Please read my free internet book 'Britain faces the threat of Anglocide'

[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:
Welcome to the Home Office
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

[Richard Schoot]

The sentence 'Welcome to the Home Office' was miraculously generated in the process of posting this reply. The original sentence in the party's reply mentions the website address of the Home Office.

Kind regards,
Richard


Britain faces the threat of Anglocide
Long live the Jews, down with Torahism
www.ibcpp.org.uk

[Bwana_Mutungi]

Mr Scoot,
I hear that the Pakistan Cricket Board have an opening for an ethical advisor. Reckon you would benefit from the role.

[Reprobate]

I hear that the Pakistan Cricket Board have an opening for an ethical advisor.

The English Cricket Team doesn't need one.

[Richard Schoot]

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,
Richard


Britain faces the threat of Anglocide
Long live the Jews, down with Torahism
www.ibcpp.org.uk

[Aardvark]

No surprises there. I know of no single person who would know what you are on about. I don't know why you expect anybody to take any notice of your ideas. You are not part of this constituency. You have no political party to back you. You are not able to stand for election at any level in this country. You are not allowed by law to contribute financially to any party in this country. People look at your word 'Torahism' and immediately think, true or no, 'anti-Semitic'. You propose that people in a country other than your own form a political party along lines suggested by you, but you bring diddly squat to the table. Neither David Cameron nor Tony Blair have personally read your correspondence since dealing with it is not in the remit of a PM. You are not one of their constituents. There is no obligation on MPs or ministers of any party to deal with correspondence that falls outside of their personal jurisdiction and, since they receive, in the case of MPs, hundreds of more pressing matters from their own constituents in any given year it is as matter of policy that they do not reply in detail if at all. Ministers and the PM receive tens of thousands of letters in any given year. Their MPs/ministers/PMs staff deal with them and only important ones are signed in person.

Political parties of which you are not a member have no reason to deal with your correspondence. You are lucky that Baroness Warsi deigned to delegate her response to a staff member. There is no possibility that the staff member did not know what the response should be. The issue is not one for a political party. I cannot think why it would be. Political parties are voluntary associations of people. They don't have the power to take any action against 'Torahism', whatever that is. I think you completely misunderstand the system under which we operate in this country.

[Bwana_Mutungi]

Scooty, any response from Batman as yet? Normally, Gotham City Council is quite apt at such concerns.

[angelman]

This Torahism - what are you on about and why on Earth should we care? You sound very similar to some mad mullah nutter who thinks we should all be interested in the Qur'an. By all means follow a religion but don't foist it and your insecurities on the rest of us.

[Richard Schoot]

To Aardvark:

1. “No surprises there.”

No, I wasn’t very surprised by the Tories’ reply either.

2. “I know of no single person who would know what you are on about.”

Mine is a clearly written, highly informative, taboo-breaking book and I am always ready to answer people’s questions about it, but if you and your acquaintances don’t read it, I can’t help it you don’t know what I am on about.

3. “I don't know why you expect anybody to take any notice of your ideas.”

In contrast to you, I happen to think there are countless Britons who like to see the British people continue to exist, be their own masters, live happy lifes in harmonious neighbourhoods, be truly prosperous, and, undoubtedly having such Britons among my readers, I have every reason to believe they will feel better informed, because I am telling them facts of the utmost importance the old media and the old parties don’t tell them, which is a fact of the utmost importance itself.

4. “You are not part of this constituency.”

That doesn’t matter for what I am doing.

5. “You have no political party to back you.”

Well, that’s exactly why I felt I had to do something, isn’t it? If only the existing political parties did what they should do, given the votes they accept from the people who trust them, I would never have needed to launch this initiative.

6. “You are not able to stand for election at any level in this country.”

That’s not relevant for what I am doing now.

7. “You are not allowed by law to contribute financially to any party in this country.”

I never said I wanted to. Besides, I couldn’t. My knowledge, insights, ideas, energy, inner drive, patience, my loyalty to my faith, these things form the only capital I can donate. (That’s quite a lot, now I come to think of it.)

8. “People look at your word 'Torahism' and immediately think, true or no, 'anti-Semitic'.”

You are quite right observing that automatism. It’s a very problematic automatism at that. There are also other words, images, ideas that trigger comparable, almost allergic automatisms in people. Most people long to be on the good side in politics, and they want others to see them standing on the good side. That longing makes them vulnerable for malevolent forces in the old media who seek to manipulate their feelings and thoughts about good and bad. It is connected with the techniques of psychological warfare, with the output of the old media and with Europe’s current opinion climate. In my book and articles, I am paying a lot of attention to these issues, giving clarifying examples everyone can recognize.

9. “You propose that people in a country other than your own form a political party , giving along lines suggested by you, but you bring diddly squat to the table.”

What I noticed in this and in your other postings as well, is that you never criticize one specific idea or one specific line of reasoning of mine. Your criticism is always vague, diffuse, not to the point, pejorative. Cheap, unsubstantiated criticism like that isn’t very helpful for our readers to form their opinion.

10. “Neither David Cameron nor Tony Blair have personally read your correspondence since dealing with it is not in the remit of a PM.”

You can’t seriously pretend to know what the Prime Ministers of your country are reading or not. You are not a fly on the wall in 10 Downing Street or Chequers. Furthermore, if threats to the existence, liberty and well-being of the British people don’t fall under the remit of a Prime Minister, then what on earth does?

11. “There is no obligation on MPs or ministers of any party to deal with correspondence that falls outside of their personal jurisdiction and, since they receive, in the case of MPs, hundreds of more pressing matters from their own constituents in any given year it is as matter of policy that they do not reply in detail if at all. Ministers and the PM receive tens of thousands of letters in any given year. Their MPs/ministers/PMs staff deal with them and only important ones are signed in person. Political parties of which you are not a member have no reason to deal with your correspondence.“

This lecture would probably provide for excellent reading material in some sort of introduction guide for the civil service, but I am afraid it demonstrates yet again you are absolutely clueless about the magnitude of the matters I am writing about.

12. "You are lucky that Baroness Warsi deigned to delegate her response to a staff member.”

You are now suggesting Baroness Warsi acted out of the goodness of her heart, but since you are not Baroness Warsi, you can’t say anything with certainty about her motive. She may have had a less nobler motive. By the way, the very reply of the Conservatives is negating everything you said in your lecture before. After all, I am not living in Baroness Warsi’s constituency, no, I am not even a member of the Conservative Party, no, I am not even British, no, I am even living on the other side of the North Sea, but, well-what-do-you-know, I get a reaction on her behalf in only two days time, despite the tons of mail and e-mail she is getting.

13. “There is no possibility that the staff member did not know what the response should be.”

No, it’s the other way around, it is out of the question you can know for sure that the staff member didn’t have to consult the co-chairman before sending the reply. You are not a fly on the wall in those particular premises either.

14. “The issue is not one for a political party. I cannot think why it would be.”

You’ll understand by now I can’t take this seriously.

15. “Political parties are voluntary associations of people. They don't have the power to take any action against 'Torahism', whatever that is.”

All the more reason for courageous Britons to found the British Christian Patriotic Party in order to gain power, use it constructively and set an example for the whole of Europe. Besides, you are writing: ‘Torahism, whatever that is.’ If you don’t know what Torahism is, how come you do know the political parties don’t have the power to take any action against it?

16. “I think you completely misunderstand the system under which we operate in this country.”

I think you are mistaken. There are things I don’t know about politics, religion and media, and there are things I do know about them, I am sharing the latter with my readers in the UK and elsewhere, and I think it will contribute to the reversal that Europe needs.


You’ve listed a number of obstacles and difficulties. Some make sense, some are debatable, some are irrelevant or nonsensical, all of them combined carry some weight, yet none of them is decisive. When a nation’s problems are slowly turning into existential threats, the decisive factor in politics in the long run is the necessity of a new way of thinking, and consequently, the irresistible power of better ideas.

Richard


Britain faces the threat of Anglocide
Long live the Jews, down with Torahism
Initiative for the British Christian-Patriotic Party --- Initial page

[Richard Schoot]

Tonight I will watch the programme 'The Special Relationship' (9:30, BBC2) The BBC calls it a drama examining the relationship between Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton. I will write a comment on it, for those among you who are interested in my views on the influence of TV. Perhaps it is a good idea to record the programme. My comment will go from one crucial moment in the programme to the next, mentioning the exacts minutes of these moments, for ease of reference. You can then print the comment, review the scenes and dialogues I analysed and make your own judgement. It may take some time before I publish the comment, but I am ready for other questions and discussions in the meantime.

Kind regards,
Richard


Britain faces the threat of Anglocide
Long live the Jews, down with Torahism
www.ibcpp.org.uk