Tag Archives: censorship

What We Cannot Do

Gates of Vienna has posted an essay titled What We Can Do proposing that the West destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, reject muslim immigrants, deport non-citizen muslims, forbid any predominantly muslim country from building or obtaining nuclear weapons, reduce our dependence on oil, require our governments to persistently denounce islam, and finally, shatter the muslim faith by preemptively destroying mecca and medina.

This is by far the most aliberal collection of anti-islam proposals I have ever read in my life. The premise is unapologetically pro-Western and it elicits many comments questioning just how far the West can go to defend itself.

Lawrence Auster links the essay and writes:

It remains a remarkable fact that free political debate about a life and death issue facing our civilization only takes place on the Web.

It is a boring and hardly remarkable fact that Auster, from his lofty moral high ground, considers it his duty to define “free political debate”. Thus he shows up to let us know what we cannot do. For instance, we cannot use words like “vermin”. That and any similarly dehumanizing labels are reserved for anti-semites. You know, anyone who recognizes that the West has enemies beside islam and people to defend beside jews.

What I find remarkable, and commented about, is the role of PC and cultural marxism in hobbling the West. The problem, very clear here amongst the discussion of who to bomb and how many to kill, is illustrated in the pavlovian anti-anti-semitic reaction to any questioning of the conflation of White and jewish interests in what “we” call “the West”.

As long as White Westerners permit their speech and ideas to be constrained and their interests subordinated to pushy self-interested minorities we will continue to be invaded by turd worlders invited by our greedy and White-hating rulers. Under a regime where we may only argue about the symptoms and misdiagnose the disease there is no hope for any defense of the West.

Anyone who cannot stand to hear such ideas is part of the problem.

UK Thought Criminals Sheppard and Whittle Jailed in LA

On 11 July 2008 the Yorkshire Post published Holocaust denier convicted of trying to incite race hate online:

A jury at Leeds Crown Court yesterday found Simon Sheppard, 51, guilty of nine counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material on his website between March 2005 and April 2006. The court heard Sheppard’s website attracts 4,000 visitors a day.

Four of the articles were penned by Stephen Whittle, 41, who was yesterday convicted of four counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material.

The others included a cartoon by the American cartoonist Robert Crumb and an article written during the 1960s by the leader of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell.

Prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford told the jury that Sheppard and Whittle were a pair of racists who held what they may regard as fairly extreme views about people who were Jewish, black, Asian, Chinese, Indian and, in reality, anyone who wasn’t white.

“People in this country are entitled to be racist and they are entitled to hold unpleasant points of view, but what they aren’t entitled to do is publish or distribute written material which is insulting, threatening or abusive and is intended to stir up racial hatred or is likely to do so.”

On 15 July the Yorkshire Post published Hunt for race hate writer on run:

Police have launched a manhunt after a writer who penned race hate articles for a controversial website failed to turn up at court.

Stephen Whittle penned five offensive articles which appeared on the Internet, a jury was told.

Prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford told the jury that Whittle used the pseudonym Luke O’Farrell for the articles, which were posted on the web between March 2005 and January 2006.

The articles were either threatening, insulting or abusive and may have been intended to stir up racial hatred, Mr Sandiford added.

I first read of these developments at Majority Rights.

A google news search currently returns 8 hits, only one of which reports on what has transpired since the conviction of Sheppard and Whittle.

An google web search returns a fairly informative page titled Why don’t US media report that Simon Sheppard and Steve Whittle from Britain ask for asylum in the US? It contains the following:

Piercing the Press Blackout on the Heretical Two

After establishing the media black-out on the Sheppard and Whittle story by contacting the Immigration authorities in Los Angeles who told her their phone lines were red hot with call after call from the UK media about the Heretical Two, the BPP Women’s Division organiser has written to every major daily newspaper to ask why they are following the story but NOT reporting it.
Below is a copy of the email sent:

Sir/Madam:

I have been following with great interest the recent story concerning Mr. Simon Sheppard and Mr. Steve Whittle who were the first people in the World to be tried and subsequently charged with Inciting Racial Hatred for anti-Semitic articles they published on a website hosted in the USA. When found guilty they fled to Ireland and then flew to Los Angeles to claim political asylum after they had received confirmation from the US Government that the articles were not illegal there. They fled persecution and to my knowledge they are the first White indigenous people from the UK to have ever done this. The Court case was a total sham but most crucially, as I said, was the first of its kind in the World (previously sites hosted in the US were deemed out of the jurisdiction of the UK laws) and now they are also the first from the UK as White indigenous people to claim they are fleeing Political persecution in the UK (rightly so). I spoke with the Department of Homeland Security in America who state quite clearly that the British media have ‘gone crazy’ about this story with them receiving hundreds of telephone calls a day yet the only publications to have even mentioned this story are local Yorkshire ones, this indicates to me that the bigger publications KNOW of the story and are actively following it but are not publishing it, this does not make any sense to me at all? I would surmise that the people of the UK need to know about the dictatorial regime we live under where the most fundamental of human rights is not afforded to us – the right to freedom of speech. I would be most grateful if you could look into this and get back to me.

Kind regards.

Miss K Dermody

Simon and Steve are currently being held in Santa Ana Jail, California and their addresses are produced below. Please give these comrades your support by sending them messages of goodwill which they will appreciate.

Whittle, Stephen
0800006408
c/o Santa Ana Jail
P.O. Box 22003
Santa Ana, CA 92701
U.S.A.

Sheppard, Simon
0800006404
c/o Santa Ana Jail
P.O. Box 22003
Santa Ana, CA 92701
U.S.A.

A video titled Fugitives from British Injustice! contains more information and pictures of Sheppard and Whittle (extracted and reproduced above).

– – –

For the moment Sheppard’s site Heretical Press is accessible and its contents, including the articles written by Steve Whittle under the pseudonym Luke O’Farrell, remain intact.

In a 1998 article titled Social Psychology, Religious Belief, Censorship and the Holocaust Sheppard quotes Sir Stanley Unwin:

The enemy of subversive thought is not suppression, but publication: truth has no need to fear the light of day; fallacies wither under it. The unpopular views of today are the commonplaces of tomorrow, and in any case the wise man wants to hear both sides of every question.

The Crumb cartoon, When the Goddamn Jews Take Over America, was easy enough to find. It originally appeared in Weirdo #28, 1993.

There are four George Lincoln Rockwell items:

Rockwell: Boat Ticket 1
Rockwell: Boat Ticket 2
Rockwell: Lincoln Rockwell
Rockwell: The Swastika

It was perhaps the third link containing excerpts from This Time The World that the court considered offensive:

I examined the tactics of the Jews in dealing with all previous approaches to the problem, and found they had a sliding scale of increasingly vicious attacks on those who tried to expose and oppose them publicly.

The first and instinctive weapon of the Jew is economic. If you are an ‘anti-Semite’, then you and your family must starve, if it is in the power of Jewry to accomplish this — which it almost always is, since they supply, control or patronize all businesses. The whole weight of Jewish business is brought to bear on anyone who dares to oppose these lovers of free speech. Usually this is enough to terrify and reduce any man, especially one with a family, to humiliating and disgusting submission to Jewry.

But if that doesn’t work, they go after his reputation and social life. He is smeared and blasted and lied about in the Jew-controlled media of entertainment and information. He is called a ‘bigot’, a ‘hate-monger’, a ‘failure’ and finally, when all else fails, he is damned as a ‘Nazi’.

If there is still life in the would-be exposer of Jewish treason, they then reverse the field, for fear of giving him publicity, and give him instead the ‘silent treatment’. His meetings, speeches, distributions and resolutions are simply ignored, no matter what he does. This is a particularly frustrating experience and usually discourages even the toughest battlers, with the mere passage of time.

If the rising ‘anti-Semite’ survives all this, they next try their jail bit. The police are pressured until they crack and are willing to harass and persecute the ‘offender’ for all sorts of ‘violations’. And if the Jew-fighter persists regardless of the fines and other penalties incurred for not having a properly licensed dog, for distributing literature in a disorderly manner, etc., they prepare a ‘frame’ for him, as they did to Emory Burke in Atlanta. The patriot is found with dope in his possession, or it is ‘discovered’ that he has been giving ‘kick-backs’ to his employees, or his tax returns are not in order, etc.

Failing this tactic, the Jews hit their man with their newest masterpiece: ‘mental health’. The patriot must be ‘sick’, so he is locked up ‘for his own good’ in the bughouse.

If this also should fail to stop such a ‘mad anti-Semite’, then the Jews resort to the eternal weapon of all tyrants: naked violence. The would-be opponent of Jewish treason and tyranny is beaten up by hoods, his place is attacked by fire and missiles, and he discovers that his life is in danger, unless he stops doing whatever it is that offends the Jews.

During all their direct attacks against the staunch patriot, the Jewish ‘lovers of sweet reason’ employ two equally dirty indirect plays: They build up sincere, but harmless anti-communist outfits, like the John Birch Society, by showering them with publicity to draw off the growing hordes of maddened Americans from any real and therefore dangerous activity and, secondly, they open up a heavy media bombardment of lies about Hitler and National Socialism, in order to destroy by discrediting ‘Nazis’ like ourselves, without giving us any publicity.

There is no question that a man who has survived all these attacks will be killed, if possible, by the Jews or their agents. The Jews have no choice. They are too guilty to permit anybody to expose them and organize any effective resistance against them. Traitors cannot survive such an exposure. With such as the Jews, it is kill or be killed.

Rockwell was shot and killed on 25 August 1967.

I have found no reference to precisely which O’Farrell articles the court deemed offensive. Every one is witty and unapologetically pro-White. They are all well worth reading. I recommend you begin at the bottom and work upward through them all. That way you can try to judge for yourself which thoughts the court considers too dangerous for adults to read.

I’ve taken the liberty of noting here a handful I find particularly relevant.

Dr. Strangeloathing – or – How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews (27 FEBRUARY 2005)

There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

Whodunnit? Jewdunnit! – Lifting the Lid on the Guilty Yid (18th JULY 2005)

At any time before the 1950s, brown-skinned Muslim terrorists would have found it nearly impossible to plan and commit atrocities on British soil, because they would have stood out like sore thumbs in Britain’s overwhelmingly White cities. Today, thanks to decades of mass immigration, it’s often Whites who stand out like sore thumbs. Our cities swarm with non-whites full of anti-White grievances and hatreds created by Judeo-liberal propaganda. And let’s forget the hot air about how potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are a “tiny minority” of Britain’s vibrant, peace-loving Muslim “community”.

Freedom of Screech – Non-white Cuckoos in the White Nest (7 OCTOBER 2005)

Evidence that we’re less racist than non-whites is actually evidence that we’re just concealing our racism. We’re guilty till proved guilty, and we have to wake up and understand the truth about anti-racism and the ever-growing “diversity” industry. Not only is equality between different races impossible to achieve, anti-racists and diversocrats do not want to achieve it. They want non-whites to take everything Whites have got, and the only freedom they’re interested in is the freedom for non-whites to screech louder and louder about racism as more and more White power and money are handed over to them.

Programmed for Pogrom – You Can’t Say That – It’s True! (9th December 2007)

Most voters in the UK would have no idea what “LFI” and “CFI” are and do, but you can be sure that every member of parliament is well aware. You do not get to the top in British politics without groveling hard and long before Jews, Britain’s richest and most selfish ethnic group. Jews like Levy, Abrahams and “Sir” Ronald Cohen, Gordon Brown’s chief financial backer, aren’t funding the Labour and Conservative parties out of the goodness of their goy-loving hearts: it’s a yid pro quo. Jews supply the cash, goys obey the orders. The same rule applies in the US with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the same hysteria greets any attempt to put Jewish power under scrutiny. Recall that Melanie Phillips wailed about “Walt and Mearsheimer”, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), being “given a respectful hearing” and having “their calumnies broadcast on the BBC”.

But who is really broadcasting calumnies and peddling caricatures here? Phillips, Pollard and the rest of the hysterical Jewish chorus obviously believe that the goyim are programmed for pogrom and that this “progromming” is always ready to run. If any caring, sharing anti-racist gentiles are reading this, you should recognize that Jews regard you in the same way as they regard knuckle-dragging neo-Nazis like me and Simon Sheppard. All goys are dangerous and all goys have to be kept under control:

O’Farrell then quotes a Lawrence Auster article titled Why Jews Welcome Muslims that I’ve quoted several times myself:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances – in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world – it is both morally wrong and suicidal. Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them. The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason…. What this means is that in the minds of Jews, any desire on the part of gentiles to maintain an all-gentile country club, or any statement by a Christian, no matter how mild and civilized, that shows any concern about any aspects of the cultural and political influence of secular Jews in American life, is an expression of anti-Jewish bigotry that could easily lead to mass extermination, and therefore it must be ruthlessly suppressed.

Joyim for Goyim – Miliband, Mild Mel and the Joys of Judeocracy (17th February 2008)

Oh dear, so it wasn’t the MCB [Muslim Council of Britain] who wanted to turn us into a police-state after all: it was the philosemitic politicians who conducted the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. Whoever would have guessed it? Anyone who knows about Jews and free speech, that’s who. If Jews have power and influence, they start working to take away free speech. It’s no use arguing that some Jews support free speech and some white goyim oppose it: the average effect of the two groups is perfectly clear. It was whites who created free speech in the West and it is Jews who are taking it away. Was there any popular support for Britain’s race laws, introduced in the 1960s and steadily harshened ever since? No, there wasn’t, but what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? The Board of Jewish Deputies wanted the race laws and got them. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League would like identical laws in the United States; so far, thanks to the evil white males who created the First Amendment, it hasn’t gotten them.

Nothing to see here. Move along now.

UPDATE 1 August 2008: More information via Vanguard News Network Forum: Asylum racist facing LA prison ‘Porridge’
Published Date: 19 July 2008
By Jenny SImpson

A racist Preston writer who fled to the apparent safe haven of Los Angeles could be set for a hairy few months – after being banged up in prison.

[American immigration expert] Mr [Alex] Rojas reckons Whittle’s bid for asylum is unlikely to succeed and he could face up to a year in jail in Britain if convicted of absconding.

Mr Rojas said: “It is very difficult to get political asylum from the UK. You have to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

That’s “White privilege”: members of the White race persecuted for their political opinion are unlikely to get political asylum.

Racist who fled hate trial caught in America
From The Jewish Chronicle
Leon Symons
July 18, 2008

The court heard that Sheppard was investigated by police following complaints and when his flat was searched in March 2005 police seized a number of computers and found documents entitled “Dumb Niggers, Gloating Jews” [7th March 2005, actual title: Dumb Niggers and Gloating Sheeneys: Sometimes People Say More Than They Mean To], “Make Niggers History” [10th July 2005, actual title: Make Niggers History: It’s Fingerclickin’ Good!], “Diversity = Death” [7th September 2005, actual title: Diversity = Death: Why Multi-Racial Societies are Doomed to Fail] and “Rockwell, the Swastika”.

Sheppard has been found guilty of 11 of the 18 counts he faced. The jury failed to agree on seven further charges relating to the possession, publishing and distribution of two pamphlets called “Tales of the Holohoax” and “Don’t Be Sheeple”.

Links added. White adults may wish to click through and read what we are forbidden to write.

“Don’t Be Sheeple” took some extra effort to find. The search turned up an essay written by Sheppard in January 2008 titled BNP Religion: The Psychology of False Messiahs and Illusory Utopias. It explains the purging of “vermin” from the BNP (relevant to the discussion at GoV), the demographic dead end Whites in Britain face (and anywhere else where our borders are open to non-white invasion), and the relentless, unscrupulous, self-interested nature of the enemies doing these things.

Hate Speech Pinheads Really Hate Speech

Here’s a wonderful example of a petty little ethnocentric pro-invasion mind at work. Note that it’s fueled by hypocrisy and denial. Since such minds have no rational arguments their impulses tend toward muffling those who oppose them.

‘Anchor babies’ is hate speech
RAOUL LOWERY CONTRERAS

Today’s North County Times readers can’t find an article that uses the infamous N-word, the Q-word (queer) or words like “homo” for homosexual.

What they find is the use of the words “anchor babies” in letters or Opinion pieces.

“Anchor babies” are words used by extremists to define babies born of illegal alien parents in the United States.

Most of these children are born to Mexican parents illegally in the United States. Shamefully, the anti-illegal alien cohort also applies the term to any Mexican-American regardless of the legality of one or both parents, grandparents or great-grandparents.

Oh my. "Anchor babies" is hate speech? How about your word "extremists" Raoul, you hypocrite? How about the racist, fascist, bigot, xenophobe, and nativist slurs so effortlessly tossed around by your colleagues in the media Raoul? How about the guero, pilgrim, gabacho, and gringo labels your La Raza carnales prefer Raoul? Shame on you and your myopic ethnocentrism. Of course we hate invaders. And you hate us for hating "your people". Pot, meet kettle.

Anchor baby is a perfectly descriptive phrase. It describes exactly what these babies represent. It reflects how their own parents feel about them. Which is of course why Raoul would like to see the phrase banned. That truth is embarassing, thus he wants it obscured. Do us all a favor Raoul – take your censorship, your politically correct N-word games, and shove them up your A-word. Nice try at hooking your victimology wagon to niggers and homos though. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your baggage.

Oh, did I violate your politically correct censorship laws? It’s ok. Take a deep breath and pull the panties out of your crack. They’re called "words". We use them to "communicate". And this endeavor is only infantilized and impeded if we play pig-latin-like games with every word that somebody like you might be offended by. I will not play those games. People like you obviously want to nullify the First Amendment by outlawing anything you don’t want to hear as "hate speech". The constitution describes the legitimate process, but you’ll find it much easier to have your pro-invasion dictators in black robes divine an emanation of a penumbra that enables you to call for state-backed violence against me simply for offending you.

Until then I’ll say anchor baby all I want, thanks. But just for giggles let’s brainstorm a few alternatives, shall we?

jackpot baby – Hmmm. Good second choice. Positive rather than negative connotations. And who can deny the literal windfall the proud alien parents reap? It starts with free health care (including delivery) and extends to free education, WIC, and the occasional free trip to your real homeland! Such a deal!

undocumented American babyHarry Reid’s personal favorite. They’re just Americans who lost their documents. And we all know how hard-working they are. Harry might even someday call them hard-working undocumented American worker babies with great family values. Note the near perfect reality-inversion. The parents are not Americans, never had any documents, and exhibit a way below average ability to stay employed, in school, and out of jail – so let’s claim exactly the opposite! Brilliant! No other country in the world awards citizenship to a baby just because of where they get dropped. Ssssh! Don’t ever mention that.

illegitimate baby – While technically correct illegitimate already has another meaning. And it sure is useful to be able to distinguish an illegitimate anchor baby (like Elivra’s bastard – oops, have the PC-police banned that perfectly descriptive word?) from a legitimate anchor baby (like Bill "call me Lopez" Richardson).

natural-born United States citizen baby – Raoul’s preference. Of course. Because then we wouldn’t be able to distinguish babies born to parents who are here legally from those born to parents here illegally. At least not without bogging down every conversation about immigration. Mission accomplished, right Raoul? No person is illegal, right Raoul? Words have no meaning, right Raoul?

invader baby – My preference. The 14th Amendment (whose plain language pro-invaders like Raoul love to misread) was not intended and has never been interpreted to grant citizenship to the babies of foreign diplomats or invaders. If you "migrate" here without "documentation" then you are by definition an invader. Raoul denies this reality. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Actually, this is precisely what Raoul and his friends want us not to talk about.

So answering Raoul hasn’t been a complete waste of time. By trying to shut down debate he actually inspired one, and in answering his absurd logic I’ve arrived at a deeper truth. From this point on I for one shall use the term invader baby – which is even more descriptive and correct than anchor baby, and thus is sure to piss off Raoul and his pro-invasion friends even more.

Gracias Raoul! You wouldn’t by any chance be an invader baby would you? Write some more of your thoughts about immigration, please.