Back to the initial page

Reading from the screen becomes easier if you make the sentences shorter. You can do that by narrowing the webpage frame or by opening and locking the column of favourites and history.

A selection from the texts I published on the British Democracy Forum

To go to the article of your choice, please use the date of the article for your 'search on this page' function.


25-08-2010: Internet letter to the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, asking them what they are doing to protect the British people against Torahism.

31-08-2010: Labour and the LibDems didn’t react, but the Conservatives sent me a reply - a thánkful reply!

06-09-2010: My analysis of their thankful reply.

22-11-2010: On the existence of God.

03-02-2011: Television, the newspapers, films and schoolbooks never inform us Europeans about Torahism, but they remind us constantly of the Holocaust and other crimes and wrongs inflicted upon the Jews. Because of that, we Europeans are wary to be viewed as an 'anti-Semite', and we are quick to label a critic of Torahism as 'anti-Semitic’. And so, we keep divided among ourselves, while too many of us are unaware of a dangerous doctrine aimed against our nations.

08-02-2011: Idem.

17-03-2011: Twelve opinions most people have strong feelings about.

25-03-2011: Attractive people reflect good on the ideas they represent, unattractive people reflect bad on the ideas they represent. So well-cast actors can serve propagandistic goals in TV fiction. A look at the BBC drama ‘South Riding’ from that perspective.

20-04-2011 (1): What I find insidious about the expression 'white working class'.

20-04-2011 (2): An increasing number of people seem to think that Islam is slowly taking over the West. Just think of the worried Americans pointing out that President Obama’s middle name is Hussein. Yet I think that the reality is more complicated than that.

21-04-2011: Is it any use to vote for a "rightwing populist" party?

23-05-2011: You'd better like the EU. Or else...

27-05-2011: President Obama sees a new dawn for the West.

28-05-2011: Bill Clinton knows a conspiracy when he sees one.

15-10-2011: David Cameron in April 2010: 'I will empower UK Jews.'

21-10-2011: Idem.

25-10-2011: Baroness Kennedy (Labour) told the BBC’s Andrew Marr that “the people with power are not the politicians”. Disappointingly, it didn’t trigger Mr Marr’s curiosity. Plus: Are you determined never to fall in any sort of anti-Semitic trap?

29-10-2011 (1): Internet letter to Baroness Kennedy.

29-10-2011 (2): Internet letter to Andrew Marr.

05-11-2011: Auntie pays John & Mary a visit.

09-11-2011 (1): The working of powers in politics.

09-11-2011 (2): According to BBC World, journalists caught President Sarkozy and President Obama gossiping about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Their alleged gossip and my comment.

21-11-2011: A noteworthy inconsistency of Labour prominent Jack Straw with regard to socalled “stereotyping, prejudices, racism” and so on.

25-11-2011: Labour minister David Miliband told the BBC in 2009 that terrorism is sometimes justifiable.

30-11-2011: About the old media scandals, the UK film ‘God on trial’ and the idea behind my internet letters.

21-12-2011: I will never say that everything in society was better in the past, but a lot of important things were.

22-02-2012: How TV makers can make us feel bad about a particular country.

02-03-2012: How the Mail Online tried to make us laugh at a serious problem in Russia.

10-03-2012: For years now, we are being told that “the West is fearing that Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon, although Tehran is denying that”. Let’s now try and look at this from Iran’s point of view.

01-06-2012: Internet letter to US President Barack Obama.

09-10-2012: Internet letter to several news media in America.

24-12-2013: Afterword


Internet letter to the people chairing three political parties in the UK

With all due respect for their titles and degrees:

Conservative Party: Sayeeda Warsi and Andrew Feldman
Labour Party: Harriet Harman
Liberal Democrats: Rosalind Scott

Wednesday, 25th August 2010

Your Ladyships, Dear Mrs Harman, Dear Mr Feldman,

Please let me introduce myself. My name is Richard Schoot, I am a Dutchman, born in 1958 and I am living in a town near Den Haag (The Hague). I feel strongly impressed by and attracted to the teachings of Yeshua, the Jew we have come to know as Jesus Christ. Through this letter, I hope to draw your attention to a political matter of the utmost importance.

In the past month of May, we celebrated the 65th anniversary of an important military victory for the sake of mankind’s happiness, the Allied victory over Hitler’s dictatorship and all its barbarities. Over sixty million people lost their lives in World War Two, among them the Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, a warning in six-millionfold, to be heeded forever, against blind and hateful anti-Semitism.

With regard to Jewry however, there are a number of disturbing facts there is no getting away from. These facts astonished me when I found out about them. To name some:

The existence of a number of passages in the Torah, written by Moses, and in the other holy texts of Judaism, aimed to breed a supremacist, even genocidal mentality in the Jewish mind. I prefer the word ‘Torahism’ over ‘Judaism’ to underline I am against a certain idea, not against a people.

The frightening and brainwashing of consecutive generations of Jews by means of repeated teachings of these texts, as from the age of five, thus when their minds are totally defenceless against indoctrination. They get it hammered into them that their own god will not hesitate to inflict terrible losses on the Jewish people if they don’t live by the Torah, and they get it hammered into them that, if they do live by the Torah, the Jews will acquire huge material wealth, living space and decisive political power at the expense of the prosperity, values, happiness, freedom and even existence (!) of the non-Jewish peoples. Seldom is the Christian commandment to love your enemies more significant than on the moment one fully realizes what Torahism stands for, and the non-Jews should always have to bear in mind that growing up as a Torahist is not a deliberate choice made by the Jews involved - on the contrary.

Torahism is the faith annex ideology of an unknown percentage of the world’s 15 million Jews to the present day.

The silence of the old media about these facts, for instance the silence of the BBC in your country and the silence of the NOS in mine, a compelling indication, if not proof, that these influential broadcasters, paid for by the taxpayers, are being controlled by Torahism. The Torahists and their non-Jewish helpers are the only interest group thinkable that can benefit from keeping the British people and the Dutch people uninformed about Moses’s views and the Torahist ways. The silence of these and other broadcasters is all the more alarming, when you realize that the old media are ‘perfect’ instruments to create the very confusion among the non-Jews that the Torah is preaching, and that television and the other media can also be misused for psychological warfare to commit the very ‘slow motion genocide’ the Torah is also preaching.

I wrote a text about these and other issues, titled ‘Britain faces the threat of Anglocide’,, and I e-mailed this text to academic Britain.

I would like to ask you the following question. What is your political party doing against Torahism to prevent it from harming the interests of the British people (any further)? Although I am not a Briton myself, I am curious to learn the answer, out of solidarity with the people that helped free mine from the Nazi occupation, and because I think your party’s reply can also be important for the politics in my and other countries.

I thought of putting this question to you because of an internet discussion I am participating in. At some point, a difference of opinion arose in that debate as to whether Britain’s mainstream parties are aware of my e-mail initiative or not. I came up with the idea of asking the chairpersons, but I decided to put the aforementioned question first to you. I announced I would contact you by mail and by e-mail and publish the replies.

That internet discussion is taking place on the British Democracy Forum website. If you are interested, visit, click ‘Forum’, scroll downwards to ‘The Lounge’, click ‘Introduce Yourself’, and then click ‘Advice: please read my free internet book ‘Britain faces the threat of Anglocide’.

Always willing to engage in an internet discussion with you too, I remain yours sincerely,

Richard Schoot


I received the following e-mail from the Conservative Party, on August the 27th:

Dear Mr. Schoot,

I am writing on behalf of Baroness Warsi to thank you for your email of 25th August.
We are grateful to you for writing and I would like to highlight the details of the Home Office whose remit this matter falls under.
Their website for further information is:

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Yours sincerely,

(name sender)
Conservative Campaign Headquarters

This email and any attachments to it (the "Email") are intended for a specific recipient(s) and its contents may be confidential, privileged and/or otherwise protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email, and delete it from your records. You must not disclose, distribute, copy or otherwise use this Email. Please note that email is not a secure form of communication and that the Conservative Party ("the Party") is not responsible for loss arising from viruses contained in this Email nor any loss arising from its receipt or use. Any opinion expressed in this Email is not necessarily that of the Party and may be personal to the sender.

Join us and help turn Britain around
The Conservative Party | Get Involved | Join the Party


I sent the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats both a letter and an e-mail to make sure I would get their attention. I did so to ask them a straightforward question related to the single most important issue thinkable in the politics of every people, namely securing the continued existence of that people. It’s the issue which nations have a state for in the first place.

The Conservatives have replied. Now, let’s first have a look at how they reply. Baroness Warsi, one of the co-chairmen of the party, doesn’t react personally, but orders a party employee to do the reacting for her. By doing so, she introduces the risk that a possible misunderstanding between her and the employee could lead to him sending a wrong reaction. Apparently, the co-chairman wants to create a distance between herself and the answer. She wants to be able to say: ‘It’s not my own reply, it’s the employee’s reply’. The way how this party reacts, shows another peculiarity. They don’t send me a letter on paper, the most reliable way of communicating, but they send me an e-mail instead, with a disclaimer pointing out the unreliability of e-mail.

Now, let’s have a look at the reaction itself. It states that “the matter falls under the remit of the Home Office”. The facts, however, are different. My question was: ‘What is your political party doing against Torahism?’ I was not asking: ‘What is the government doing against it?’ And whether the Conservative Party wants to do something against Torahism or not, is entirely up to the Conservative Party itself to decide. That is quite not a matter for the Home Office.

Any political party, in government or not, can do all sorts of things against Torahism. A party can commission a number of well-educated members to write a report about it and publish that. Its MPs can ask questions about it in the House of Commons. The party can pay attention to it on its own website. Its prominent members can spontaneously bring up the subject while being interviewed in The Andrew Marr Show or Newsnight, and so on.

When that party is in government, like the Conservatives are now, it can do much more of course. Yet I didn’t ask Baroness Warsi about the role of the government here, because I didn’t need to. I have already drawn my warning against Torahism to the attention of the UK government earlier, by means of my letters to Mr Blair in 2004 and recently to Mr Cameron.

The Conservative Party’s reply is especially interesting for what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say something like: ‘Our party is committed to protect the British people against any force threatening its existence, sovereignty and well-being, regardless of the origin of the threat, so that includes the threat of Torahism, and these are our anti-Torahist actions that prove that commitment.’

My conclusion: the Conservative Party not only doesn’t want to answer the question what it is doing against Torahism, it even tries to get round the question.

Kind regards,


(...) Your statement ‘the more religious a society is, the more evil it is’ is too vague to go into. You don’t mention specific individuals or countries in specific centuries, acting on the basis of specific religions, and you are not mentioning any particular examples of good vs. evil correlatedly. By the way, do you also think the opposite is true, namely that the less religious a society is, the less evil it will be?

You are asking me for a single piece of evidence for the existence of God. Well, if you mean something like, I found this stunning inscription in an ill-lit corner of this cathedral in France I once visited, no, I can’t produce any physical evidence like that. I can mention the religious experience I had personally, but I assume you won’t accept that as proof. (I described my religious experience, using the third person, at the end of paragraph 6.5.2 A REVOLUTIONARY INSIGHT of the book you think nobody is reading.)

In the New Testament, Faith has been called ‘the proof of the things you can’t see’, but that won’t convert every atheist, I think. No, the single most convincing piece of evidence that God does exist, is the evidence you might find yourself, and the way to do that, is to live your life as if you are already a Christian, as if you are believing in God and as if you feel He is looking in your heart, in your mind, in your every motive by which you speak and act. Chances are that if you do that, giving it time, study, self-scrutiny and perseverance, chances are that if you are sincerely motivated to find Faith, one day the Faith will find you. (Christianity inherited this insight from the Mosaic faith.)

The question ‘Do you have evidence that God exists?’ is a well-known one in discussions on religion.
I have thought: ‘Why hasn’t God made it easy on us, mankind? If only He had used the stars to form the letters of His words, so that the nightly sky was teaching us how to live? Not a single human being could ever have questioned the Divine origin of such words.’
The atheist might say: ‘Yes, that would have been a piece of cake for any almighty god, so actually there is your proof he doesn’t exist.’
Yet I as a believer say: ‘By not using the nightly sky as a holy tablet, God probably tells us we have to do something ourselves to find Him, we have to do something ourselves to find out how He hopes we will live and relate to one another.’

Kind regards, Richard


On September the 6th, on page 4, W. wrote: ‘People look at your word Torahism and immediately think, true or not, ‘anti-Semitic’. A few days later I went into this, beginning by saying he was right in observing so. (In 5.9.2. and 5.9.6 in Part 1, I have also paid attention to this psychological automatism.) Now I come back to this, because I think it’s very important to try to find out how this automatic thought reflex originates. I think the reflex is caused by several factors.

When we are engaged in a political discussion, we want to achieve several things.

1. We have a viewpoint, a conviction, ideas, and we feel it’s important to tell other people about it, either because we want to win them over, or because we want to defend our viewpoint against the ideas and counterarguments of others.

2. There is always a moral side to political discussions. We are discussing things because we have ideas about what policy would be good or bad, just or unjust, for certain groups of people, for our community, for our nation, for the wider world. Above all, we are aware that the wrong sort of political ideas can lead to disasters, if we would let people with such ideas rise to power, and let them take the country on the road towards poverty, serfdom, dictatorship, wars, genocide.

3. Furthermore, we want others to realize we know the difference between good and bad and that we belong to the good side. The last thing is important to us, because we are not only individuals, we also long to be a part of the human herd around us. This human herd we want to be a respected part of begins with our loved ones, family and friends and extends, in ever wider circles, to our other relatives, our acquintances, colleagues, our employers and clients, our town, and so on. We are social ‘humanimals’, we need others for our own livelihood, our happiness, our success in life, so we don’t want to see ourselves alienated or even isolated from or boycotted by the others.

4. The following factor goes much deeper than the need to convince others of a political idea, this has to do with the instinct we share with animals. It is the wish to make your presence felt, to win your own space, to build a reputation, to find a good place in the social hierarchy. So while discussing politics, we want to show that we know stuff, as if we are challenging the others to show (off) what they know, we seek the words that we hope have the most impact on the others, and then look whether we can outsmart them.

When, for instance, we look at Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband having a go at one another during Prime Minister’s Questions, we are looking at the intellectual equivalent of two deers clashing their antlers, trying to see one another off (not over one particular issue though, on which the both of them keep fraternally silent). The point is: everyone likes to triumph, no-one likes to lose, some dislike losing so much they don’t even enter the competition.

5. While we are talking politics, something else of interest is taking place in our minds. It’s the contribution of our memory to what we think, while we are communicating. As we listen to other people talk, as we read the posts on this forum, we think, and the other person’s words immediately remind us of things. They remind us of things we have stored in our memory. We think associatingly. All our thoughts have other thoughts for their neighbours. The process of thinking is in fact one thought after the other appearing in our consciousnesss.

A little test to illustrate this. What are the words that you think of when I write down ‘Cuba’? If I would invite a hundred people, and ask them to write down as many words as they can think of related to ‘Cuba’ in one minute, and collect their lists afterwards, I bet that the words ‘Castro’ and ‘cigars’ belong to the most mentioned. Why is that? Because whenever we gather a bit of information about Cuba, be it by a newspaper article, a TV item, a travel agency brochure or a schoolbook, it nearly always also contains the words ‘Castro’ and/or ‘cigars’. So if you are, say, 35 years old, your mind has been fed by the old media with the word combinations ‘Cuba-Castro’ and ‘Cuba-cigars’ for more than three decades, and that has left a very profound, if not unerasable mark on your memory. The thought of ‘Cuba’ has the thoughts of ‘Castro’ and ‘cigars’ in its immediate vicinity. That means that when you start thinking about matters that are Cuban, it will only take split-seconds or seconds before ‘Castro’ and ‘cigars’ come to the fore in your mind.

We’ve looked at the two-way communication between people discussing politics. Now, let’s have a look at the one-way communication that TV broadcasters are engaged in. It’s one-way, because they do the broadcasting, and we do the sitting and watching. Broadcasting is active, watching the broadcast is passive. (The same goes for the other media-audience relationships as well. Producing, printing and distributing newspapers is active, folding the thing open and reading it is passive. Talking in a radio microphone is active, turning your car radio on and listening is passive. Making a film is active, sitting down in a cinema seat and watching it is passive.)

Now, what is conveyed in the one-way information about the Jews, which the TV broadcasters are filling our minds with? It’s a stream of mood-influencing scenes and sentences, that, with regard to the relations between Jews and non-Jews, often make the non-Jews look bad in comparison to the Jews, give or take a few exceptions.

Some examples. It’s a collection of sentences that typify the overall nature and tone of voice of this information:

‘Medieval Europeans forced the Jews to live in ghettos.’
‘The Jews were barred from working as craftsmen in medieval times, so they simply had to resort to money lending to make a living.’
‘The few Christian kings who protected the Jews, demanded vast sums of money from the Jews in return.’
‘The Jews were forced to wear yellow marks, so everyone could recognize them.’ ‘The 1340s bubonic plague was hellishly killing Europeans in their millions, and soon the scapegoat was found. The Jews were accused of having poisoned the wells.’
‘Shakespeare, for all his literary merits, has also contributed to anti-Semitic stereotyping.’
‘Dickens, for all his literary merits, has done so too.’
‘A perfect way of getting rid of my debts to the Jews, is getting rid of the Jews themselves, this-or-that Christian king thought.’
‘The Jews were always an easy target, because their traditional festive days, religious rituals and cloths, and their strange Hebrew alphabet, made the Europeans feel uncomfortable about them, and all that was needed to change these feelings into hatred and bloodthirst, was an anti-Semitic demagogue, who was always quick to remind the peasant crowds that the Jews had murdered Christ.’
‘The Jews were expelled from England.’
‘The Jews were persecuted and murdered by the Inquisition.’
‘The Jews were expelled from Spain.’
‘In the aftermath of the French Revolution, the Jews were finally given full civil rights.’
‘The Jews were the victims of pogroms in Russia and Poland.’
‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, allegedly the minutes of a secret meeting of conspiring Jews, was proven to be a forgery, but became a cornerstone of Nazi propaganda all the same.’
‘The Jews were persecuted and murdered on an unprecedented scale by Nazi Germany and its accomplices.’
‘Israel was founded after the world realized it had horribly let down European Jewry.’
‘Anti-Semitism in the UK is on the rise.’
‘These neo-Nazis claim the Jews want to destroy the white race.’
‘Anti-Semitism in The Netherlands is on the rise.’

It’s in this tone of voice the old media are always talking to us. And we get to see tons of images that go with it, images that move us, image that abhor us, heart-rending images, and we get to hear experts from this or that university, sharing their knowledge about Jewry and anti-Semitism with us, shelves packed with wise books in the background. And you know what, a good part of the above is true, the Holocaust of course being the most atrocious, most impressive and irrefutable truth of them all by far.

Now, what is this constant flow of information, in that particular tone of voice, resulting in?

In the first place, it raises emotions in us, the readers, the watchers. The expelling of people alone makes us feel sorry for those people, and naturally much more so when they are persecuted and murdered. We feel compassion for the victims and we feel a determination rise in us to make sure that this sort of thing never ever happens again. And at the same time, this old media output raises other feelings in us as well. Feelings of antipathy, of aversion, of sheer disgust, hate, towards those who made and make the Jews suffer, the hypocritical so-called Christian kings, the torturers of the Inquisition and the institution of which it was a part of, the Roman Catholic Church, and feelings of aversion, disgust and hate towards anti-Semitic demagogues, Nazis and neo-Nazis.

In the second place, the constant flow of the messages I described above, in that particular tone of voice, is filling, over a longer period of time, our memory, just like the stream of information about Cuba, Castro and cigars has done. The sentences about the Jews I wrote down above, pretty well cover the themes and tone-of-voice of the old media content about Jewry in the last four decades, and it is content that is so familiar, many people would qualify it as common knowledge.

And so, the answer to the question ‘Why will people immediately think ‘anti-Semitic’, true or not, when they read my word Torahism?’ is becoming clear (I hope). Step by step, as in a slow-motion movie, this is what could happen, when a well-meaning person sees me write about ‘the dark side of Judaism’:

His or her memory is triggered, as the thought ‘Judaism’ is a neighbour of the thought ‘Jews’:
The dark side of Judaism… He is making a negative remark about the Jews. Who were also making negative remarks about the Jews?
His memory is triggered:
The medieval peasant crowds, the Inquisition, the Nazis.
He associatingly thinks:
So he must be like the medieval peasant crowds, the Inquisition, the Nazis.
His moral beliefs enter:
He is an anti-Semite. He is a bad man.
He could go a step further, as his social side enters:
Others must be warned against him.
The fear to get isolated in the group himself kicks in too:
I am part of this BDF community. He is also a member of this BDF community. Other people might easily associate me with him. I’ll show the other members and everyone who reads us I am not bad, I am not like him.
His desire to mark his position in the hierarchy is triggered:
I’ll show this anti-Semite and the others I am not stupid, I recognize badness when I see it. I’ll post a text branding him an anti-Semite. By doing so, I will publicly mark the great distance that I want other people to see is existing between him and me.

And during all this opinion forming in the average well-meaning person’s mind, the facts about Torahism I listed in 9.2 in Part 2 don’t play a role for him at all, for the simple reason he is never informed about these facts by the old parties and the old media.

Tonight at 21:00 UK time (22:00 NL time), BBC2 will broadcast the Louis Theroux programme ‘The Ultra Zionists’. Judging by the trailer, I predict that the programme will show somewhat more of the grim reality of the Torahist mentality than the BBC usually does, and that Mr Theroux will make the TV audience watch his documentary from the perspective of: ‘Well, there are extremists and fanatics in all religions and obviously that goes for Judaism as well, but so long as we, moderate people living in our pluriform society, keep our cool, the extremists will never get their way’.


The following is the continuation of my post of February the 3rd:

So looking at the content of the old media about the relationship Jews/non-Jews, we are living in a world in which the non-Jews are kept in the dark about the existence of Torahism on the one hand, and in which, on the other hand, a non-Jew who is aware of it and opens his mouth about it, will find himself getting labelled ‘anti-Semitic’ and/or boycotted.

In other words, while not knowing what they have to know about a doctrine of subjugation, exploitation and genocide aimed against them, the non-Jews get divided among themselves.

And this alarming situation has arisen as the consequence of the editorial policy of those in charge of the old media. They tell us about the wrongs that the non-Jews inflicted upon the Jews, but they don’t tell us a lot of other things of vital importance:

They don’t tell us that the non-Jewish wrongs only form the half of the truth; They don’t explore the ‘second’ half of the truth, namely:
how Torahist indoctrination is filling Jews (not all of them) with fear for their own horribly vindictive god, if they don’t go out and subjugate, exploit and slowly ruin the non-Jewish peoples;
They don’t tell us that in earlier, more Christian times, many Europeans knew the crucial differences between the Mosaic part and the Christian part of the bible, and that the European peoples were understandably never that enthusiastic about the prospect of being confused, subjugated, exploited and slowly ruined, so that it was a question of sound statesmanship to prevent Torahism from gaining decisive political power;
The old media don’t practice investigative journalism on Torahism’s harmful influence on today’s society, and:
The old media never publicly account for the fact that by the way they are telling the ‘first’ half of the truth, they are creating tensions and division among the non-Jews, when they come to speak about the Jews.

Next time the BBC, National Geographic Channel, the History Channel etc. broadcast a documentary about Jewry, Christianity, anti-Semitism and (neo-)Nazis, please watch it, and you’ll see what I mean. Just ask yourself:

What do they tell me?
In which tone of voice do they tell it to me?
How do they want me to feel about the Jews?
How do they want me to feel about the non-Jews?
And what are they not telling me?

I guess it can’t hurt to end this post by referring to the Jew who in Matthew 5:44 insisted we have to love our enemies. In (the very short) chapter 3 in Part 1, I am elaborating on this beautiful commandment, which amazed me when I first heard about it.



The following fits in my separate series of posts about the influence of the old media on our thoughts, feelings and ideas about society and politics. The series started on page 8, on February the 3rd.

We’ve seen that the good idea of resisting Torahism, is hampered by its bad image. Let’s now focus on some other ideas and the image that they have. Let me introduce you to four fictitious persons, simply called A, B, C and D. They will give us some of their opinions, and these opinions are about two matters so important that most people have strong feelings about them - the matters of gender and race. Now, we’ve seen that noticing other people’s words immediately remind us of what’s stored in our memory. We’ve also seen how our emotions play a role while judging other people’s opinions. Therefore I invite you to be alert to what you feel and think of first, while reading the following:

Person A:
‘Modern women choose to be independent, they study and they make a career’
‘In these times of overpopulation, having only one child or no children at all can be the sensible choice to make’
‘It’s the pregnant woman who decides whether or not to have an abortion’

Person B:
‘Just like life has been passed on to you by your parents, you ought to pass it on yourself and have children’
‘The husband, as the head of the family, should earn the income for his wife and children, and the wife should look after the children and do the housekeeping’
‘It’s the manly thing to do to marry a girl when you made her pregnant’

Person C:
‘The human races aren’t the same, they are not equally talented‘
‘Different religions teach different mentalities, sometimes even conflicting mentalities. In Islam for instance, it’s perfectly acceptable to feign tolerance towards non-Muslims, if that’s necessary for Islam to rise to power’
‘Men and women should choose their partners within their own people’

Person D:
‘Scientists already know for a long time that there are no different human races. There is just one human race’
‘All religions have their own small intolerant or extremist minorities. It’s up to us moderate people not to give them a chance to divide or harm society’
‘The whole world is becoming one big global village. Mixed marriages fit perfectly well in that’

Now, let me ask you two questions.
While reading this, have you thought: sexism, male chauvinism, macho?
And have you thought: racism, discrimination, prejudice, islamophobia?
If you have, I can safely assume you were thinking it while reading the opinions of the persons B and C.

And if you have, you are certainly not alone. Westerners in their tens, hundreds of millions would have thought the same. The overwhelming majority of the opinion leaders we get to see on TV would have thought the same. Not only on British TV, but also on TV in The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and so on. Most of the politicians whose faces are so familiar to us and whose laws we have to obey, would immediately brand these ideas as sexist and racist.

On the other hand, when you read the views of the persons A and D, you felt perhaps more comfortable.

No wonder, since these have become the generally accepted ideas since the 1960s.
They are the mainstream ideas of the 2011 West - and they are everywhere because of it.
They are the ideas on the basis of which the ‘centreground’ politicians and the interviewers speak and act.
They are the ideas that the good guys and gals in film and TV series are spreading.
They are the ideas the schoolbooks are teaching your children.
In the past fourty years, we have been told over and over again that these are the right ideas to live by.

But now, let’s return to the ideas of B and C for a moment, the ideas which you perhaps found unpleasant to read.
They have another thing in common, besides their unpopularity and awkwardness.
These socalled ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ ideas belong precisely to the very ideas every nation has to honour, in order to secure its existence as a nation in the future.
In other words, the right ideas necessary for a nation to continue to exist, are gravely handicapped by their image of being the wrong kind of ideas.



The following fits in my separate series of posts about the influence of the old media on our thoughts, feelings and ideas about society and politics. The series started on page 8, on February the 3rd.

When film and TV makers want to manipulate the opinions of their audience, the following is another technique they can apply. It’s based on a fact as old as mankind itself. Some people have notably attractive personalities, some have notably unattractive personalities. It’s not only looks that matter here, but also character, aura, presence. And when we hear someone with an attractive personality speak, the attractiveness reflects positively on his or her views. In the same way, when someone has an unattractive personality, that will reflect negatively on his or her views. So, consequently, film and TV makers can use that in order to up-image or down-image certain views.

Was the BBC deliberately playing at this, while broadcasting ‘South Riding’, a couple of weeks ago? I don’t know, I can’t look into their heads. Yet these were two of the characters we were introduced to in the first episode of February the 20th:

The heroin of the drama is Sarah Burton, played by Anna Maxwell Martin, a woman whom many men undoubtedly will find attractive. Besides her looks, she has many fine personal qualities. (No, perhaps that is not true, I should write: she was paid to play a woman with many fine personal qualities.) By her appearance alone, she brings sprightliness to a grey community, as her garments are conspicuously colourful compared to the nondescript tones of the other women’s clothes. She drives a car, a rare sight in the 1930s in two respects, so she is not afraid to stand out. She shows determination while applying for the vacant position of headmistress. Her enthusiasm over new educational ideas is contagious. Her repeated efforts to stimulate a talented poor girl to get herself a good education, show her care for her pupils, her good heart. When she sees Mr Carne (David Morrissey) in trouble helping a cow calve, she doesn’t let him send her off, but insists on lending a hand, thus displaying pluck and helpfullness. All in all, a woman whose company you would like.

The antihero of ‘South Riding’ is Alfred Huggins, played by John Henshaw. May I suggest his looks won’t land him on the No 1 position of every woman’s dream man list? (Neither won’t mine.) His overall demeanour is marked by discomfort with himself and clumsiness. (No, perhaps that is not true, Mr Henshaw was paid to play a clumsy man, discomfortable with himself.) When he addresses an audience, he tries to enforce his words by smacking his hand on the lectern. Yet his listeners react quasi shocked only, which makes him look ridiculous. Mr Huggins cheats on his wife with a prostitute, we are shown repulsive scenes. He is embarrassingly sentimental and naieve. He praises the prostitute for her good character, only to find himself to be blackmailed by her boyfriend and her. In the following episodes, he thinks of ever more pathetic little schemes to get out of trouble, yet by doing so, he is only digging deeper the hole he’s in. All in all, not a man whose company you would like.

Immediately after the scene in which the pimp instructs Mr Huggins to pay him 500 pounds in return for their silence, the contrast between this ridiculous hypocrite and the sympathetic headmistress reaches its peak, as we see Mrs Burton walk across a cemetery and kneel down at the tombstone of her husband, fallen in the Great War.
The contrast really couldn’t have been any more striking.
Prostitution versus the loving memories of a widow.
Blackmail versus the sacrifice of life in war.
Lowness versus honour and dignity.

Now, what about the views of Mrs Burton? One typifying example. After contemplating that without her husband’s death, she couldn’t have made a career (bit of a macabre reasoning, that), she wonders: ‘Could I have settled for being a wife and a mother, even loving him so much?’ Settled, she said, as if being a wife and a mother is some sort of inferior existence. It’s obvious. The ideas and attitude of this nice and shining headmistress, this character who is so pleasant to identify with, are but a foretaste of the 1960s rise to glory and pre-eminence of ‘the liberation of women’ (which, and that is my view, was most probably propagated by Torahism to sow division among the men and women of the peoples of the West.)

And what about the views of Mr Huggins? Poor wretched sanctimonious blackmailed loser Mr Huggins is portrayed... a Christian.

I suppose that the making of ‘South Riding’ was already concluded months ago. Anna Maxwell Martin, John Henshaw, the other actors, the producer, the director and the screenwriter, they are undoubtedly engaged in other theatrical activities now. Almost nothing was real about the programme, mind you. After all, all that we have been watching was a large smoothly edited collection of filmtakes of directed people who learnt lines by heart which other people wrote down for them.

One thing however was very real. The impression on our minds of what we’ve noticed the characters do and say. The impact they’ve had on our thoughts and feelings.

And I am sure that on the days after the three broadcasts, all over Great Britain, wherever people came to speak about ‘South Riding’, people with ‘emancipated’ views felt strengthened, quite not for the first time, and that Christians felt put in the defensive somehow, quite not for the first time, because TV strongly contributes to the conversations people have.

The BBC itself about this programme:


20-04-2011 (1):

The following fits in my separate series of posts about the influence of the old media on our thoughts, feelings and ideas about society and politics. The series started on page 8, on February the 3rd.

The psychological power that language in politics can have, for benign as well as for ill purposes, becomes clear in expressions that have a strong suggestive effect. In ‘Fourteen questions to myself’,, I already analyzed such an expression:

‘Another inconsistency - why has the phrase "Women's Liberation", coined in the 1960s, never been extensively exposed as a phrase that is setting groups of people against each other, namely women against men? It's a very malicious expression in my view. Until the 60s, there was a general consensus that men and women ought to be there for each other, supporting each other in marriage, in prosperity as well as in adversity. But then came the clamorous heralds of "Women's Lib", getting lots of air time from the Western broadcasting companies. What does the phrase "Women's Lib" do? Words conduct ideas into people's minds, and these words conduct the polluting and divisive ideas that marriage is a prison, that a wife is a detainee and that her husband is the warder.’

A similar divisive expression can be heard frequently the last couple of years in the old media, whenever the political wishes of white people are discussed. It is the expression ‘White working class’. Some examples. In April 2006, Labour minister Mrs Hodge said that ‘the white working class voters were being tempted by the BNP’. To a certain extent she got support from Home Secretary Mr Clarke, who warned that serious problems could arise, if people’s concerns about crime and immigration weren’t taken away.

In 2008, the BBC ran a socalled ‘White Season’, a series of programmes about white people. The phrase was used a lot therein. This ‘White Season’ was announced by a trailer in which a white man’s face was slowly made black, as one hand with a black marker after the other wrote down things on his face, covering ever more of his skin.

In the same year, in America, when it wasn’t yet decided whether the Democratic presidential candidate would be Mr Obama or Mrs Clinton, commentators also spoke about Democratic white voters possibly preferring Mrs Clinton out of aversion over Mr Obama, as ‘white working class’.

These are only a few examples, the expression is used much more, and to this day.

What I find insidious about this expression, is that it suggests that concerns over the continuing immigration are concerns that only low education people can have. People on TV who talk about ‘white working class’ suggest there is an underlayer in society with concerns that are not done in the elevated circles of the speaker himself, the ‘pluriform tolerant liberal enlightened progressive’ etc. etc. circles.

The constant use of that expression can influence highly educated whites. Suppose, you are a white doctor, or a white lawyer, or a white accountant, or a white university lecturer, and you feel a healthy patriotism for the people you are a part of, the British people, its long role in history, with all its ups and downs, its traditional values, its cultural highlights, its way of life in pleasant local communities.

And suppose, you have a wider scope than your self-interest, you too are worried about the ongoing immigration. Suppose, you have been wondering, like I have: ‘What was broke about 1950s Britain, or 1950s Holland, that needed to be fixed by the immigration of millions of foreigners?’

Suppose, you can understand the short term and long term problems that prolonged mass immigration originates, the feeling of becoming a stranger in your own neighbourhood, labour market pressure by Eastern Europeans, the Islamisation*, the import of criminals and parasites among the jobseekers, the slow loss of Britain’s national identity due to racial mixing, tabooized as it is to even mention it, and you see the unwillingness-inability of consecutive governments to do something about it, and you get annoyed by it sometimes.

Then, the expression ‘white working class’ can make you feel insecure. It can wrongly make you think your concerns are in fact vulgar concerns, plebeian concerns, and it can therefore make you doubt your own sincere views, and impede you to become politically active, which probably constitutes the motivation behind the use of the expression, as a patriotic party would need people like you.

So in my view, the expression ‘white working class’ maliciously seeks to exploit the sorry matter that is class-bound thinking, in order to further divide the British people among themselves.

20-04-2011 (2):

*An increasing number of people seem to think that Islam is slowly taking over the West. Just think of the worried Americans pointing out that President Obama’s middle name is Hussein. Yet I think that the reality is more complicated than that.

I need to say the following before I can come to the point. In my book, I am expounding the theory that Torahism is the true ruler of the USA and that the Torahist communities in Europe are the true driving force behind the EU, in a long term effort to subjugate the European nations under their absolute rule permanently.

Please note: it’s a theory.
I am not saying: this is what’s going on.
I am saying: this is what might be going on, and these are my arguments to say it.

(For seven years now, I am asking for counterarguments, yet neither prime ministers nor parliamentarians, neither academicians nor journalists have sent me one single argument to refute or undermine this theory, so I say: it’s a very plausible theory, it may be difficult to stomach it, for all the emotions this theory might evoke, but this theory is probably describing the harsh truth of our times. You’ll find the theory in Part 2, chapter 5.12.12 The visibility of something unprovable thru chapter 5.15 Circumstantial evidence)

So how does the seeming Islamisation of Europe fit in all of this? Let me extend my theory here: it is an Islamisation under Torahist supervision. The Muslims are given just enough slack to immigrate and grow in ever larger numbers, to push aside the whites and to take over managerial functions, but they will hit an iron ceiling, if they have views and ambitions that might jeopardize the rule of the Torahists. In that case, the Torahist media will temporarily agitate the indigenous people against them, trash one or two Muslim figureheads in the process to set a deterring example, or give a lot of free publicity to anti-Islam parties that read the Koran with a magnifying glass and the Torah with a blindfold, so that such opportunistic or lightweight parties will get some superficial political influence, after attracting voters who worry about the large Muslim presence in Europe.

All for good measure to make overdemanding Muslims change their tune. Again, theoreticly spoken.



Yesterday I mentioned anti-Islam parties that read the Koran with a magnifying glass and the Torah with a blindfold. Such parties are also given the oxygen of publicity by the media to give the indigenous people the illusion that “there is now finally a party that understands our concerns”, after all the years of frustrating foreigner-worshipping policies of the other parties. Those parties play at the vague hopes of well-meaning people their country’s former way of life can be restored somehow, but that would require the amendment or abolishment of the ‘antidiscrimination’ and ‘antiracism’ laws and treaties, and that is something Torahism, if unchallenged, will never allow to happen.

So the patriotic proposals of such parties will make them popular with a lot of hopeful people, but their proposals will sooner or later always break down on obstruction by the other parties and interest groups, on the bureaucracy, on the EU and UN dictates, on covert threats by Torahism.

You might say that parties like that, in return for their Torahism-friendliness, are given Torahist media support to make an electoral profit from selling an illusion. Granted, the socalled rightwing populist parties get a lot of flak in the old media, but they are also getting the free publicity, and that’s what carries more weight. The Torahist media themselves can point at these parties and sell the viewers the illusion that the country is a vital democracy, with a wide spectrum of parties with totally different views.

The true rulers, however, remain out of the field of vision of the general public.

All the above still theoreticly speaking, of course.

Until ten years ago, it simply never occurred to me things could really be as cynical, sly and corrupted as this. When you’re not like that yourself, it’s difficult to imagine other people could be. Yet I am afraid that, based on everything I discovered, noticed and experienced since, it’s likely to be the truth, and since I am not keeping my insights to myself, but publish them, I’ll have to put up with the accusations of some I am a paranoiac. Those are unjustified accusations, but they are understandable.

On second thoughts, some parties are perhaps benevolent yet too gullible, or too fearful, to lay a connection with Torahism, that’s also possible. Perhaps I am judging too harshly on other people.



Proposition: “The EU is a constructive project in which the European countries, with respect for each other’s sovereignty, are invited to co-operate for their common good, no strings attached.”

True or not true?

I am afraid it’s not true, looking at some TV content in my country:

1. In March 2007, EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes is invited as a guest in the Pauw & Witteman programme, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Rome treaty that lay at the origin of the EU. I am quoting her: ‘When a country doesn’t join in, it will be excluded.’

2. Ruud Lubbers was the prime minister of my country from 1982 to 1994. He is a prominent member of the CDA party, one of the mainstream parties over here for decades. A real EU aficionado, Mr Lubbers advertised himself as being ‘Mr Europe’ in 1994, when he was a candidate for the post of president of the EU Commission.

Earlier this year, he helped campaign for his party for regional elections. He paid attention to the rise of the PVV party of Mr Wilders, a party in which a lot of Dutch voters, worried about the EU influence and the ongoing immigration, put their trust. Contrarily, Mr Lubbers’s views on immigration seem to be: the more, the merrier. The Nieuwsuur programme of February the 17th showed Mr Lubbers during a campaign meeting, saying:

‘Yesterday I saw the figures of economic growth. In Germany: pretty firm. In The Netherlands: not bad. Yet I thought: without Geert Wilders those figures would have been one percent better. It’s as simple as that. When you are saying about fine people, they can’t be allowed to come over here, because they are looking a bit differently, you will once have to face the consequences. Matters grow worse when people, who already succeeded here, say: suit yourself, I am leaving. And whenever I go to Brussels, and I am invited over there quite often, I get a lot of explaining to do. Does Holland actually want Europe? Well, if Holland doesn’t want Europe, then Europe won’t want Holland….’

When you know nothing about The Netherlands, you might think, listening to Mr Lubbers, that immigration have meant a boost for the Dutch economy. In reality, after comparing costs and revenues, the presence of foreigners in the past decades have cost the Dutch tax payers tens of billions of guilders and euros, figures that nowadays even the ‘progressive’ parties are not contradicting.

3. Also in February 2011, broadcasters VPRO aired a programme called ‘2011 – the year the euro fell’, a fictional report about a chain of financial collapses in EU countries. In the programme, Felix Rottenberg played the part of the initiator of a fictional movement with the interesting name ‘We are Europe´. I am mentioning Mr Rottenberg several times in Appendix: the names in chapter 5.12 in Part 2. Mr Rottenberg shows much concern over the (non-fictional) rise of the socalled rightwing populist parties in Europe. ‘When they get the power to say: that whole EU is useless anyhow, it’s OK to let it implode altogether, then that would be life-endangering’.

Neither did Mr Rottenberg explain why that would be life-endangering, and to whom that might be life-endangering, nor was he asked by anyone to explain that.

So the Dutch TV viewers are apparently supposed to consider Mr Rottenberg’s unspecified and diffuse scare-mongering as a serious pro-EU argument.

The programme makers fortunately envisaged a happy end, namely the speeded constitution of the United States of Europe, proclaimed in Versailles, with unprecedented powers, in matters of finance too. Enthusiastic reporter Saskia Dekkers concluded: ‘Granted, less national power, less sovereignty, but as from today, the world is counting one super power more!’

4. On May the 16th, the same Saskia Dekkers interviewed the president of the EU Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, for the Nieuwsuur programme. The opening fragment of this interview:

Mr Barroso: ‘We are living in difficult times, this is the reality, and for complex problems, sometimes people suggest simplistic solutions, but this is not always the case.’ [I think he meant: they are not always feasible]
Mrs Dekkers: ‘Can you give an example?’
Mr Barroso: ‘An example is for instance nationalism: let’s defend our country against all the others. If we go for nationalism in Europe, it is a disaster for our citizens. We know in the past what nationalism brought to Europe. The easy temptation is sometimes: let’s close our borders, we do it better, we don’t need the others. This is populism, this is sometimes nationalism, protectionism, sometimes even xenophobia.’

So according to Mr Barroso, there is no other choice than the choice between the EU and the disastrous nationalism of the 30s and 40s, as if the many centuries of European history can be reduced to the dark years of Hitler and Mussolini.

No, the EU isn’t a project in which the European countries are co-operating for their common good, no strings attached.

It’s more like: ‘You’d better like the EU. Or else…’

Mr Barroso is forgiven to suffer from poor imaginative powers. Yet I see a third option. French president Charles de Gaulle used to talk about ‘l’Europe des patries’, ‘the Europe of the fatherlands’. I like that expression, I interpret it as a Europe of sovereign nations, looking after the interests of their own peoples if necessary, working together with the other nations when and where it’s possible and desirable. Quite not on the basis of scare-mongering, but on the basis of a constructive dialogue between governments and the population.

Please also read 5.12.12, 5.13 and 5.14 in Part 2.



President Obama sees a new dawn for the West. That's what we have the New Testament for, I then thought, for a new dawn. Perhaps President Obama is also thinking it. After all, in his book ' The Audacity Of Hope', Mr Obama wrote he is a Christian.



President Clinton is in my country today, invited as the main guest to speak at an anniversary party of an insurance company, at the end of this afternoon, and I was suddenly reminded of a fascinating sound fragment, aired by BBC Newsnight on June the 3rd, 2008.

At the time, it still wasn’t decided whether Mr Clinton’s wife or Mr Obama would become the presidential candidate of the Democrats in that election year, but the way things were going didn’t seem to please Mr Clinton very much. Critical of media reports on a certain statement of Hillary Clinton’s, he was heard saying: ‘It’s part of the national media’s attempt to nail Hillary for Obama.... it’s just the most biased press coverage in history. He gets other people to slime her. This has been the most rigged press coverage in modern history’.

So two-term president Bill Clinton was sure that America’s media were, uhm, conspiring.



In the press coverage of Dr Fox’s resignation, it was said he is pro-Israel. That reminded me of a pro-Israel message of another Tory politician, the main man himself no less, David Cameron. In April 2010, one month before the general elections that saw him become Prime Minister, he said: “I will empower UK Jews”, I’m now quoting the headline of an article of

“I will empower UK Jews”. It’s a promise that raises several questions, doesn’t it? How can Mr Cameron tell who is a Jew and who isn’t? And – if you want to empower a group of people, you obviously find they have too little power now. So how did Mr Cameron establish that the UK Jews have too little power? Has he done some thorough research into this matter? And if so, why not share his research with the entire British people? One and a half year have passed now after the promise was made. Has Mr Cameron’s empowering of the UK Jews begun yet? Is it already in full swing, perhaps? Don’t all these questions add up to a bit of mouth-watering investigative journalism, just begging to be practiced? By the indefatigable news hunters of BBC Newsnight or BBC Panorama, for instance?

Mr Cameron announced to empower UK Jews, once in government. Let me see.... so, in other words, the Conservative party finds it OK to treat groups of people differently on the basis of their ethnic origin. Mr Cameron is saying: "These people, they are Jews, they need to be empowered. And those people, those are non-Jews. They don’t need to be empowered."


Personally, as a candidate Christian, I am trying to be pro-everybody, so that makes me pro-Israel too. The difference between me and the old parties is, that I think Israel and the Jews have too much power now than is good for the other nations. I think that the Israelites now urgently need the blessing of a beneficial setback, tempering the Torahist rage, a setback in the shape of the peoples of America and Europe becoming aware of Torahism, and hopefully, the subsequent origination and rise to power of Christian patriotic parties, in case the old parties fail to properly lead their nations in the newly arisen opinion climate.

For the full article, which I found via Mr Irving's website, see



Let’s reflect a bit more on Mr Cameron’s message, as reported by

Why is he saying what he is saying, and why at that particular moment? My best guess is this:

It’s April 2010. Mr Cameron is facing his first general elections as the leader of the Conservative party. He knows of Torahism’s power in the world - and he accepts it as a given. He knows Torahism is always aware of the possibility the general public finds out about the Torahist factor and demands political action against it.

Furthermore, Mr Cameron also knows how Torahism looks at his party. Of Britain’s biggest two parties, it are probably the Conservatives that, in some corners of the party, still harbour the strongest felt connection with traditional pre-“Swinging 60s” Britain.

So, in order to win Torahism’s trust, Mr Cameron wants to issue a message to soothe Torahism, to put its mind to rest. One month before the elections that could make him Prime Minister, he wants to reassure Torahism that it has nothing to fear from him, on the contrary. He wants Torahism to view him as an ally, a friend.

So he sets himself to compose the ‘right’ message.

Now, he can’t openly say: ‘Hi Torahists, you know I’m running for office, and let me assure you, dear Torahists, once in No 10, I’ll be a good friend of yours, so please give me your Torahist support in return’. Such a candid message would naturally wake up and disturb the general public.

So what he will do is write a text that holds a clear message between the lines.

He’ll write a text that he trusts can and will only be fully understood by people who know more about the political reality than the man in the street. So he addresses Torahism in the same way in which Torahism likes to camouflage itself to the outside world – Mr Cameron addresses them as innocent Jews who were always only the victims, never the perpetrators, as innocent powerless Jews who could again become targeted by ignorant hating anti-Semitic non-Jews, as noble progressive enlightened Jews, intellectually pioneering on the path to a better future for the whole of mankind and so on.

In short, he wants to tell Torahism it can count on him in return for its support, without using the word Torahism.

So that’s why he tells his audience that a Conservative government under his leadership would do “much more to protect and empower the Jewish community”, as he was quoted to have said by By adding some personal information about his ancestry, Mr Cameron hopes to complete the reassurance.

Mr Cameron of course repeats the same message also during personal meetings, phonecalls and so on.

After taking note of his message, Torahism then understands: ‘He won’t criticise us. He didn’t criticise us whilst in opposition, and he won’t criticise us as a Prime Minister.’



In the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show of October the 16th, the host reviewed that weekend’s papers together with Baroness Kennedy, a Labour Peer, and with Sir Max Hastings, a historian and writer. They came to talk about the crisis and the growing public sympathy for the protests against Wall Street that sparked similar demonstrations globally, some of the protests turning violent like in Athens and Rome. Mrs Kennedy pointed out that many feel that ‘the money men got away with it’ and that ‘turbo charged capitalism’ and ‘the free market ideology’ have ‘gone mad’. Mr Hastings predicted a hard time for the politicians to have to tell their voters they will get less money as a result of the financial woes in the West.

Baroness Kennedy picked that up, saying: ‘We haven’t felt the real impact of it yet and it’s going to be very painful, for the middle classes as well as for the less well-off, and it’s going to be really hard. And what’s interesting is, and I agree with Max, politicians are going to have a hard time, because we are always going to be disappointed in them, because, in fact, the people with power are not the politicians, and we have to find a new way of configuring our politics to examine this and to look at how it should be’.

‘The people with power are not the politicians’, she said.
Halfway her sentence she laughed a little, as if she felt embarrassed by her own observation.

And once she had said it, neither Mr Marr nor Mr Hastings asked her that most obvious of questions: ‘Who then are the true people with power, if it are not the politicians we elect?’ Mr Marr and Mr Hastings didn’t even seem to be surprised by her remark. The three of them concluded the topic and simply went on to talk about other news items.

In the next days, I googled the search term ‘the people with power are not the politicians’, wondering whether it had inspired leading newspapers to quote Baroness Kennedy or to interview her on this subject, but on the first four Google pages that appeared, I couldn’t find one such article. I’ve seen old media representatives brag about their ‘indispensable role as watchdogs for the sake of democracy’ a thousand times, but no, I couldn’t find one such article.

As you’ll understand, I wasn’t very surprised by her remark either, but I absolutely failed to see the fun of it.
I find the whole thing an outrage, actually, a bloody shame.

All our lifes we are being told that you, the British, and we, the Dutch, that we are free peoples, that we democraticly choose our representatives to wield power over us for a fixed period of time, and that afterwards, we can vote on the governing parties when we find they’re doing fine, or that we can vote for other parties when we want to see the power handed over to them, when we believe they will do a better job.

But according to Baroness Kennedy, and I trust her to know a whole lot more about British politics than we on this forum do, it is all one gigantic shameful lie. According to her, power is apparently wielded over us by other people than those we think. It’s wielded over us by people we never see campaign to win us over. By people we never see opinion polls about all the time. By people we never see being grilled by the Newsnight interviewers. By people who are never held to account in our parliaments. In short, by people we’ve never voted in and by people we are not able to vote out.

That means that, if she’s right, Britain isn’t a democracy. It's a dictatorship, then. With dictators that are invisible. The Romanians at least knew who their dictator was, in the 70s and 80s.

No nation on Earth has to accept any confusion about who its true rulers are.
The BBC is broadcasting remarkably much WW2 content this year, I’m sure you’ve noticed that too.
Do you love your country, your granddads and your dads (and perhaps you yourself) went to war to defend, 70 years ago?
Do you think this is the kind of country they gave and risked their lifes for?
Do you love your country, like I do mine?

Then please realize that what Britain now needs more than ever, are people who educate themselves, in order to become aware there is something fundamentally wrong in politics. So please go through some trouble to make yourself better informed.

Are you determined never to fall in any sort of anti-Semitic trap?

Then go to your bookstore and order ‘Warrant for genocide – the myth of the Jewish world conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, written by Norman Cohn in 1967.
I believe that the current elites consider it an outstanding warning against anti-Semitism.
The Guardian praised it as: ‘A scholarly account of a moral enormity’.
I gave a comment on it on my own website in March 2010.
Mr Cohn’s book will make you an expert on anti-Semitism.

Then, read my internet book.
When you stumble on something you disagree with, or something I haven’t explained well, confront me with it, on this forum, I’ll go into it.
Then, you’ll be an expert on anti-Semitism, on Torahism, and on its misuse of the term ‘anti-Semitism’.

And then, remember what Helena Kennedy said and do your own thinking, please.

For Britain.


(Forgive me the instructive tone of voice.)

29-10-2011 (1):

Internet letter to Baroness Kennedy (Labour Party)

Saturday, 29th October 2011

Dear Lady Kennedy,

Please let me introduce myself. My name is Richard Schoot, I am a Dutchman and I am profoundly impressed by the Christian message. I am the author of the internet text ‘Britain faces the threat of Anglocide' (, a text which I e-mailed to academic Britain nearly eight years ago. I am also a contributor to the discussions on the British Democracy Forum, see > The Lounge: Introduce Yourself > Advice: please read my free internet book ‘Britain faces the threat of Anglocide’

I think there is a question that needs to be asked to you. In The Andrew Marr Show of October the 16th, you talked to the host and Sir Max Hastings about the economy, the protests against Wall Street that spread to other countries, and the costs of the financial woes for the voters and taxpayers.

At one point you said: ‘We haven’t felt the real impact of it yet and it’s going to be very painful, for the middle classes as well as for the less well-off, and it’s going to be really hard. And what’s interesting is, and I agree with Max, politicians are going to have a hard time, because we are always going to be disappointed in them, because, in fact, the people with power are not the politicians, and we have to find a new way of configuring our politics to examine this and to look at how it should be’.

My attention was especially drawn to your observation: ‘In fact, the people with power are not the politicians.’

I would like to learn from you who are the true people with power then, if it are not the politicians we elect?

I sent Mr Marr a letter asking him why he didn’t ask this question. I already paid attention to this issue on page 15 of the BDF thread mentioned above. I will publish your reaction, for which I would be most grateful, on the thread.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Schoot,
initiator of the British Christian Patriotic Party

P.S. I’ll send you this letter by mail. I published it on the forum on October the 29th.

[P.S. December 2013: I haven't received a reaction.]

29-10-2011 (2):

Internet letter to Andrew Marr

Saturday, 29th October 2011

Dear Mr Marr,

Please let me introduce myself. My name is Richard Schoot, I am a Dutchman and I am profoundly impressed by the Christian message. I am the author of the internet text ‘Britain faces the threat of Anglocide’ (, a text which I e-mailed to academic Britain nearly eight years ago. I am also a contributor to the discussions on the British Democracy Forum, see > The Lounge: Introduce Yourself > Advice: please read my free internet book ‘Britain faces the threat of Anglocide’

I think there is a question that needs to be asked to you. In your show of October the 16th, you talked to Baroness Kennedy and Sir Max Hastings about the economy, the protests against Wall Street that spread to other countries, and the costs of the financial woes for the voters and taxpayers. At one point Baroness Kennedy said:

‘We haven’t felt the real impact of it yet and it’s going to be very painful, for the middle classes as well as for the less well-off, and it’s going to be really hard. And what’s interesting is, and I agree with Max, politicians are going to have a hard time, because we are always going to be disappointed in them, because, in fact, the people with power are not the politicians, and we have to find a new way of configuring our politics to examine this and to look at how it should be’.

My attention was especially drawn to her observation: ‘In fact, the people with power are not the politicians.’

I was wondering why you didn’t ask her the question that seemed rather obvious to me at that point, namely: ‘Who are the true people with power then, if it are not the politicians we elect?’

I sent Baroness Kennedy a letter asking her this question myself. I already paid attention to this issue on page 15 of the BDF thread mentioned above. I will publish your reaction, for which I would be most grateful, on the thread.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Schoot,
initiator of the British Christian Patriotic Party

P.S. I’ll send you this letter by mail and by the contact form on your website. I published it on the forum on October the 29th.

[P.S. December 2013: I haven't received a reaction.]


‘Hiii dear, how are you (kiss kiss), hi Mary (kiss kiss) good to see you, lov’, oh look at those lovely little rascals of mine!’

‘Hi Auntie! Hi Auntie!’ (kiss kiss kiss kiss)

‘Hi Auntie, glad to see you again, we can’t get enough of you, oh look at that new suitcase of yours, that’s a whopper, wait, let me help you there, please come in’


‘I just love your coffee, dear, it’s so tasteful’

‘Well (Mary laughs) It’s just Tesco’s home brand, Auntie, nothing special. Want another cup?’

‘Oh dear, that suitcase was nearly killing me, but I have so many things for you, I can’t wait to show them to you, yes John thank you, oh you are such a strong man, that side up please, dear, then I can open it’

‘Wow Auntie, that looks like a fantastic new load of football coverage to me, thank you! Great! ’

‘Oh Auntie, you know that’s my favourite show, another season of Strictly, it’s such a treat! Did you get a lot of applications again?’

‘…and I’ve got a whole new lot of cookery programmes for you, and new gardening programmes, but your favourite classics as well, more re-runs of Dad’s Army. Also a variety of serious programmes of course, I have got politics for you, I have got religion for you, I have got history for you. There are some historic events we should never forget as a nation, you know’

‘No Auntie, you’re right. But talking about politics, can you help us out, because we looked at Question Time last Thursday, and then we heard the panel guests say contradictory things about our democracy. Theresa May said ‘we are a democracy’ and Benjamin Zephaniah said ‘we are a democracy’ but Peter Hitchens said ‘thank heaven we are not a democracy’, and Theresa May looked very annoyed then but kept silent, and Peter Hitchens also said ‘we are a constitutional monarchy’ and Mary and I looked at each other and we really didn’t know what to make of it all. What do you think, Auntie, are the British people their own masters? We are, aren’t we?’

‘Look what I also brought you! New episodes of Family Guy!’

(Auntie goes on emptying her suitcase, while John and Mary look at each other.)

‘Yes Auntie, well, how shall we put this, we don’t want to seem ungrateful, but to tell you the truth, we don’t think of Family Guy as a funny cartoon anymore’

‘When we don’t learn the lessons of history, dear, it can repeat itself, you know’

‘Yes, that’s absolutely true, but we want to talk about Family Guy to you, Auntie. You see, two days ago, my mother was over here, and we were looking at Family Guy, which she had never seen before, and we were laughing all the time, but my mother didn’t understand half of the jokes, so I explained them to her, and at one point, Stewie the baby was hinting at Brian the dog to have sex with him, so I explained that to my mother, and then she went: a baby having sex with a dog? But that’s disgusting…’

‘Seventy years ago, we had to fight the Nazis, and we stood united as a nation, on the battlefields as well as in the factories, and everyone was doing his bit, so to pay homage to the wartime generation, and to remind you of the dangers of Nazism, I have a lot of new films and documentaries about World War Two, see?’

‘Yes Auntie, we’ll look at them, we know about the Second World War, Mary’s granddad died a paratrooper in Arnhem. But to come back to watching Family Guy with my mother, she then said: that cartoon is filling people’s minds with sick ideas, with perversions. It’s disgusting. And all of a sudden I realized she was right. It was her innocence and her indignation that suddenly filled me and Mary with shame, and with a new awareness. So would you please stop bringing perverting programmes into our home, Auntie? You can’t expect Mary and me to stand next to the telly all day and switch it off every time perverting content is shown, can you? It doesn’t figure, you know, I mean, we like you very much, you know we do, so why are you showing this? It’s not the sort of thing we want our children and ourselves to be exposed to any longer, surely you’ll understand that?’

‘The Nazis persecuted and murdered everyone they hated, the communists, the gypsies, the gay people. The Nazis started wars, they despised black people, the Slavic peoples…’

‘You are not listening to us, are you?’

‘Yet the minority they hated the most were the Jews. There isn’t a crime thinkable the Nazis haven’t committed to the Jews. The Nazis filled all their newspapers, films and radio shows with their hatred of the Jews. They isolated the Jews, they stole from the Jews, they persecuted and deported them, to Auschwitz-Birkenau and to the other death camps. Men, women, old people, children, crippled people. Six million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis, while the world didn’t see or didn’t want to see what was happening.’

‘Yes Auntie, that’s what the Nazis did. That’s what those ******** did, and those days must never return and they shall never return, not so long as Mary and I have something to do with it.’

‘I have new documentaries about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, dear, based on newly discovered material and the latest scientific insights’

‘Yes Auntie we’ll watch them, but you know, I find it hard to raise this, cos I don’t want you to think bad of me, but the other week I found out there exist some very awkward and even quite dangerous Jewish ideas.’

‘The Nazis were quite not the first, the only and the last anti-Semites, you know’

‘Yes Auntie, but I found out that in the book of - I always find it difficult to pronounce it - of Deuteronomy, the Jews are predicted to rule over other peoples by means of money trading.’

‘Isabella of Spain forced the Jews to leave the country in the 15th century.’

‘Yes Auntie, but I also found out about this Jewish idea that their god will slowly expel other peoples from their own territory to make way for the Jews’

‘The Russian Czar forced the Jews to leave the country in the 19th century’

‘Yes yes Auntie, all true, but I also found out there is this Jewish idea that the values of the other peoples have to be destroyed. So that means there is this Jewish idea that the traditional moral values of our country have to be destroyed, and those are the Christian values, aren’t they? Our flag consists of Christian crosses for that reason.’

‘Anti-Semitic incidents are on the rise everywhere in today’s Europe’

‘Yes Auntie, but it’s even ten times worse than I just told you, you see? There is this Jewish idea that the other peoples should be ruined or even massacred, if they don’t obey the Jews, let alone if they kill Jews.’

‘A lot of anti-Zionist criticism by people taking sides with the Palestinians is in fact anti-Semitism in disguise’

‘Yes Auntie, but these ideas carry on to influence a part of Jewry, cos they are drummed into the heads of toddlers.These toddlers get the fear of a revengeful god pumped into them if they don’t accept those ideas and act accordingly. They are brainwashed to develop an ice-cold mentality towards the non-Jews, towards us. It’s appalling. It’s sect-like. Why don’t you ever tell us anything about that, Auntie? The Nazis were defeated two thirds of a century ago. Why are you playing deaf when I talk to you about something that is so anti-British?’

‘In the 16th century...'

‘No, damn it Auntie, no! Now I want you to listen to me! I demand an answer right now, do you hear! Why don’t you ever tell us anything about thát?’

John looked her in the face, a face he had known and trusted for so long. His own dear Auntie for Pete’s sake... her soft kind features, her friendly smile, her eyes full of joy... Yet as their eyes met, the terrible moment came as if a cold hand grasped his stomach and squeezed it in an iron grip, filling his entire body with a painful sensation he never experienced before, as he suddenly saw her face for what it truly was – mask-like. And then he heard Auntie say to him:

‘When did you first realize you’ve always been hating me, dear?’


P.S. for my reader(s) in America: ‘Auntie’ is a nickname for the BBC.

09-11-2011 (1):

A., in reaction to your post of November the 4th:

You think that the politicians and the voters are the only two groups in politics that can have power, but you are wrong. By means of the ballot box, the electorate choose a number of politicians into public offices. By voting in local elections, they choose their councillors, and in the national elections, they choose the members of the House of Commons. The Queen then asks or commissions the leader of the party that won the majority in Parliament, to form a Cabinet. (The 2010 outcome being an exception to how it usually goes in your country.) So a number of the newly elected MPs are asked to join the Cabinet by the future Prime Minister, who will preside over the Cabinet.

Now, all these public offices – counsillor, mayor, member of Parliament, minister, Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and so on - come with powers that the ordinary people, the voters, don’t have. In national politics, those powers, cast in law, are things like: writing and passing laws, abolishing laws, amending laws, enforcing the law, deciding whether or not to have a referendum, raising taxes, lowering taxes, inventing new taxes and abolishing old ones, appointing the heads of institutions of national importance, working at the country’s relations with other countries, seeking alliances to look after common interests, having a say in international treaty organizations like the UN, the EU, NATO, and, the most serious of all, deciding to go to war or not.

There are also what you might call informal powers, like the influence a minister has on a TV audience when he or she is invited to a TV studio, or by the talks he can have while on a working visit in the country.

The key question now is how these elected representatives will use the powers that the voters have bestowed upon them in good faith. The voters trust the politicians to use these powers to deliver on their campaign promises in particular, and do good and just things with these powers in general.

So that’s what the voters hope. Yet every government is subject to a variety of forces that want the government to do things. There are a host of interest groups that try to exercise force on the government, hoping they can influence its decisions and policies in such a way their needs and desires are met. Examples of such interest groups are: the employers, the trade unions, the bankers, the lawyers, the NHS, the police, the teachers, the students, the transport sector, the builders, minority organizations, environmentalist groups, human rights groups, animal rights groups, faith groups and so on. And those are only just forces trying to influence the government domesticly.

Influence or pressure can of course also be exercised on the country from abroad, by other countries, or by blocs of countries, or by multinationals, or by military super powers.

So many different forces are trying to push and pull the government, all with their own agenda on their mind. A number of these forces may have desires that fit in or actually serve the national interest. An interest group may rightfully argue that certain interests have been forgotten or neglected too long and convince the government they have a point. Yet other forces may well have ambitions that don’t agree with the national interest at all.

The various forces inside and outside the country can try to bend the government by all sorts of methods. Public talks, private talks, correspondence, ambassadors’ visits, reasonable proposals serving the mutual interest, the offering of well-meant support, the offering of bribes, emotional pleas, petitions, demonstrations, covert threats, candid threats, strikes, boycots, economic sanctions, speculation against a nation’s monetary interests, spontaneous street violence, organized street violence, sabotage, terrorism and war.

Now, the dark moment may come that one or more interest groups are able to apply so much pressure on a government, that that government has to give in and continuously has to do things these interest groups want them to do. As from that moment, where it is no longer the national interest but the goals of that interest group that determine government policies, that country stops being a democracy. The people are no longer ruled by representatives who by their deeds prove they have the interest of the people in mind, but the people are indirectly being ruled by those interest groups, hiding behind the image of the politicians on the TV screens and in the papers.

If those interest groups also control the media, they can then even disguise their own egoistic goals as matters of national interest, so that the TV viewers remain clueless about what’s going on behind the screens in real life.

So in matters of political power, we have to be aware that besides the voting power that the electorate has every four years, and besides the legislative and executive powers that the elected politicians have, there is also the power that one or more unelected interest groups can wield.

Now, when we go back to what Baroness Kennedy said, see my post of October the 25th, it’s clear that by ‘the people with power’, she didn’t mean the electorate.

Hopefully she will respond to my letter.


09-11-2011 (2):

Yesterday, BBC World had a Ceefax message claiming that at the G20 summit, journalists had overheard the following remarks of President Sarkozy and President Obama about Israeli PM Netanyahu:

(quoting BBC World)

“I can’t stand him any more, he’s a liar”, Mr Sarkozy said in French. “You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day”, Mr Obama replied.

(end of quote)

What to say about Mr Sarkozy’s remarks?

Calling people names behind their backs seldom gets you anywhere and I always assumed that on the level of politics where Mr Sarkozy is operating, personal feelings aren’t supposed to matter. With regard to Mr Obama’s contribution to the dialogue, I’d say it sounds quite different from what he said in May of this year, when he described his talks with Mr Netanyahu as “extremely constructive” (source:

Why does President Sarkozy never say something like the following?

“France’s intentions to maintain good relations with Israel aren’t in the least burdened by its resolve not to allow its Torahist minority to harm the interests of the French people, and France feels that only by publicly addressing the Mosaic issue, it can assure its citizens that the peaceful relations with Israel are inspired by constructive considerations, and not by submissiveness or fear”

Now I come to think of it, I never hear President Obama say something similar either.


After Helena Kennedy’s observation that ‘the people with power are not the politicians’ – so who are these unelected rulers then? – I want to focus on a remark made in January 2011 by another prominent Labour politician, Jack Straw, once the UK’s Home Secretary.

It led The Guardian to run an article with the headline:

White girls seen as 'easy meat' by Pakistani rapists, says Jack Straw

Now, Mr Straw didn’t say anything new there. On their website, I’ve seen the BNP notice the same bitter wrong many years earlier than Mr Straw did. What struck me, is that Mr Straw’s remark flew straight in the face of his own party’s massive agenda of “anti-discrimination”, “anti-prejudice”, “anti-stereotyping” and “anti-racism” during the last four, five decades.

“Discrimination, stereotyping, racism, prejudices”, we’ve always been told , “ultimately led to the Holocaust.” Yet the Labour party didn’t make any moves to expel Mr Straw as a member, as far as I know.

In other words, the Labour party feels comfortable with the membership of a man who is connecting a specific kind of criminal behaviour (the rape of white girls) with a specific ethnic group (young Pakistanis).


For the full article see


Another distinguished Labour politician, David Miliband MP was the UK’s Foreign Secretary from 2007 to 2010. In August 2009, he was a guest of Matthew Parris on BBC Radio 4. At one point, the topic was the ANC’s terrorism and violence in South Africa during the years of the apartheid. Mr Parris then asked a question turning the issue into a matter of principle. Quoting the BBC News website:

Presenter Matthew Parris asked Mr Miliband: "Are there circumstances in which violent reaction, terrorism, is the right response?"
Mr Miliband said: "That's such a hard question, 'right' has to be judged in two ways doesn't it? Whether it's justifiable and whether it’s effective (…) But I think the answer has to be yes - there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, and yes, there are circumstances in which it is effective - but it is never effective on its own." (end of quote)

To our horror, we’ve seen what can come from that idea, on July the 22nd, in Norway. Anders Breivik murdered 77 people and, arguing that his goal justified the means, hasn’t shown one sign of remorse yet. Most of his victims were youth members of Labour’s sister party in Norway.

I visited, curious what I would find about Miliband’s concept of political civilization over there, but neither the search term ‘terrorism justifiable’ nor ‘bbc radio august 2009’ rendered any results. Please keep that in mind when you look at the nice-hero-in-action pictures on his website.

Labour not only feels comfortable with David Miliband’s membership, it was almost being led by him, as he was a contender for the party’s leadership in 2010.

For the full article see


Old media scandals
The old media are paying a lot of attention to events and persons concerning themselves this year. The phone hacking scandals, the demise of the News of the World, the Leveson inquiry listening to celebrities and crime victims’ relatives who testify how the press intruded their private lifes. One is forgiven to think the old media are displaying a great self-cleaning potential here. In my view however, that would only be the case, if the old media would bring up and give us in-depth information about these subjects:

1. A public discussion about the editorial guidelines of the broadcasting institutions paid for by the taxpayers*, like the BBC in your country, the NOS in mine, the VRT in Belgium and so on. These editorial guidelines are instructions to the programme makers and journalists what and what not they should inform the general public about, and if so, in which tone of voice that has to happen.

2. The freedom of the press can now be misused for conducting psychological warfare through TV, newspapers and so on against unsuspecting people in their tens and hundreds of millions. How is that possible?

3. The techniques of psychological warfare and mass manipulation.

4. An explanation for the old media’s silence on the faith annex political ideology I believe I already mentioned once or twice earlier.

*Morally, the commercial broadcasters couldn’t avoid mustering the same candour, because they get money from the companies in return for advertising time, and that advertising makes the viewers buy these companies’ products. So indirectly, the commercial broadcasters get a share of the money you spend at the checkout of your supermarket.

The film ‘God on trial’
On November the 26th, the Joodse Omroep broadcasting organization in The Netherlands showed the film ‘God on trial’, made in Britain in 2008. It’s about a group of Jews, imprisoned in Auschwitz-Birkenau, knowing that death can knock on their barracks’s door every day. They decide to try God because of the hellish situation they are in.

One of the scenes involves an actor who was paid to play the part of an emotionally upset Jew, who is critical of Torah passages like Deuteronomy 7:16-26. He feels empathy for all the non-Jews who suffered at the hands of the bloodthirsty God of the Torah. He feels sorry for the Amalekites, for the bereaved mothers of Egypt who saw their firstborns slain, for the Moabites. The scriptwriter’s lines of this actor funnel the viewers’ thoughts to the following conclusion: since God is utterly cruel towards Jews and non-Jews alike, God isn’t good, only strong, and He may have been on Israel’s side for a while, but He now made a covenant with someone else (i.e. Hitler). Everything that this actor said, made the other actors sink deep in thought, as the film director probably had instructed them to do.

I think that this scene was made to reinforce the (already widespread) error that all religions only lead to trouble and bloodshed, and reinforcing that error is only disadvantageous for Christianity, not for Torahism. The Torahists don’t give a damn about what non-Jews think of Moses’s doctrine, if non-Jews are aware of the doctrine’s existence at all. Torahism just wants to see as many Westerners turn their back to Christianity as possible, and misportraying “God” as a bloodthirsty maniac is one way of bringing that about.

It obscures that Christ is teaching us God knows of giving forgiveness, consolation, compassion, inner peace, happiness, selfconfidence, courage and justice to all human beings who try to find Him.

It occurred to me that, once the reversal will have taken place, some people might point at this film and say: ‘So it is not true that the old media never mention the supremacist and genocidal passages of the Torah’

Internet letters
It’s now a month ago I sent internet letters to Helena Kennedy and Andrew Marr, and I haven’t got a reaction from either of them. Nevertheless, the point I made in chapter 6.6.2 in Part 2 still stands: with the aid of the internet, we can ask the questions to the politicians the old media don’t ask, and we can ask the old media the questions they never put to themselves.

My effort may look futile and perhaps a bit ridiculous to some now, I’m aware of that, but after the reversal, the great significance of it will become clear one day, surely. The rulers and the old media will not be able to form a closed circuit together (anymore), and well-worded relevant internet questions will then help millions of people better understand what’s going on in politics and in the media.


21-12-2011 at 07:30 pm:

Earlier on this forum, some have said they don’t understand what I am on about. In this post, I will go into what’s driving me, me with my Christian patriotic ideal.

I was born in 1958. That means that my memory goes back to the 1960s, and when I see how society has changed over the decades, I see a lot of serious deteriorations. I will never say that everything was better in the past, but a lot of important things were. In the first place, people treated each other more friendly and more respectful than they do know. There was far less distrust. In the second place, over the decades, the socalled ordinary people got a number of changes imposed on them that no majority of voters ever deliberately asked for.

Now, if you are from the 1940s or before, you’ll have a better overview than I have. Yet, if you are from, say, the 1970s or later, it will be much harder for you to understand what I mean. So therefore, and this is very important to me, if you are a lot younger than I am, I do hope you will show this text to your parents, your grandparents, other older people whose opinion you value, and please listen carefully to what they think of it.

Where to begin?

It hasn’t always been so that many adults are afraid to criticize misbehaving youths in the streets, fearing they might be beaten up or worse. There was a time it was considered normal that adults reprimanded misbehaving youths in public places, making them feel ashamed.

There was a time great value was attached to dignity and honour, to a good reputation and to modesty. There was a time people knew far better that you can’t just say everything that comes into your head. It hasn’t always been so that the daily conversations around us are packed with sexual innuendo. It was frowned upon to make women feel uncomfortable in that way.

The shops haven’t always had to install expensive rolldown shutters. We haven’t always had CCTV cameras everywhere, humiliatingly monitoring our every step. It hasn’t always been so that even in hospitals and cemeteries, people have to be wary of thieves. There was a time lowlife conduct like that was simply unthinkable. The last couple of years a new kind of TV programmes has emerged, about life in prisons and in gangs, with a lot of attention for inmates and gang members, an awkward kind of attention that seem to want to grow sympathy for these people. There was a time that was unthinkable also. Society as a whole was undivided in its rejection of the criminal mentality.

People haven't always immediately gone to court, when they had a disagreement with someone else. Former mayor of Amsterdam Schelto Patijn once complained that his local government could count on three years of lawsuits, when it wanted to change the layout of a square in the city. There was a time people were more willing to please one another, to settle their differences in a friendly manner. I learnt what “to sue” means in the 70s, from the American TV series of the period, because in every Mannix or Kojak or Columbo episode, there was always at least one aggrieved person who promised someone else he would “sue his ass”. (You can “sue someone’s ass”. It’s just one example of what TV has been “teaching” the Western nations.)

There weren’t always Africans, Asians, Arabs, East Europeans, living in our cities and countries, in ever increasing numbers. Dutch citizens haven’t always felt strangers in those streets where the foreigners are now in the majority, and I am sure a lot of Britons and other Europeans have the same uncomfortable feeling. On television, there haven’t always been Africans, Arabs and Asians with British and Dutch passports, lecturing that the British and the Dutch should “adjust” themselves to this “new globalized world”. There was a time that Great Britain was simply the land of the British, that The Netherlands was simply the land of the Dutch, that France was the land of the French and so on, and no-one was unhappy with that.

The BBC wasn’t always able to film two long unemployed Britons, who made an uninspiring impression in comparison to hard working successful foreigners in the same programme. Perhaps you’ve seen it too, it was this or the other year. There was a time every Briton and every Dutchman and every other European knew you have to do your best at school and you ought to work for your money. People who remember the 1950s and 1960s know what I am talking about. Yet, as from the 1960s, the welfare state began to show its mad and highly unjust side, when those who clearly didn’t want to work, also got benefits. Again, please ask your parents and grandparents, they’ll know what I mean.

Our countries haven’t always had the widespread availability of that ultimate insult of love, pornography. Our countries haven’t always been countries where people with children, complaining about misconducting homosexuals in a park nearby their homes, are told by the local authorities they are perhaps “homophobic”. Television and the newspapers haven’t always been pouring the squalor of the world in full detail in our living-rooms. There was a time society allowed our children to keep their innocence and to enjoy a happy carefree childhood.

Our countries haven’t always been pestered by drug problems. What do a lot of people think of when they hear ‘The Netherlands’? The socalled coffee shops. Cannabis. Drugs. Yet do you think that The Netherlands have always been a drugs-infected country? Absolutely not. I once had a talk with my mother about this. In her teens, in the 1950s, she was a big fan of American singer-actor Frank Sinatra, like many other Western girls of the period. She saw every film featuring him, and so, when ‘The Man With The Golden Arm’ was released in 1955, she saw that film too. Yet she told me that at the time, she actually didn’t understand what the film was about. The explanation is simple. At the time, my mother and her generation had no idea what a heroin addiction is, and how difficult it is for an addict to free himself from it on his own, and those were the themes of that film.

Had The Netherlands been properly ruled in the past 50 years, i.e. had the Dutch courts given deterringly severe prison sentences to the first **** that engaged in drug trade on Dutch soil, the drug problem in my country would never have risen to the scale it sadly has now. The same goes for other countries as well, of course.

Materialism hasn’t always been god in America and Europe. What was one of the first things President Bush said after 9/11? “Don’t let the terrorists disturb our way of life. Go to a shopping mall.” My goodness…! The last couple of years, we are supposed to be deeply impressed by what the credit rating agencies are deciding in their wisdom. “Moody’s downgrades status of Belgium”, that kind of headlines. What did President Sarkozy say, some weeks ago? “If the euro exploded, Europe would explode. And in fact it's the guarantee of peace on the continent where there were terrible wars, fiercer than anywhere else in the world, not in the 15th century but in the 20th century" (source: CBC News).

I beg your pardon? What was that again?? Is he out of his mind or what?! We’re talking about a currency here, nothing more than that. After 1945, Europe rebuilt itself and achieved prosperity, while all the nations had their own currencies.

Abortion… I believe that the abortion figures in the West are now running in their tens of millions, over the past four or five decades, deceived as we are into believing that abortion is a “right”. Nowadays, young women undergo two or three abortions, as if it were some sort of overdue contraception, as BBC Newsnight showed some time ago. Who would have dreamed such excesses ever possible, fourty years ago?

The Netherlands haven’t always had useless laws that enabled a convicted sex offender from Latvia to enter our country and to become a day care centre worker, who now stands accused of wallowing in depravity with over 80 very young children.

We haven’t always had this Europe, where deranged people grab a gun, take to the streets or go to their school, to shoot unsuspecting people at random, like we’ve seen happen in Germany, Finland, Belgium, in my country, in yours, in the last couple of years. When I was a teenager, in the 1970s, that sort of thing only happened in America, bad enough as it was.

You know what, I’ll leave it just there. I hope I haven’t depressed you too much - but look at us now. Look at us now. And we owe it all to the 1960s rise to power of people with “progressive” and “liberal” and “enlightened” ideas - and we also owe it to our own naiveté, diffidence and passivity. I am almost getting depressed by it all myself, if it wasn’t for my belief that God will once bring the reversal.

He will, on the day of His choice, in whichever way He thinks fit.

My moralizing justifies the question: am I “holier than thou”? Probably not, but that doesn’t matter. For a better future, we have to focus on the better ideas, on the ideas that proved their merit throughout the centuries, and not gaze at the flaws of this or that person. So for the above goes: it doesn’t matter who is saying it. What matters is, that it has to be said.

So again, if you were born much later than 1958, please show this post to your parents and grandparents, print it if they haven’t got internet, let them read it and listen carefully to their opinion. I bet it will resonate with them. That’s important, because when the Christian Patriotic parties will see the light of day in Europe, these parties will need that generation’s stories to increase their fighting chance, in order to winch our countries out of the swamp they are in now.

Remarkably, the future of Europe needs the eyewitnesses of its past.


See also the MailOnline article:

‘This isn’t the Britain we fought for’, say the ‘unknown warriors’ of WWII

…and please note the gracious yet corrective tone of voice of the journalist.


Whenever we Westerners see television and the newspapers report on the situation in some country, we always have to be aware our feelings might be being manipulated. The TV and newspaper makers might want us to think positively or negatively of the government of that country, for reasons they keep to themselves. If they want to influence our opinion, they can achieve that. We should not underestimate their creative and intellectual power to do so, and likewise, we should not overestimate our ability to see through and withstand manipulation. Making TV reports and writing newspaper articles is a specialist profession that only a minute part of the population masters, and it involves tons of tricks of the trade most people don’t know anything about.

Let me give you a fictitious example. Imagine two countries, called Petia and Qudia. They are comparable in size and population, and their political and economic status in the world is also comparable. Both nations are governed by rulers who hold strong convictions. So far for the similarities, but let’s now look at two differences. The ideas of the Petian rulers are in some respects conflicting with the ideas of the rulers in Qudia. The second difference: in Petia, 24% of the people is very unhappy with their government. In Qudia, 12% of the inhabitants is very unhappy with their government.

These differences are already existing for years. It’s the kind of non-prominent information that finds its way to the Western newspapers every now and then, somewhere on page 6. So those Westerners who want to be well-informed and who therefore read a lot and attentively follow the news, have this information stored somewhere in the back of their heads. Yet the many Westerners who don’t follow the news very attentively, won’t know about the differences in discord in Petia and Qudia.

Now, one day, for whatever political reason, the media want the general public in the West to think that there is great political dissatisfaction in Qudia, rather than in Petia. The media can then cast doubt on the reliability of the poll figures, or on the integrity of the pollsters in Qudia. Casting doubt on someone’s integrity is a very easy thing to do. If the reporter for instance casually mentions that the director of Qudia’s main polling agency ‘never skips the annual barbecue party of the Qudian Home Secretary’, you already heard something that suggests the director and the minister might be in league with one another.

What however will have more effect than casting doubts, is playing at the emotions of the viewers. So the media will send report teams to Qudia, and these teams will look for people who belong to the very unhappy 12% and film and interview them. The media teams will be rather choosy while selecting the people for the broadcast. They will look for people who know how to word their grievances clearly and poignantly. They will look for attractive women. They will look for people who make a sympathetic first impression (that’s namely the only impression the viewers will get). They will look for people who by the way they talk seem to share familiar values. In short, they will look for ‘12-percenters’ with whom the viewers will easily identify with. They will look for people that are easy to like. And after the editing is done, this is what the TV might show about the Qudians, before the studio presenter discusses matters with the guests:

They’ll show an old man, kindly petting his dog. We see the man gaze at the sunset on the horizon. He is in a reflective mood and we, the viewers, get also a bit in a reflective mood because of it. He says: ‘God has given me a lot to be grateful for. A lovely wife, healthy children, work that I liked to do. Yet every evening I pray for a change of government.’

They will show a woman, sitting near a window, softly crying. Yesterday, her husband has been arrested, ‘allegedly on the suspicion of subversive activities’ the narrator says in a tone of voice, as if he notices something smelly. The camera swings to the right and we see her young child, upset, looking with big eyes at its mother.

The media report will also tell us about disturbed Qudians, living in the West. They will show young Qudians, who chained themselves to the fence around their country’s embassy in Washington, London or Paris, surrounded by banners saying ‘Regime change in Qudia NOW!!!!’. The police cut the chains and push the protesters in a van. One of them turns around and shouts desperately, right before the van doors close: ‘Why is the world looking the other way?

This kind of one-sided reporting will go on and on. Therefore, the unhappy Qudians will find their way to the talks people have about politics, at their work, in the pub, over the garden fence. Most people will get the feeling there is something very wrong in Qudia. An inner conflict will of course emerge in the Westerner who knows that the dissatisfaction in Petia is twice as much. When he tells that to the people around him, he will almost feel as if he is saying something bad. Those he is talking to, will look at him with a sense of disbelief, of confusion, of amusement perhaps, as if they suspect him to be ill-informed. One night, such a well-informed Westerner is privileged to have been invited to a TV debate, and he is looking forward to the chance to draw people’s attention to the much worse situation in Petia. Yet he will be surprised by a series of thorny questions that ridicule or smear those suffering Petians he hoped to be an advocate for. In short, the few who know better, will feel put in the defensive, in the mood of emotional mass mobilization over the misery in Qudia.

Had the media been reporting objectively, they would of course simply have sticked to the facts about both countries, and tried to find out how the ideas and ways of the Petian and the Qudian rulers are originating or contributing to the ‘unhappiness rates’ of both peoples respectively, with the greater focus on Petia.

While watching the news, we are not only thinking with our heads, but with our hearts too. I believe most Westerners have a compassionate reflex. We wish to see good prevail in the world, and we are blessed people for it, but unfortunately, that makes us vulnerable for emotional manipulation by the media in all the political issues the same media don’t tell us enough facts about. People are (logically) more touched by the injustice and sorrow they get to see, than by the injustice and sorrow they don’t get to see, even if the latter are much greater.

So if TV and newspaper editors want to disinform the general public about a certain country, they can do it, because they know: ‘Twelve percent? Twenty-four percent? Who cares? They’re just statistics. And in terms of impact on the public opinion, statistics will always lose from the close-up of a crying child.’

The whole issue has great political importance, because the less misunderstandings arise between the nations, the better peace and harmony in the world are being served.

It goes without saying that malevolent broadcasting like the above will always take place under the banner of ‘freedom of the press’.



On February the 13th, the website version of the Daily Mail had an article headlined:

Vladimir Putin ridiculed after demanding Russians have more sex to halt declining population

I would like to ask you to Google and open that article under another tab, because this post is a comment on it, and on ideas related with it.

First, a look at the facts. A nation is facing the problem of a declining population. That is a very serious issue. Politics knows few problems that are more serious. So worrying about that very serious problem, the government leader of that country is proposing some measures to stop and hopefully reverse the decline. He is actually doing there what he feels he should do, what his duty calls him to do. After all, sensible and responsible leadership of a nation means: looking ahead, and taking the measures in the present in order to serve the interests of the country in the future. (We, the Dutch, actually have a saying, ‘Regeren is vooruitzien’, that translates as ‘Governing is looking ahead’)

The Mail Online editors however are looking at this from a different angle, judging by what the article is telling us, and, at least as important, by what it is not telling us:

1. The Mail Online is omitting a fact of huge importance. Since a) Russia is counting 142 million inhabitants, and since b) the Russians are a people with a healthy sense of patriotism and since c) Prime Minister Putin repeatedly gained majority votes in the past twelve years, Mr Putin’s proposals will undoubtedly find a sympathetic ear with literally tens of millions of Russians. That fact is however not even mentioned once, and not even one of these millions of Russians is quoted.

2. The Mail Online is repeatedly trying to make its readers laugh over Mr Putin’s campaign pledges. It starts right away in the headline. It’s in Russia’s longterm interest to have larger families, but by their choice of words, the Mail Online is making something rancid of it. At the end of the article, three quotes from internet forums are given. The first person quoted uses the same kind of rancid wording as the editor of the headline. The second person unfoundedly accuses Mr Putin of self-overestimation. The third person strangely suggests that Mr Putin is ignorant of the existence of women who don’t want (more) children. It’s clear to my mind that the Russian PM is thinking of the millions of Russian women who would love to have more children, if only it were affordable, but these women aren’t mentioned in the article either, let alone quoted.

3. The editors of the article are indirectly making propaganda for massive immigration. How? The director of the Demographic Institute in Moscow is quoted. He ‘can’t imagine any boost of the population without massive immigration’. Yet, massive immigration will make Russia less Russian, just like it is making Europe less European, decade after decade. You don't have to be an expert in demographics to understand that stimulating family life is the solution for enlarging a population, without massive immigration. It's not mentioned in the article.

Mr Putin’s campaign pledges could have inspired the Mail Online to go ask the main parties in the UK some critical questions over their failing – if not absent - demographic policies. Instead, they try to mock his, and they handpicked four negative quotes that serve the mockery.

Another word about the headline. The headline is the most important element of any newspaper article. Newspaper readers scan most of the headlines, but they will only read a limited number of the articles in full. So if they don’t read the full copy, it’s only the headline that will influence their thinking.

Now, remarkably, you can’t detect an untruth in this headline’s claim that Mr Putin is ridiculed. They can write that, because yes, there are at least three people ridiculing him. However, the headline’s claim doesn’t cover the truth. By no means. It’s only telling a part of the truth, given the unmentioned millions of Russians with more positive views I paid attention to in the above.

And telling only a part of the truth can be as confusing as telling an untruth – perhaps it’s even nastier, because an untruth can get unmasked, whereas the ill intention behind telling only a part of the truth, the ill intention to present the readers a distorted view on the world, can remain in the dark forever.

A fair article would have shown the broader picture of Russian opinions about this issue, and it would have featured a far more balanced headline like:

Vladimir Putin’s proposals for larger families to halt declining population well-received by many Russians

To sum up, the Mail Online is distorting reality in order to down-image Mr Putin and to try and make its readers laugh over an ambition that would in fact also be an excellent idea for us in Europe, with our ageing population.

By the way, the Daily Mail and the Mail Online are silent about essential issues like a certain genocidal doctrine and the abuse of the freedom of the press for conducting psychological warfare, just as silent as the other Western media are. Please also see chapter 5.11.18 in part 1 of the main text.

CNN Text once quoted HM Queen Elizabeth II as to have said: ‘True patriotism doesn't exclude an understanding of the patriotism of others’. A wise remark. I mean, I am a Dutch patriot, but I can vividly imagine the Russians wish to see their nation flourish too.



For years now, we are being told that “the West is fearing that Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon, although Tehran is denying that”. If the West is indeed afraid of that, I don’t find it hard to explain why. It’s because the Western media are saying so for years, and that’s rubbing off on public opinion of course.

We are also being told that “because of the Holocaust, Israel is determined not to take any risk of a threat to its existence”. Perfectly understandable. In an interview for Dutch TV, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said that they have idiotic ideas in Iran, that its rulers are not thinking rationally. He has a point there. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad would like to see the State of Israel move to Europe, and he is on film telling that his admirers saw a halo above his head while he was addressing the UN general assembly, a couple of years ago. Next thing you know Mr Ahmadinejad will think himself being the Mahdi, the Deliverer where many Muslims believe in.

Yet, irrational delusions about one’s significance for mankind are just as problematic as the Jewish doctrine of supremacy and genocide I never hear Mr Netanyahu talk about, let alone express concerns over. So it’s at that point where I begin to understand Iran’s side of the story.

There are some aspects to this issue that are not or seldomly mentioned, but they should:

1. In whichever direction Tehran is looking, it sees either countries with nuclear weapons, or it sees countries host US troops that might have nuclear weapons, and Tehran always has to reckon with the possible vicinity of nuclear-armed US submarines in the region. So if Iran is indeed developing a nuclear weapon, it can rightfully argue it’s doing so to set the nuclear balance straight.

2. Iran was forced to fight a gruesome war from 1980 to 1988, after it was attacked by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, that had good relations with America at the time. Iran can therefore rightfully argue it must have a deterrent. “We live in a tough neighbourhood. No mercy for the weak. No second opportunity for those who can’t defend themselves”, Israel’s Minister of Defence Ehud Barak told the BBC in November. He said it to explain for Israel’s stern attitude in the security issues of the region, but he can’t then blame Iran for thinking along the same line.

3. Iran might develop a nuclear weapon in secrecy, ‘our’ old media always say alarmingly. Well, of course they would do it in secrecy. All nations have to be careful with their defence secrets. The Israelis didn’t exactly build their atomic arsenal in a Big Brother house either.

4. Confronted with the possibility of an attack by Iran on Israel, Hillary Clinton, who is now the US Secretary of State, told the interviewer America would “obliterate” Iran. So Iran’s rulers will always be aware, whether they have a nuclear weapon or not, that any major aggressive move against Israel might catastrophicly backfire on their own country.

5. Suppose, Iran gives in to what Israel is demanding in this. Who will then guarantee Iran that Israel’s next demand won’t be that Iran abstain from having certain types of bombers or missiles, or superheavy non-nuclear bombs? Politics on this level, over such issues, is as hard as rock. The one who gives in too soon, or who gives in for too feeble a countergesture, will be viewed as weak, certainly by Torahists, and being perceived as weak can get Iran in other problems.

6. An additional problem to the tensions between Israel and Iran is that, for all their differences, both Torahism and Islam are worshipping gods that recommend the deception of non-Torahists and non-Muslims respectively. I always felt this is also troubling that excuse for a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians.

7. The whole situation reminds me of 1979 Western Europe. After it had emerged that the Soviet Union had renewed medium range missiles, aimed at the Western European countries, NATO took a double decision to counter this: the alliance placed new missiles itself on the one hand, yet on the other hand successfully offered the Soviet Union to begin negotiations to remove missiles on both sides. It seems to me that Middle East parties should make a similar move, in the interest of de-nuclearizing the entire region.

Did reading this post discomfort you in any way? I hope so. Because, if it did, it’s because the things I’ve been telling you, don’t fit in the usual perspective, from which the old media force you to look at things. In fact, what the West needs, is an overall massive shake-up of seemingly normal ideas and perceptions, not on the Israel-Iran subject only.



Internet letter to U.S. President Barack Obama

The Netherlands,
Friday, 1st June 2012

Your excellency,

Please allow me to introduce myself: my name is Richard Schoot, I was born in 1958 and I am a Dutchman. Since the spring of 2001, I am profoundly impressed by the teachings, acts and sacrifice of Yeshua, the Jew mankind has come to know as Jesus Christ, and by the hope He is offering.

In 2000, I became aware of the existence of the stunning Mosaic doctrine, as worded in the Torah, by which mentally defenceless Jewish children, as from the age of five, are indoctrinated to develop a supremacist, even genocidal mentality towards the non-Jewish peoples, and by which they are indoctrinated with the fear of their own (!) god, who is said to punish the Jews ruthlessly, if they won’t live by this Mosaic doctrine.

I am the author of the internet text ‘Britain faces the threat of Anglocide - Britain and the other European nations might perish in what looks like a lengthy psychological war. How to survive in a Christian-patriotic manner’. This text can be found at I am also a contributor to the British internet forum In its section ‘Introduce Yourself’, I have been posting texts there as from May 2010. I wrote posts mentioning your name and the U.S. government on the thread pages 11, 13, 16, 17 and 18.

Torahist texts like Deuteronomy 15:6 and Isaiah 60:10-12 make it clear that the Torahist minorities in the West have always been bent on using mega-financial methods to gain rule over entire nations. In my internet text, in chapter 5.14, I am unfolding the theory that as from the 1950s, 1960s, America has become a country under Torahist rule and that the socalled European Union is the concealed pursuit of Torahism to obtain absolute and lasting rule over the peoples of Europe. In chapter 5.15, I am substantiating this theory with circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the theory is partly based on the facts I am mentioning in chapter 9.2 and partly on my personal observations, see Appendix: the names in 5.12.

The Jewish pain and sensitivities, due to the unimaginable losses and wounds, inflicted by Hitler’s murderers, are never far from my mind, whenever I write about these issues.

I e-mailed my internet book to about 7,400 academics in Britain at the end of 2003, early 2004. As yet, none of them has been willing or able to refute my theory, or sent me even one counterargument that could undermine it.

I have also drawn my publications to the attention of, among others:

the then UK Prime Minister Mr Blair (2004);
the chairman of the BBC Mr Davies (2004);
Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands (2004);
the then Dutch Prime Minister Mr Balkenende (2004);
the chief editors of ten prominent media in The Netherlands (2006);
the presidents of the national parliaments of the twenty-seven EU countries (2010);
UK Prime Minister Mr Cameron (2010);
the ten main candidates of the Dutch elections (2010);
the chairpersons of the UK’s three main political parties (2010).

And what goes for the UK academics, goes for them too – none of them has been willing or able to refute my theory, or sent me even one counterargument that could undermine it, although I’m always inviting people to do so.

Please would you allow me to send you another internet letter, in which I will ask you two questions related to the above? I would be most grateful for your permission and your renewed attention.

Yours most respectfully and sincerely,

Richard Schoot

P.S.: I published this letter on the British Democracy Forum on June the 1st. I will also send it to you by mail and by two contact forms of the White House’s website.

[P.S. December 2013: I haven't received a reaction.]


Internet letter to several news media in America


The Netherlands,
Tuesday, 9th October 2012

Dear Madams, Dear Sirs,

Please allow me to introduce myself: my name is Richard Schoot, I was born in 1958 and I am a Dutchman. Since the spring of 2001, I am profoundly impressed by the teachings, acts and sacrifice of Yeshua, the Jew mankind has come to know as Jesus Christ, and by the hope He is offering.

In 2000, I became aware of the existence of the stunning Mosaic doctrine, as worded in the Torah, by which mentally defenceless Jewish children, as from the age of five, are indoctrinated to develop a supremacist, even genocidal mentality towards the non-Jewish peoples, and by which they are indoctrinated with the fear of their own (!) god, who is said to punish the Jews ruthlessly, if they won’t live by this Mosaic doctrine.

I am the author of the internet text ‘Britain faces the threat of Anglocide - Britain and the other European nations might perish in what looks like a lengthy psychological war. How to survive in a Christian-patriotic manner’. This text can be found at I am also a contributor to the British internet forum In its section ‘Introduce Yourself’, I have been posting texts there as from May 2010.

Torahist texts like Deuteronomy 15:6 and Isaiah 60:10-12 make it clear that the Torahist minorities in the West have always been bent on using mega-financial methods to gain rule over entire nations. In my internet text, in chapter 5.14, I am unfolding the theory that as from the 1950s, 1960s, America has become a country under Torahist rule and that the socalled European Union is the concealed pursuit of Torahism to obtain absolute and lasting rule over the peoples of Europe. In chapter 5.15, I am substantiating this theory with circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the theory is partly based on the facts I am mentioning in chapter 9.2 and partly on my personal observations, see Appendix: the names in 5.12.

I have also reasons to believe that the media of the pre-internet era (TV, film, radio, newspapers etc.) are already for a long time being misused by Torahist Jews and their non-Jewish helpers to wage a psychological war against the Western peoples, in order to lead these peoples into moral and ethnic confusion, to their ruin.

Torahist texts like Exodus 23:27-30 and Deuteronomy 7:22-24 literally speak of “confusion” as a long-term strategy to make non-Jewish peoples extinct in their own countries.

Seldom is the Christian commandment to love your enemies more significant than on the moment one fully realizes what Torahism stands for, and the Jewish pain and sensitivities, due to the unimaginable losses and wounds, inflicted by Hitler’s murderers, are never far from my mind, whenever I write about these issues. I’m saying: ‘Long live the Jews, down with Torahism’

I e-mailed my internet book to about 7,400 academics in Britain at the end of 2003, early 2004. As yet, none of them has been willing or able to refute my theory, or sent me even one counterargument that could undermine it.

I have also drawn my publications to the attention of, among others:

the then UK Prime Minister Mr Blair (2004);
the chairman of the BBC Mr Davies (2004);
Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands (2004);
the then Dutch Prime Minister Mr Balkenende (2004);
the chief editors of ten prominent media in The Netherlands (2006);
the presidents of the national parliaments of the twenty-seven EU countries (2010);
UK Prime Minister Mr Cameron (2010);
the ten main candidates of the Dutch elections (2010);
the chairpersons of the UK’s three main political parties (2010);
U.S. President Barack Obama (1st June 2012);
U.S. Presidency candidate Mitt Romney (13th September 2012).

And what goes for the UK academics, goes for them too – as yet, none of them has been willing or able to refute my theory, or sent me even one counterargument that could undermine it, although I’m always inviting people to do so.

I would like to ask you the following. Would you please read my internet book? If so, in case you can think of counterarguments that undermine my theory, would you confront me with those arguments? I will react to them. In case you can't think of counterarguments, would you ask President Obama and Mr Romney how they think about the Torahist docrine and about the size of its harmful influence on American society?

Would you please render your viewers or readers a great service anyhow by producing an eye-opening broadcast or article on Torahism?

Let me quote Walter Cronkite (1917-2009) here:

“The profession of journalism ought to be about telling people what they need to know, not what they want to know.” (Source:

America’s military are frequently sent overseas to liberate other peoples’ countries (including mine, once), risking life and limb, leaving their loved ones behind in permanent anxiety and hope for their safe return. So the realistic possibility that America itself has become a dictatorship, cleverly camouflaged, is undoubtedly something that the American people need and want to know everything about.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Schoot

P.S.: I published this letter on the British Democracy Forum on October the 9th. I will also send it to contact options I found on your websites.

[P.S. December 2013: I haven't received a reaction.]



By 'Part 1' and 'Part 2' in my posts, I am referring to the two parts of my main text.

If you are interested in the quality and quantity of the response I got on the forum, have a look on the BDF itself: > register > The Lounge: Introduce Yourself > date of last post: 26-10-2012. My thread is titled Please read my free internet book 'Britain faces the threat of Anglocide'

Among the reactions that I found challenging to go into, were the ones that can be found on:
Thread page 4, date 06-09-2010, time 09:19 pm.
I replied on 10-09-2010.
Thread page 12, date 29-04-2011, one at 09:08 pm and one at 10:22 pm.
I reacted to those on 06-05-2011.

I added the following standard text to my posts most of the time:

Previously on this thread:
In August 2010, I wrote letters to Britain’s three main parties, asking them what they are doing to protect the British people against Torahism. Labour and the Liberal Democrats didn’t react, but the Conservatives did. See page 3 and 4 of this thread for my letter, the reply of the Tories and my analysis of their reply.

Britain faces the threat of Anglocide
Long live the Jews, down with Torahism
Please read my free internet book on


Britain, The Netherlands, Europe are in very big trouble, in my view. Our countries urgently need new political parties, Christian Patriotic parties, and it is very important to know what Torahism is. Please read my main text at
      If you come to agree with my views, please always remember that the only way out is a peaceful and patient way. Not a single foreigner or Jew can be held responsible for the country's present situation. Avoid confrontations that can easily turn overheated. Don't react to provocations. Please don't view the avoiding as cowardice. It isn't. Be strong, be calm and calm down others if their anger may cause them to do foolish things.

Long live the Jews, down with Torahism.

                                       Back to the initial page