might leave a sign in the streets that you are supporting me. If you know a printer who feels the same way, you can ask him to print stickers with the text 'Britain needs a BCPP'. Now, stickers and other signs will work the best for us, if they all look alike throughout the country. The more uniform they are, the sooner people will recognise them as BCPP stickers. So please, let me share my advertising experience with you for the common good and follow my advice: make the basic design a square, 6 x 6 inches at least, pick white for the main colour and let a light orange diagonal run from the lower left to the upper right corner. (If you are a progressive comedian, I've just handed you three more angles to make disparaging jokes about us.) The diagonal should be one and a half inch thick or thicker, if you make bigger signs. The words 'Britain needs a BCPP' must be placed as big as possible throughout the square, but leave some space at the foot of the sticker. That space is needed for the internet address (in use as from January 2004) and for the slogan 'Long live the Jews, down with Torahism'. The letters of the internet address and the slogan will be very much smaller than the letters of the headline, but that doesn't matter. The primary function of the headline is to draw attention, and therefore its letters must be much larger. Ask the printer to use the Arial Bold for a letter, and let him use initial capitals for 'BCPP' and the 'B' in 'Britain' only.

Now, what is the rationale for these instructions? The orange diagonal on the white background will make the sticker recognisable from a long distance, even if one can't yet discern the letters. The colour light orange makes a clear contrast with the white as well as with the black letters. Through the overall colour combination, the headline will remain legible during dawn and dusk. The sticker will be outstanding on dark and light surfaces alike. The Arial is what art directors call a gentle, a friendly letter. Ignore the 'better ideas' of well-meaning people. Don't use St. George's Cross, it will be less conspicuous. Don't use fluorescent colours or exclamation marks, they look cheap.

Tell your friends not to attach the stickers to people's private property. Pick a lamp-post or a traffic light (which is illegal too, no mistakes there), preferably on a spot where many people gather, like a mall, a school, the church, a post office, a railway station and a busy crossing (lots of drivers waiting for the traffic lights there).

A big advantage of using stickers is that they will boost the morale of other people who read this text, agree with it and now feel lonely, living among the uninformed. By seeing your sticker in the streets, they'll understand that others know this initiative too, and that insight will relieve their feelings of political loneliness and strengthen their hopes. Another advantage: in case the old media ignore my publication, more and more people, noticing the stickers, will start wondering what's going on, and many will ask their local newspapers if they know something, that's what a lot of people do. It might be interesting what these local newspapers then will say. And finally of course, the more stickers appear in the streets, the sooner the right people will feel encouraged to found the party.

Instead of stickers, supporters can also find inspiration in that nice Dawn song from the 70s and tie a yellow ribbon round a tree or something. This has the advantage that it doesn't damage anybody's property.

After January 2004, you might mail or write a letter to the political editors or the senior editor of the three national newspapers I mentioned, in case they don't pay attention to my text, and ask them if they know something about my initiative and if so, why they are silent about it.

Our main slogan should be 'Long live the Jews, down with Torahism.' So use this sentence wherever you can, in all your conversations on the subjects. Suppose, you want to attract people's attention by sending a post to a chat site, The Guardian Talk for instance, and you don't feel like engaging in the discussions, then simply write 'Long live the Jews, down with Torahism' and mention my internet address. It's a good slogan, it's peaceful, it's crystal-clear to the informed and intriguing for the uninformed.

Make notes of all remarkable experiences while helping me, your notes may be helpful later.

I am not giving you all these detailed advices as if I am underestimating you or something like that. I just don't like leaving things to chance.

There is a website and a book I'd like to recommend to you. is the website of the 'controversial' historian David Irving, who has been slandered to be a Holocaust denier many times. His website contains many interesting articles on prominent Jews, Israel and Washington that constitute a welcome addition to the reports of the old media. Everyone who wants to understand today's West, should read Henry Ford's 'The international Jew'. It describes the effects of four decades of Torahism on 1920s America. Mr Ford, the famous car manufacturer, became interested in that political factor after he had financed a peace ship to sail to war-stricken Europe in 1916. Some prominent Jews aboard had assured him that the Great War, grinding Europe's youth to pieces, would drag on as long as Jewish bankers and other Jewish influentials wanted it to.

Mr Ford's 'The international Jew' is published on, 'Some chosen topics', link: Ford. His readers will discover that Mr Ford believed that the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' are authentic. The Times looked into this in the 1920s and concluded they are a forgery. Norman Cohn is an author who also believes they are a forgery. He wrote 'Warrant for genocide, The myth of the Jewish world conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. To the best of my knowledge, Mr Cohn's book hasn't been published on the Web. I haven't read it myself. I find the discussion on the Protocols' authenticity of minor importance though, given the irrefutable authenticity of the Painful Protocols in the Tanach.

And so we have now returned to the point where we started to look at the Jewish people. Do I deny any Jew the right to believe in HaShem-Yahweh? No, I don't. Do I deny him the right to worship him? No, I don't. What I am focusing on, is how the beliefs of the Torahist are influencing his words and actions towards me and my people. And as his faith inspires him to do my people harm, I find we have the natural right to push back his influence from all the positions in society that enable him to harm that society. So I have no political problem with a Torahist sitting at home, intensely longing to confuse and exploit the non-Jews around him. And I have no political problem with ten or more Torahists gathering in the synagogue, intensely longing for the same. Yet, every country will get into deep trouble the moment the Torahists control their old media and things like that. And in today's Europe and America, I see that neither the old media nor the old parties are doing anything against it, on the contrary, they seem to do everything that suits Torahism, and I simply believe we can't afford that wrong to continue.

The Christian-patriotic counteroffensive I am hoping to initiate, will be a fight of the minds, a war not fought with metal weapons but with mental weapons, speeches, articles, slogans, and I hope it will get as much public support as necessary to improve things, and that everybody can live with the rectified situation as soon as possible. That fight will confront us with the full range of human emotions. It will make us aware of strengths and weaknesses we weren't aware of before. It will show what everyone of us is made of, and the sight will alternately please us and discomfort us.

And the really important thing is how each and everyone of us will deal with the emotions and the insights that fight will generate in him and herself. Am I in it for the right reasons? Is some unexpected progress making me overconfident or arrogant? Do I laugh about my opponent's anxiety for the wrong reasons? Should I laugh at him for a start? Can I calm down myself, when calmness is absolutely necessary? Can I calm down others? Do I have a clear picture of what I am contributing to the cause? Am I worthy of a victory? Can I handle defeat? Do I have it in me to reconcile myself to a defeat, and find peace in my family and work afterwards? (We might lose, don't forget that. There is the theoretical possibility that things have already come too far to correct. I don't think so, but I can be wrong.)

It are the answers to such introspective questions that really matter, because these answers will determine whether we are fighting for a just cause or not. So these honest answers to ourselves matter to you, they matter to me, and they matter to our fellow men. After all, the world around us is being shaped and reshaped by what goes on in our hearts and minds.

What's going on in yours?



June 2001 - December 2003 AD

P.S.1: On 9th June 2005, I revealed my identity on the initial page of the website in the text 'It is time to introduce myself'.

P.S.2, 31st December 2017: As time went by after the publication of this text, I came to understand Christ better, like what He said about Heaven and hell, and I incorporated my improved insights in Yeshua is telling us the saving truth


Jews contributing to the political debates. The appendix was added on 11th May 2010.


In the early 1990s, Freddy Heineken, 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. Trees Pels, a Jewess, is interviewed in a news broadcast about a migration-related subject. She is a researcher at the sociology faculty of Erasmus University of Rotterdam. She says: 'Our nation has already disappeared or is at least disappearing right now'. (She wasn't referring to Israel, but to the Dutch nation.)

Jewish politician Jacques Wallage is a prominent member of the PvdA, the Dutch equivalent of the Labour Party. In 2001, Mr Wallage publishes a book on various subjects, titled 'Thuis of ontheemd?' ('At home or homeless?'). Although he gave one of his chapters the title 'Ik houd van Nederland' ('I love The Netherlands'), 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 Jewish director of the World Bank, is interviewed by weekly magazine Vrij Nederland. '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'.

February 2002. Jewish cabaret artist Youp van 't Hek comments on a new political party that's against further immigration. He scorningly calls them 'the party of the white elderly' (originally: 'de partij voor blanke bejaarden').

March 2002. Interviewed on the electoral success of a new party in Rotterdam that's against further immigration, Jewish Minister for Overseas Development Jan Pronk (PvdA), intensely pro-immigration, speaks about 'the pale population of the past' (originally: 'de witte bevolking van het verleden').

April 2002. Jewish TV hostess Sonja Barend 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. Jewish spin doctor Felix Rottenberg (PvdA) says: 'The Netherlands are an immigration country and will remain that. The multicultural society can't be undone anymore.'

October 2002. Cees Sorgdrager, a weathered parliamentary correspondent and a Jew, is interviewed by weekly magazine Elsevier. He is bemoaning the thinness of parliamentary journalism, his own profession. 'Nothing is explained to the voters.'


His series 'Weird weekends' leads 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. Vrij Nederland publishes an essay of Jewish authoress Andreas Burnier (her actual surname being Dessauer), 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 FPÖ of Jörg 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, Andreas Burnier 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, top-ranking EU lawyer Ad Geelhoed, a Jew, tells Elsevier: 'We should have the courage to tell the people that the asylum seekers are immigrants actually.'

May 2001. Jewish Senator Uri Rosenthal of The Netherlands writes that globalization can't be stopped and that the opponents are extremists. His article was published in the magazine of his party, the VVD, 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. Job Cohen (PvdA), the Jewish mayor of Amsterdam, is quoted in weekly magazine HP/De Tijd as to have said it are not the immigrants who should adjust themselves to the Dutch, but vice versa. 'Now the number of immigrants is inevitably increasing, their ideas are bound to become dominant in the opinion climate of The Netherlands.'

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

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

June 2002. The CDU, a prominent party in Germany, is jointly responsible for laws that are privileging the foreigners in that country. However, CDU prominent Wolfgang Schäuble, a non-Jew, tries to announce a policy change during an interview on ARD television by Michel Friedman, 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 Mr Friedman 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. In weekly programme Buitenhof, two writers are asked to comment on the overall situation in The Netherlands. One of them is Leon de Winter, a Jew: 'Immigration is necessary because of the ageing problem.'

November 2002. Karin Adelmund (PvdA) is a former State Secretary for Education and a Jewess. In Buitenhof, she says in a debate with an MP: 'One of the best ways to integrate is a mixed marriage.'

November 2002. In a TV programme about illegal immigration, produced by Linde Naftaniel, a Jewess, formerly deported illegals are telling the Dutch viewers 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 the British 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. (Source:

December 2002. In a review of the year by the Netwerk TV programme, Jan Pronk 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. Former Minister Hedy d'Ancona (PvdA), a Jewess, and showman Jacques d'Ancona, a Jew, are invited to tell the Dutch viewers 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. Former Foreign Secretary Hans van Mierlo, a non-Jew, is interviewed by Jewish journalist Paul Witteman. Reflecting on the origins of the hate towards the West, Mr Van Mierlo 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. Mr Witteman casually reacts: 'It is only a matter of time before the EU is like the US.'

December 2001. The Elsevier magazine with Jewish senior editor Arendo Joustra pleads for the US-style integration of the foreigners.

December 2001. Wim Duisenberg (PvdA), the President of the European Central Bank and a non-Jew, is interviewed by Paul Witteman. 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.' His interviewer: '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 Mr Witteman: '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 on Belgian TV, 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?' Mr Cohn-Bendit answers: '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, EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein (VVD), a non-Jew, is interviewed in Buitenhof by Peter van Ingen, 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 non-Jewish Prime Minister Wim Kok (PvdA), Jewish sociologist Abram de Swaan 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 Buitenhof are Jacques Wallage and EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein. Mr Bolkestein expresses his concern about the fact that the foreigners constitute an increasing percentage of the population of Holland's major towns. He criticizes the problematic integration of the foreigners and he defines the on-going immigration as 'an endless problem'. Mr Wallage 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, Mr Wallage 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. Paul Sneijder, a Jew, is the Brussels correspondent for NOS Journaal, the Dutch equivalent of BBC News. He 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. One of the guests on the Barend & Van Dorp TV programme, parliamentarian Winnie de Jong, a non-Jewess, is sceptical about the entry of Poland and nine other countries into the EU in 2004. Jewish presenter Frits Barend 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. A Polish Jew, I don't know his name, is interviewed in a VPRO programme 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. Ad Geelhoed, Solicitor General at the European Court of Justice, speaks in the Buitenhof programme 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 in the NRC Handelsblad newspaper, prominent Jewish journalist H.J.A. Hofland concludes his lengthy article writing: 'These are confusing times. Let's rely on the institutions, on the EU, on NATO.'

January 2003. In Buitenhof, guests from politics, civil service and corporate business are talking about the powerlessness of the government, among them Mr Wallage, the mayor of Groningen: '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. Brussels correspondent Paul Sneijder for NOS Journaal 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. BBC Newsnight airs an item on the economic problems in the eurozone, as the Labour government is deliberating on Britain's entry. Newsnight has an interview with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Jewish finance minister of France, 1997-1999. He is introduced 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. Jewish writer Nol de Jong is interviewed about his new book 'Joods labyrinth'. 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 Prime Minister and PvdA leader Wim Kok had announced the date of his future resignation, he is interviewed in Buitenhof by Paul Witteman. The interviewer presses the Prime Minister to appoint fellow party member Job Cohen 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. Mr Cohen gained a score of less than 1% (source: HP/De Tijd-Motivaction).

November 2001. Weekly magazine Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad reports on the disappointment of To Tas, a non-Jewess, who lost her Jewish husband. The religious community he belonged to, doesn't allow her to engrave her name on his tombstone. Rabbi Lewis of the Amsterdam Jewish community is asked for his opinion: 'Mrs Tas hasn't been married according to the halacha, the Jewish law. Not Mrs Tas, 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 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.


Fall 2001. The TV guide of broadcasters NCRV, the C stands for Christian, interviews prominent rabbi Ralph Evers: 'If one thoroughly studies the cabbala, the mystical text on Jewish numerology, one will discover that the Torah has written itself.'

November 2001. Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad reports on the death of rabbi Rav Shach, founder of the Shas Party in Israel. Mr Shach once described Israel as a 'US state'. Rabbi Lewis of the Amsterdam Jewish community, asked for his comment, praised Mr Shach: 'He was a 'godel ha dor', the great one of a generation'. Another rabbi, Rav Schatz, also spoke 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, organized by Stichting DeBatterij in Den Haag (The Hague), about the 'multicultural society', rabbi Ralph Evers is asked the following question: 'Should the children of the immigrants learn about Christmas?' His reply: 'Ridiculous!' The present vicar kept silent.

November 2001. Editor Jaap Tanja of Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad 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: 'De wegbereiders van Hitler' ('The pioneers of Hitler')

November 2001. Jewish film director Jeroen Krabbé calls Pope John Paul II 'a sick, old, shaking clown'.

December 2001. Rabbi Ralph Evers tells Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad: 'Jodendom en Christendom sluiten elkaar uit.' ('Judaism and Christianity are incompatible.')

Christmas 2001. An influential columnist, appearing in Buitenhof, Jewish professor Paul Cliteur 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 in Vrij Nederland, Jewish philosopher Jonathan Israel claims that Western civilization 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 Arnhem 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 Vrij Nederland:

'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 and a non-Jew, lost the presidential elections, his former cabinet colleague Marie-Noëlle 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. On Dutch television in early 2000, rabbi Avraham Soetendorp is among the guests of the B&W programme, discussing the start of the payments in The Netherlands. Someone says: 'Aren't you afraid that this matter will breed anti-Semitism?' Mr Soetendorp's answer: 'Ah, anti-Semitism has nothing to do with what Jews are doing. Anti-Semites don't need a cause.'

In May 1999, Ronny Naftaniel, the Jewish director of the centre for information on Israel, was asked questions by HP/De Tijd about his negotiations with the banks in The Netherlands. 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: Mr Naftaniel also told the HP/De Tijd magazine he was an opponent of ethnic mixing if it would lead to human sameness.)

August 2001, the Zomergasten programme. Guest Frits Barend 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 a 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 liberal party FDP. 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 Israeli prime minister 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 Möllemann 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 Schröder, former Foreign Minister Genscher and the World Jewish Congress are contributing, all taking sides against Mr Möllemann, who leaves national politics in the end.

June 2002. Gretta Duisenberg, the wife of the ECB President and a non-Jewess, 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. Writer Leon de Winter on Dutch television: 'The fear of the Jews for the non-Jewish outside world is enormous.'

November 2002. Writer Karel Glastra van Loon, a non-Jew and 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. TV host Frits Barend 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 a special broadcast on Dutch television on 16th September 2001, presenter Felix Rottenberg and Leon de Winter arrive at the following conclusion in the closing seconds of the programme: '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. The NOVA Den Haag Vandaag programme is reporting on the growing influence of Muslim fundamentalists in Islamic schools in The Netherlands. The Al Wakf organization, funded by Saudi Arabian financers, is spreading the word in these schools that Mohammed has committed himself to fight the infidels. State Secretary for Education Karin Adelmund is asked for her comment: '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 .'


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. In The Netherlands, PvdA prominent Ed van Thijn dubs him 'a Jewish self-hater'. Leon de Winter suggests he ought to see a psychiatrist. Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad calls 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 wants to discuss his book are boycotted by the Jews his publisher has invited. In October 2000, Mr Finkelstein tells Vrij Nederland: '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. Jewish journalist Mr Koch writes an article in the Trouw newspaper about the American trade-union AFL-CIO. A proposal of that organization to protect the interests of American workers, is described by Mr Koch in such a way, as if one can suspect the AFL-CIO of having a fascist attitude.

December 2001. In Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad, senior columnist G.Ph. Mok comments on Mr Bloomberg, the then candidate-mayor of New York, also 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 on Dutch television by three TV personalities, Rick Nieman and Frits Barend, both Jews, and Karel van de Graaf, a non-Jew. Mr Van de Graaf is amazed and says: 'Why isn't America doing anything about self-examination?' That remark embarrasses Mr Barend 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 Mr Van de Graaf in the eyes again.

April 2002. Elsevier publishes a translation of 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. In a VPRO programme, Amy Goodman, 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 NOVA Den Haag Vandaag, Jewish TV interviewer Clairy Polak 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 TV interviewer 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. Max Kohnstamm, a Jew and 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 in Buitenhof: '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. US 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. BBC 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 US 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.'


In 1998, Stuart Eizenstat, Deputy Secretary of Trade of the Clinton administration and a Jew, gives a speech at a Jewish university in Jerusalem. He is reported to have said: 'For the first time since the destruction of the Second Temple, the people of Israel are now representing genuine power.' The Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

In September 2000 Mr Sharon's visit of the Temple Mountain sets off the second Palestinian Intifadah. Israeli soldiers are shooting at youngsters throwing stones. In The Netherlands, Jacques Wallage gives his comment: 'I saw an Israeli demonstration on TV the other day. One of the people there carried a sign saying: if you don't throw stones, you won't be shot at. Well, there's an element of truth in it.'

2001. Mient Jan Faber, the non-Jewish secretary of a church-related peace organization in The Netherlands, has written an article about the composition of the Israeli population. He argues that in a globalizing world Israel should give up its tenacity in maintaining its Jewish identity. Max van Weezel, a Jewish editor of Vrij Nederland, writes a protesting reply. The headline is: 'Mr Faber's recipe for genocide'. Mr Van Weezel utters his fear that mass immigration of non-Jews will mean the end of Israeli Jewry. The Vrij Nederland weekly however is constantly writing pro-immigration and it is constantly boosting the political careers of non-whites.

2001 (before 11th September). Glossy magazine Joods Journaal prints a statement of one of the interviewees, senior editor Martin van Amerongen of weekly De Groene Amsterdammer, on its cover: 'The Arabs are right, but the Jews must win.'

April 2002. Unaware of the fact that their microphones are open, Prime Minister Sharon and one of his generals are talking about the best strategy to drive President Arafat into exile again.

April 2002. While Israeli troops are besieging the residence of Mr Arafat in Ramallah, former Prime Minister Barak is interviewed by BBC World. To a question about the return of the dispelled Palestinians, he answers: 'Three million Palestinians back to Israel? That would be a new Bosnia, a new Northern Ireland!'

April 2002. The Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism is a part of the University of Tel Aviv. Its researchers report that since the beginning of the second intifadah, Europe is flooded by a wave of anti-Semitism. The Roth Institute concludes there is no difference between an anti-Israel inclination and anti-Jewish feelings in general. In a reaction, a spokesman of the World Jewish Congress says that by criticizing Israel, the European governments are responsible for resurgent anti-Semitism.

April 2002. Martin van Creveld is a renowned military historian and a Jew, living in Israel, where he is a controversial figure by his own account. Excerpts from an interview with Elsevier:

'Israel can't win the war on terror, because such a war is not winnable by definition. In the long run, the Israelis will discover that no government can protect them. That will be the start of the disintegration and self-destruction of Israeli society.'

'The only alternative is expelling all the Palestinians within our reach, to dispel them from the West Bank to the other side of the river Jordan. In 2000 only 7% of the Israelis considered that the best solution, in early 2002 it was 33% and now it's already 44%. If the terror doesn't stop, maybe 90% of the Israelis will be in favor of a wall along the Jordan, keeping the Palestinians and their terrorists out.'

The interviewer then asks whether Mr Van Creveld believes the world would tolerate such a huge ethnic cleansing.

'I am trying to make it clear to you that Israel is desperate. We will do everything to avoid such an extreme situation become necessary. But the world has to realize that our military power is not the No. 30 of the world, but the No. 2 or 3. We have several hundreds of nuclear warheads plus the missiles to direct them to anywhere, maybe even Rome. Most European capitals can be targeted by our planes. If Israel perishes, we have the power to drag the world along with us, and I can assure you that we will do so, before Israel gets destroyed itself. This is not my preference of course, I am only describing a possibility here.'

April 2002. The American newspaper Arizona Daily Star, based in Tucson, interviews senior Sharon adviser Ra'anan Gissin: 'The Third World War will come, whether the world likes it or not. We have been fighting a war for the past 18 months, since Ariel Sharon's visit at the Temple Mountain. That is the harbinger of the Third World War. The world is going to fight, I am sure of it. 11th September was a watershed event. Things will never be the same. The battle lines have been drawn.'

May 2002, newspaper Trouw. Jaffa Jarkoni, an artist whose songs were very popular in 1948, the year that the State of Israel was founded, is sad to comment on the Israeli violence against the Palestinians. 'Our people have been through so much misery because of Auschwitz, how is it possible that we are doing such cruel things now? We ourselves are causing anti-Jewish hatred.' In a comment her remarks are rejected by the senior editor of the Ma'ariv newspaper: 'Jarkoni is on the side of Europe's new anti-Semites.'

June 2002. In a VPRO broadcast, a Jewish professor at the University of Jerusalem, I don't know his name, is interviewed about Israel's future. When the interviewer brings up the possibility of a war, he gets carried away, and he loses himself in furious shouting: 'If Israel would be struck by a second Holocaust, it will happen with nuclear weapons, but in that case Europe will be destroyed too!'

July 2002. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is interviewed on German television (ARD) by Michel Friedman. Two fragments:

1) Mr Friedman: 'What's your opinion on the European criticism of Israel's policy, criticism of the sort of 'the Palestinians are trapped'?

Mr Sharon: 'There has always been anti-Semitism in Europe and there always will be (...) The twenty million Arabs in Europe have become an important factor. In France for example there are living 650,000 Jews, but six million Arabs. I am glad President Chirac fiercely attacked the newest waves of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is like terror. Once you start making concessions to terror, the same terror will demand only more concessions in the future.'

2) Mr Friedman: 'Do you trust German society?'

Mr Sharon: 'Germany is very friendly towards us. I talk with Foreign Secretary Fischer a lot, I know Mr Schröder. Maybe we are looking at extreme events too much, but in the final analysis I am saying: we Jews must put our trust in ourselves. To the Jews living in Germany, but also those in France and Russia, I'd say: the majority of the Jewish people should be living in the State of Israel. That's the place where Jews can be Jews. The immigration of another million Jews is one of the goals of my government. In 2020 the majority of the Jews ought to live in Israel.'

At one point Mr Sharon said that 'life isn't easy for the Palestinians, they are suffering too'.

August 2002. The old media are making the possibility and desirablity of a war against Iraq the world's main topic. During a visit at Washington, Prime Minister Sharon and Foreign Secretary Peres meet with the US media. Mr Sharon: 'It's dangerous to attack Iraq, but doing nothing is even more dangerous. If America attacks now, it can still remain a conventional war. But if America lingers, it might ultimately become a nuclear war.' Mr Peres: 'America must win the war against terror, otherwise we won't have a future in which we can work, live, walk, breathe....'

October 2002. In De Groene Amsterdammer a Jew writes an article against the mental climate in Israel, where one rabbi after the other is calling anti-Sharon demonstrators 'traitors'. Remarkable synchronicity: in the same period the White House is calling American anti-war protesters 'traitors to their country', according to the NOVA Den Haag Vandaag programme.

November 2002. Prime Minister Sharon says that after a war against Iraq, Iran should be dealt with.

December 2002. Prime Minister Sharon mentions the possibility that Iraq is hiding its weapons of mass destruction in Syria.

February 2003. After winning the elections, Likud leader Mr Sharon forms a coalition with two far right parties, the National Union and the National-Religious Party. Mr Sharon becomes Prime Minister again.

March 2003. The world expects the US and the UK to attack Iraq every day. Irith Markens, a Jewess working at the centre for information on Israel, says in NOVA Den Haag Vandaag: 'The Jewish community in The Netherlands has nothing to do with this war and Israel has nothing to do with this war. There was a very big peace demonstration in Tel Aviv on 15th January.' She didn't mention Mr Sharon's pro-war influence on the US president. She didn't mention the number of the Israeli demonstrators: 3,000. The relatively small size of the Israeli-Jewish population taken into account, this was actually a tiny peace demonstration compared to the impressive rallies in London, Rome, Barcelona and many other cities.

March 2003. The UK Ambassador in Jerusalem is summoned to receive an angry reaction from the Israeli government, after Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a Jew, had told the BBC that the West is applying double standards for Iraq and Israel with regard to complying with UN resolutions and that something needed be done about it.

April 2003. Iraq's defeat is imminent, when Shimon Peres is interviewed by BBC World. Question: 'Now the US Secretary of State has warned Iran and Syria, the Arab world is thinking Iraq is only No. 1 of a target list.' Mr Peres: 'Countries that are supporting terror, ought to be sanctioned economically first. If that doesn't help, military methods may be necessary.'


- 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 first part of the text can be found at:
                                       Britain faces the threat of Anglocide (1/2)

                                       Back to the initial page