New works in the public domain since 1987.
Image c/o Retronaut.
Thanks to the following for linking to OVO.
Eithin links to Liberating Wednesday.
Monday Vatican links to The Concordant Story.
Financial Advices Blog links to The Bonus Army.
Rambone at Indiana Gun Owners links to The Bonus Army.
The American Book of the Dead links to Unspeakable Horrors.
American Renaissance: About American Renaissance (31 January 2011)
American Renaissance is a monthly magazine that has been published since 1991. It has been called “a literate, undeceived journal of race, immigration and the decline of civility.” We consider it America’s premiere publication of racial-realist thought [...] Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society – language, religion, class, ideology – it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century. The problems of race cannot be solved without adequate understanding. Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse. Progress requires the study of all aspects of race, whether historical, cultural, or biological. This approach is known as race realism.
Southern Poverty Law Center: Intelligence Report, Summer 2006, Issue Number 122 (2006)
American Renaissance, based in [editor Jared] Taylor’s home in Oakton, Va., also publishes frequent articles on the discredited field of eugenics – selective breeding to improve human genetic stock. The foundation has hosted biannual conferences since 1994, and its website, featuring stories on black crime and the like, recently rose to one of the top 20,000 in the world after a makeover. In recent years, Taylor has added several budding racist intellectuals to his staff, including Ian Jobling, the website editor and E-list moderator, and Stephen Webster, assistant editor of American Renaissance. Even before he started the New Century Foundation, Taylor wrote on race, penning a 1992 book, Paved With Good Intentions, that argued because sterilizing welfare mothers would not be publicly accepted, authorities should instead provide such women with “five-year implantable contraceptives.”
Wikipedia: American Renaissance (Magazine) (31 January 2011)
American Renaissance is a monthly racialist magazine published by the New Century Foundation. The magazine and foundation were founded by Jared Taylor, and the first issue was published in November 1990. A main theme of the magazine is a claim that non-white minorities pose a demographic threat to the United States and other Western nations. The magazine argues that the United States’ major social problems are due to racial diversity and a weakening of the country’s white racial heritage by increased non-white immigration.
Charlotte Observer: White Nationalists’ Conference Stymied (26 January 2011)
When a white nationalist magazine announced a conference in Charlotte, anarchists and other groups vowed to protest or disrupt the gathering. But behind the scenes the conference apparently met an unexpected obstacle: Charlotte City Council member Patrick Cannon. On Wednesday, American Renaissance magazine said plans for its annual conference are now in limbo because the hotel where it was scheduled to take place canceled the reservation. An e-mail Cannon sent to a constituent early this week suggested he was lobbying local hotels to refuse to book American Renaissance. Cannon wrote that he had contacted hotels and that “they seem to be cooperating. An attempt was made for accommodations at another hotel but based on what I ask to take place they were denied again,” the e-mail said.
The Jewish Defense Organization: Death to Nazi Scum! (31 January 2011)
Charlotte City Councilman Warren Turner, Charlotte City Councilman Patrick Cannon and the NAACP plus other anti-racist groups have had the meeting of the American Renaissance Party cancelled. Councilman Turner sent out an email to all of the hotels in Charlotte informing them to alert the police if AmRen booked space with them. Councilman Cannon also advised these hotels to be in compliance with the law. When the Airport Sheraton Hotel checked its convention bookings it found that AmRen had booked under a different name for the dates in question. The Sheraton returned the deposit that the Shockleyite scum had put down to reserve the meeting room where the Nazi meeting was to be held. JDO is warning other hotels in the area to be on the lookout for anyone who tries to book for the same dates. JDO believes preaching racial inferiority can lead to lynchings, cross burnings and murder and mayhem.
The American Independent: White Supremacist Group American Renaissance Forced to Move Location of Annual Conference in Charlotte (26 January 2011)
Rev. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina NAACP, said of the planned visit to Charlotte by American Renaissance, “Racial hatred, and those who promote racial animosity, has no place in our American society. Certainly people have a First Amendment right to have their views, but we think people should stand up. We stand opposed to any groups that promote white supremacy.”
One People’s Project: Here We Go Again! (27 January 2011)
This time, it wasn’t us who mounted the campaign against AmRen. Sure, we were the ones who alerted the Southern Anti-Racism Network, who took the lead in opposing the 2011 American Renaissance Conference, which was slated to take place Feb. 4-6 in Charlotte, NC. And yes, we have been meeting and planning for our opposition since November (we were actually in one of those meetings when news of the Tuscon shooting broke – which Fox News tried to connect to AmRen). And yes, our plans are still going forward at this time, even though AmRen’s plans seem to be meeting the same fate as in DC last year – squashed. Nothing is etched in stone, however. Jared Taylor & Co. have not officially announced a cancellation (probably trying to see if a TGI Fridays would hook them up with a back room or something), so we are still waiting to see what comes of this. But while we sounded the initial alarm, this was all due to the efforts of the community saying no to Taylor and his New Century Foundation. It is now being reported by local press that the hotel that Taylor tried to keep under wraps had been discovered, the hotel bounced them out, and other hotels won’t accomidate [sic] him! And before you say it, everyone who opposes AmRen has freedom of speech and association too. People had a right to alert area hotels that this was going to take place and they might not want to have this going on. Hotels have the right to close their doors to unwelcome elements. And we have the right to say that it doesn’t matter where AmRen goes. We will always be there to sound the alarm.
American Renaissance: An Appeal to the City of Charlotte and to Mayor Pro-tem Patrick Cannon (31 January 2011)
On July 29, 2010, New Century Foundation signed a contract with the Sheraton Charlotte Airport Hotel to host the biennial American Renaissance (AR) conference. (New Century Foundation is the non-profit organization that publishes the monthly magazine, American Renaissance.) We explained to the Sheraton that many people think the ideas discussed in AR are controversial. We explained that in 2010 a hotel that had agreed to host our conference came under pressure and broke its contract with us. The Sheraton agreed that it was therefore important to keep the location of the conference confidential. Our contacts said they understood what was at stake and that they believed in free speech. On January 25, the Sheraton sent us a one-line e-mail message saying that because of “recent disclosures as to the nature of your event” they were breaking their contract. Since then, they refuse to speak to us. The pretence that it did not know what might be discussed at an AR conference is a pathetic, embarrassing lie. Perhaps what the Sheraton actually found out was that Patrick Cannon, Mayor Pro-tem of the city of Charlotte, does not want AR to come to Charlotte. In an e-mail message to a constituent he wrote: “I have all hotels, motels, and gotels [sic] on notice and they seem to be cooperating well still.” The date of this e-mail was January 25, the very day the Sheraton canceled its contract. We can only imagine that the Sheraton must have come under very heavy pressure to walk away from tens of thousands of dollars in revenues – 100 hotel rooms for two nights, a formal banquet, bar and meal tabs – and to subject itself to a five-figure cancellation fee. [...] At an AR conference, middle-aged men in suits give speeches to other middle-aged men in suits. We have nothing to hide. Our speeches are videotaped and made available on our website, amren.com. If our ideas are hopelessly wrong, they should be easy to refute. They should be a threat to no one. Why is Charlotte in a panic about this conference? It is because we disagree with certain prevailing views and we have the courage of our convictions. Your city is not even attempting to understand our views, much less debate them. You are trying to silence us and drive us away. Are your citizens proud of what you are doing? In an era that claims to value “tolerance and diversity,” why do you have no tolerance for the most precious kind of diversity of all: the diversity of ideas? [...] We think better of Charlotte than this. We call on Patrick Cannon and Warren Turner to consider how their actions soil the reputation of their city. We believe they should support free speech. We believe they should take a stand for genuine tolerance of a genuine diversity of ideas. We call on them to issue an apology to American Renaissance and to make a city-owned property available to us to rent for our conference. It is still not too late to encourage the qualities that made America great, not the totalitarian impulses that Americans – at least traditionally – have always despised.
Articles continue at links. You know, it was only a few decades ago when I was the anarchist tearing down posters of groups I didn’t like from telephone poles. I made collage art (that’ll learn ‘em!) from the posters I tore down. And I was the anarchist preventing groups I didn’t like from marching in the streets. I thought of myself as a champion of freedom and as a protector of the people. But I wasn’t. I was (very, very slightly) lessening the amount of freedom in the world. If such a thing as “the people” exist, I did nothing to protect them. Protecting people from ideas is not something I advocate today, although I confess I did decades ago. I was (albeit with nearly no effect) close to the opposite of the person I thought I was. And so today I take some pains to do penance. I advocate freedom of thought and speech and assembly and association. And I try to advocate these freedoms for those I disagree with with as much rigor as I advocate these freedoms for those who think like me. Not as a natural right or as an American or as a Western man, but out of basic civility. Don’t want to go? Keep away. Want to air your differences? I’m guessing Mr. Taylor would be happy to debate you. Vigorous protest are entirely appropriate, for or against the Sheraton Charlotte Airport Hotel and for or against American Renaissance, if you have some vigor in you. Boycott or bankroll any group you see fit. But don’t do like I did decades ago and be the bully you think you’re beating.
Some groups and individuals oppose legal access to same sex marriage. This includes homosexual groups and individuals, some from the left, some from the right. I predict they will be displeased if legal access to same sex marriage occurs in the United States. There is no right to happiness.
According to the General Accounting Office [pdf], “as of 31 December 2003 [there are] a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.” Due to the Defense of Marriage Act, these federal statutory provisions are available only to hetero married couples. If legal access to same-sex marriage occurs in the United States, some or all of these federal statutory provisions will have to change. I predict they will not change at the same time. I predict that they will not change to the same degree or in the same way. I predict that sometimes a federal statutory provisions will cease to exist rather than be extended to same-sex couples. I predict that they will not all change at the federal level, but rather at both the state and the federal level and that they will not be uniform in all states. During the time these federal statutory provisions change, some same-sex couples will lose out while other same-sex couples will benefit. Attentiveness now to these benefits, rights, and privileges might make their transitions more smooth.
Interracial hetero marriage was banned in some states as late as 1967. The Loving v Virginia decision of the Supreme Court that year found miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional. Interracial marriage has been legal for over forty years. But it is not the case that interracial marriages occur with the same frequency as same-race marriages. According to the US Census for 2000, around 97% of whites married whites and around 96% of blacks married blacks. I predict these statistics will remain constant if legal access to same sex marriage occurs in the United States. The State has no role in encouraging or discouraging marriage diversity.
Citizenship in the United States can be conferred by marriage. I predict that legal access to same sex marriage will confer citizenship to some men and women who otherwise could not be citizens. I predict this will be a small number and will not influence society much at all. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Domestic violence occurs among same-sex couples as well as hetero couples. According to the American Bar Association [pdf], “seven states define domestic violence in a way that specifically excludes same-sex victims.” I predict that legal access to same sex marriage will include an increase of reports of domestic violence. This increase in reports of domestic violence may be caused by a change in the ability to report domestic violence as much as or more than an increase in actual domestic violence. Domestic violence among same-sex couples does not occur with the same frequency among all sexes. According to the U. S. Department of Justice, 11.4% of same-sex cohabiting women report being victimized by a female partner while 15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being victimized by a male partner. Men raping men occurs much more frequently than men raping women. According to the U. S. Census Bureau, 78.3% of murder victims are male and 21.4% of murder victims are female. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics [pdf] 65.3% of murders involved a male offender and a male victim while 2.4% of murders involved a female offender and a female victim. I predict that legal access to same sex marriage will show more domestic violence among men than among women. Acknowledging a difference between men and women and funding State services accordingly might lessen the problem of domestic violence.
Same sex couples cannot conceive children. Same sex couples who wish to raise children are limited in their ability to adopt in the United States. Some states allow it, some forbid it, and federal law has said only that an adoption in one state must be recognized in other states. (Compare this with the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law stating same-sex marriage in one state need not be recognized in other states.) Many states that forbid adoption by same sex couples base their law on same sex couples being unable to legally marry. I predict legal access to same sex marriage in the United States will cause changes in adoption laws. I predict some states will make it no more or less difficult for same sex couples to adopt than for hetero couples to adopt, while other states will make all adoptions more difficult to make adoption more difficult for same sex couples. Same sex couples who wish to raise children are limited in their ability to use birth surrogates or artificial insemination in the United States. Legal limits on birth surrogates exist for hetero couples as well and vary by state. There is no legal limit on artificial insemination but some insurance companies will not compensate single women who use artificial insemination. I predict some states will make it no more or less difficult for same sex couples to use birth surrogates or artificial insemination, while other states will make using birth surrogates or getting artificial insemination more difficult to make these procedures more difficult for same sex couples. I predict the number of children adopted will increase if legal access to same sex marriage occurs. State by state differences in adoption, birth surrogates, and artificial insemination will be similar to the legality of abortion. Abortion is legal at the national level but access to services varies by state and is not a service the state is compelled to offer. Adoption laws should be inclusive of same sex parents.
Advocates of legal access to same sex marriage want treatment under the law identical to hetero marriage, and that includes legal access to divorce. Making predictions about legal access to same sex marriage must include predictions about legal access to same sex divorce. Statistics relating to hetero divorce have a limited value in making predictions about same sex divorce. According to the National Center for Health Statistics [pdf] “Approximately 61 percent of the divorces in 1988 were petitioned by the wife, 32 percent by the husband, and 7 percent by the husband and wife jointly.” More hetero couples are divorced today than in the past, and differences exist between the percentage of divorced men and divorced women. According to the US Census Bureau: “Of the first marriages for women from 1955 to 1959, about 79 percent marked their 15th anniversary, compared with only 57 percent for women who married for the first time from 1985 to 1989. People born in the leading edge of the baby boom experienced high divorce rates in the 1970s and 1980s. About 38 percent of men born from 1945 to 1954 and 41 percent of women in the same age group had been divorced by 2004.” The trend for women to initiate divorce more than men is also found in Denmark, where legal access to same sex marriage has been available since 1989. Male same sex married couples in Denmark seek a divorce 14% of the time, while female same sex married couples in Denmark seek a divorce 23% of the time. I predict legal access to same sex marriage in the United States will reveal that women seek divorce more than men in both hetero and same sex marriages. According to the US Census Bureau [pdf], among hetero divorced couples in 2008 56.9% of mothers were awarded child support and custody while 40.4% of fathers were awarded child support and custody. I predict custody and child support issues among divorcing same sex couples will incur less legal fees and occupy less court time among men than women. I claim that some discontent to legal access to same sex marriage is caused by discontent with hetero marriage. Discontent with hetero marriage comes in part from the prevalence of divorce. No-fault divorce has existed in every state since 1985. Discontent with hetero marriage comes in part from the disparity of who initiates divorce and who benefits from divorce. Women initiate divorce more often than men, and benefit from divorce more often than men. Divorce and women’s rights are largely spoken of as having only benefits, never any cost. Divorce and women’s rights are largely spoken of as bringing about only equality, never inequality. For these reasons, what might have been a debate about women and divorce has become a debate about homosexuals and marriage. I predict legal access to same sex marriage will not bring about the former debate. Acknowledging a difference between men and women and funding State services accordingly might lessen the problem of divorce.
OUTLAW CHRISTIANITY! DEATH TO ALL CHRISTIANS!
The above does not reflect the intention of OVO, and in fact stands opposite to it. The above is provided to feed the presuppositions of those who will not actually read this issue of OVO. Any review of this issue that quotes the words above is likely to have been written by someone who never read beyond them to learn what OVO actually states. This issue of OVO has a purpose, but the likelihood that it will be misrepresented is great enough that a clear statement of what the purpose is not is in order.
OVO does not advocate the criminalization of Christianity. Existing criminal law suffices to address what is harmful, and law is among the least appropriate means of addressing what is merely mistaken. Christians deserve equal sanction by the law, and voluntary and informed activities among consenting adults (including religion) should not be outlawed.
OVO does not advocate the murder of Christians except in self-defense. Because of the potential for legal error, capital punishment is immoral in all cases. War and murder are immoral in all cases except in self-defense. Except in self-defense, it is always immoral to kill (including killing Christians).
OVO does not advocate the replacement of the Christian God with another God, a Goddess, a pantheon of deities, nature worship, or similar substitution. OVO does not advocate worship, be it of the Christian God or any other. To any reader who uses OVO to build up their own superstition: your faith is equally contemptible.
OVO does not criticize Christianity because it does not understand it. Many years research went into this issue, and along the way misunderstandings about Christianity (whether in its favor or against it) were abandoned. OVO criticizes Christianity not because it does not understand it, but because it is worthy of criticism.
OVO does not criticize Christianity because the editor had a traumatic experience with Christianity. The editor had a generally positive experience with Christianity while growing up and has Christian friends today. It is a silent admission of defeat that Christians use this psychological, secular explanation for why someone might criticize their superstition. The editor came to reject Christianity the old fashioned way: by reading the Bible.
OVO is not critical of Christianity because the editor is possessed by Satan, demons or evil spirits. Such ghosts have never existed.
OVO does not criticize Christianity because it is a socialist publication. OVO is not a socialist publication.
OVO does not criticize Christianity because Christianity is false. Christianity is false, but that is not in itself sufficient reason to advocate that it wither away. There are many non-fiction books, films, plays, poems and recordings that are also false but serve to inspire humanity. But these false stories do not claim to be true, are not taught to impressionable children as true, and are not used to support legislation that meddles in the affairs of non-Christians. No one is arguing that the epics of Homer be taught as history; no one is legislating that Aesop’s fables be posted in courtrooms. These stories, though false, serve to inspire those who seek them out and are rightly preserved. It is the secular power of Christianity that is the problem, not merely its falsehood. Christianity does not attempt to identify and lessen its falsehoods: it revels in them as ‘tests of faith.’ Christianity is holding back science and art, culture and philosophy, tools that actually can and actually have improved humanity’s lot in an indifferent Universe.
OVO does not criticize Christianity because it is a good religion perverted to bad ends. It is much more the case that a few good people (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, perhaps) have perverted the bad religion of Christianity to good ends. All the good done in the name of Christianity could and does occur through entirely secular means. What remains distinctly Christian if such duplication of labor is removed? Threats of eternal damnation, denial of the pleasures and wonders of this short life, confusion and deception. When Christianity has supported individual rights it has done so only after a ‘revelation’ that (a) goes against its own history and (b) miraculously is in harmony with contemporary public opinion. For example, many Christians opposed slavery in the United States; but many more supported slavery and did so for much longer. Even today the Bible contains many passages supporting slavery and not one passage condemning it. Christianity is a slave religion, a misogynist religion, a queer-killing religion, a nonsense religion, but good people keep twisting their bad faith to good ends. Wouldn’t it be better to just do good deeds without wasted efforts to placate an invisible monster that lives in the sky?
OVO does not criticize Christianity to criticize individual Christians. It is often the case that an attack on a person’s unconsidered beliefs is perceived as an attack on their person. If a person’s beliefs are profoundly unconsidered, to merely state that one holds differing beliefs is perceived as an attack. For example, Christians who see other superstitions get equal time in the eyes of the law sometimes complain that their freedom of religion is under attack. Those who hold considered beliefs are secure when challenged and (hopefully) willing to admit error. Those who hold unconsidered beliefs, who repeat what they have been told without deliberation, are more likely to confuse who they are with what they believe. Christianity, like all religions, encourages strong belief but also encourages a lack of consideration. Posturing, bullying and stubbornness are substitutes for consideration of belief among most Christians.
OVO does not criticize Christianity because its claims contradict the evidence of our senses, science, history, archeology, astronomy, mathematics, common sense and the like. It is true that Christianity is incompatible with all of these, but science progresses by way of challenges to all our claims. If Christianity challenges the evidence of our senses, all the better: let the challenges be considered and considered again. If the Bible contradicts science, science can be tested to see if the Bible has a better explanation for reality. Where the Bible holds true, the Bible holds true. Where the Bible is found to be false, it should either be re-written or re-classified as folk tales. Resolving contradictions between the Bible and the evidence of our senses can be of value to us all, and so the contradictions between the Bible and the evidence of our senses are not in themselves why the Bible should be criticized. Internal contradictions in the Bible, and holding on to falsehood when falsehood has been identified, are worthy of the greatest of criticisms.
OVO does not criticize Christianity as an argument for atheism. The editor is preparing an argument for atheism that is distinct from this argument against Christianity.
OVO does not criticize Christianity because Jesus Christ was a good person whose followers have gone astray, or because we do not have the secret teachings of Jesus, or because Jesus was a complex person with both good and bad qualities. Jesus never existed.
In 1991, the editor published A Call to Heresy on a BBS in Knoxville, Tennessee USA. The document found its way onto BBS’ around the world as well as other formats, including an Internet domain in Hong Kong and a CD-ROM of public domain texts published by Palm Computers. Various editions of the text can be found on the Internet today. Some of the research done for that text has found a new home here in OVO 16 AntiChrist.
OVO criticizes the Bible. Some Christians say that it is an error to overly attend to what the Bible says, and one should rely on the Bible as inspiration rather than fact. But the Bible itself makes claims of perfection, and so taking it at its word in claims of perfection are as justified as any other perspective; perhaps more justified than some ‘inspired’ interpretations. If any interpretation of the Bible is as good as any other, then Christians in no way can distance themselves from the worst among them. Having failed to amend the contradictions, atrocities and absurdities in the Bible with over two thousand years to do so, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible is considered factual among Christians. Some Christians (called Dominionists or Fundamentalists or Conservatives or the Christian Right) are explicit in their claim that the Bible is factual, while the rest hold it to be factual but requiring ‘interpretation’ (often by way of asking the reader to simply ignore parts of the Bible).
But this issue of OVO does not limit itself to criticisms of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church claims a history pre-dating the Bible. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity, wrote inspired texts. The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints and the Watchtower Society claim to have Christian revelations in modern times. All of these Christians are well deserving of criticism and contempt.
There are a set number of responses offered by Christians when confronted with their own beliefs. The first and most common is to be told that these Bible verses have been taken out of context. It is claimed that the verses surrounding these quotes give them a meaning other than their apparent meaning. If this is the case it will be easy to demonstrate; full citations for each quote are given throughout. The reader is encouraged to read the Bible. There is no more sure path to rejecting Christianity than understanding it. Some claim that the contexts of the times change how we should understand the Bible. But does the Bible say it is relevant only until the time of Job (the last time God speaks directly to humanity), or does it claim to be relevant to all times? Some claim that one translation of the Bible offers a more accurate account than another, but existing fragmentary early Christian texts contain their own contradictions, atrocities and absurdities.
The second common reply made by Christians when confronted with their own beliefs is that the Bible, God, Jesus and the rest are not to be understood by reason in the way math or science is. Christianity is to be understood by faith, by the heart, by the spirit, by the soul. Therefore any apparent contradictions, atrocities or absurdities should be ignored because those are all ‘reason’ and not ‘faith.’ But there is no ‘alternative to reason’ as faith is said to be. One can hope, one can wish, one can pretend and ignore, one can scream or run away or kill one’s critics, but none of these are alternatives to reason. Even if there were an alternative to reason, how is the ‘feeling’ that Christianity is true (and all other religions false) different from the ‘feeling’ that Islam is true (and all other religions are false)? Why is it that Christian ‘feelings’ are so regional – does God not inspire such ‘feelings’ everywhere equally? Why don’t children have that ‘feeling’ until an adult tells them to say they do, and why do adults spend so much effort making sure that ‘feeling’ is planted in children?
All religions claim to be the only true religion. Even the ecumenical religions claim to be the only true religion, by claiming that the non-ecumenical religions are false. But since all religions contradict each other at most only one can be the only true religion. Since all religions by definition put themselves outside what can be demonstrated as true, it would be unjust to establish any religion as secular law because the likelihood of error would be too great. Suppose Mithrism became the law of the United States when actually it was Ah Pook that was the real living God? Those countries that have a legal assumption of atheism serve freedom the most. At times this has been the case in the United States, where OVO originates. Christianity threatens the legal presupposition of atheism in the USA, necessitating this issue of OVO. Christianity is the superstition behind the US support of Israel, the war in Iraq, lack of access to Plan B and a vaccine for two strains of cancer-causing HPV, the removal of science from public education, the ongoing imprisonment of the West Memphis Three (among others), blue laws, laws forbidding atheists from holding elected office and more. Reform from within should occur in Christianity. Civil discourse should occur between Christians and non-Christians. But should Christianity elect to ignore the opportunities of positive reinforcement, let it learn the sting of negative reinforcement. OVO is not reforming Christianity from within, nor is it a civil discourse. It is an attack – using only Christianity’s own beliefs as weapons. When Mithrism or the faithful of Ah Pook establish their superstition as law in the USA, they will be equally worthy of criticism. Readers in countries where Islam or Judaism are the majority superstition are encouraged to make similar efforts.
This issue of OVO advocates the withering away of Christianity through reason and scorn. Reason alone withers Christianity to a hostile party guest that has long overstayed his welcome; scorn provide us with laughter and satisfaction as we show him to the door. Perhaps reason alone, or reason and compassion, might be a more noble endeavor. But any belief that cannot withstand a little mockery is perhaps not worth holding in the first place.
Subject religious organizations to the same requirements as secular non-profit organizations: demonstrate they perform a quantifiable public good to receive tax-exempt status. Do not donate any funds, labor or resources to Christian organizations: there are secular equivalents to any Christian organization for those who seek to aid others. Do not vote for politicians who make their Christianity a part of their platform. Oppose ‘faith based’ funding and theocratic laws. Learn more about Christianity than the Christians themselves. Confront Christians with their own claims and history.
OVO is fortunate to originate in the United States, where Christianity and other superstitions may be legally practiced and criticized. The United Kingdom, Holland, Sweden, Italy, Turkey, Norway, Canada and other countries forbid criticism of religion as a form of ‘hate crime,’ while China, North Korea and other countries forbid religion as a form of ‘thought crime.’ In the United States religion may be both practiced and criticized – for now. If Christianity continues to become the state religion of the United States, this may not be the case much longer.
OVO is a tool kit to disabuse the reader of Christianity.
(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)
Those Mormons sure are friendly. But are they friendly to all of God’s children? The following quotations from Nephi, Jacob, and Alma are from the Book of Mormon. In modern editions of the Book of Mormon the word ‘white’ (skin) is often changed to ‘pure’ (character); the original text is quoted here. As the Book of Mormon is said to be inspired by God, dictated by angels and faithfully transcribed by Joseph Smith, any modern changes are less accurate than these original quotes. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Mark Peterson and Orson Pratt were or are all leaders of the LDS. African-American men were not allowed to be clergy in the LDS until 1978, nor were African-American men allowed to lead LDS Boy Scout troops. Like the Mormon revelation that polygamy was not to be practiced on Earth (only in Heaven), the revelations to white-wash the Book of Mormon and allow African-American leadership came at exactly the same time as human discontent (and lawsuits) arose against them. What a miracle!
(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)
Protestant Christianity was founded by Martin Luther. What did Luther have to say about Jews? Maybe Luther wasn’t such a great moral leader after all. Maybe these proposals bore fruit in Luther’s country four hundred years later. The following are quotes from Luther’s book The Jews and Their Lies (1543).
I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God’s word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen
My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews’ malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.
What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly – and I myself was unaware of it – will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 [:18], “You are Peter,” etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.
Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home.
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an axe, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.
(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)
I was in my late twenties when I stopped identifying myself as a liberal. When evidence started mounting that shot machine-gun holes through the block of liberal cheese I’d purchased at the local liberal co-op, I concluded that liberalism was not a logically consistent belief system.
But it wasn’t only liberal illogic that caused me to dump the whole program – much of it had to do with gradual changes in liberal attitudes and behavior. I’m old enough to remember when liberals were free-speech absolutists and conservatives tended to be the book-burners. But historical forces can blur, erase, and often invert party lines.
Over the years, I watched as liberals slowly became the group most likely to flat-out refuse discussing certain topics and answering certain questions, their purportedly “open” minds snapping shut like a giant clam. They became the group most likely to try and silence their opponents by shouting them down, defaming them, assaulting them, and even urging legislation to ban the use and expression of certain terms and sentiments. They became the group most disposed toward emotional appeals, double standards, wishful thinking, and wretchedly malodorous sanctimony.
Up through my teens and twenties, I had considered liberals to be the most open-minded and free-thinking group in America, only to watch them morph into the most ideologically rigid pack of true believers I’d ever seen. With modern American liberalism, it’s as if their cute, multicolored, and sincerely curious little 1960s caterpillar had blossomed into a hardened grey butterfly fossil. Liberalism had become an emotion-driven folk religion that somehow had convinced itself science and logic were on its side.
These days, I suppose I’d rather hang out with conservatives than liberals, if only for the fact that I offend conservatives less, and it’s a drag to hang out with people who are always getting offended.
Article continues.
Paul Elam: Drugs, War, Blood and Money
It started, like a lot of deadly bad ideas, with politicians. We can thank the Democrats for the inception, but somewhere along the line, the Republicans stepped in to prove they were just as stupid. Woodrow Wilson, who also gave us the Federal Reserve Act, the first draft since the Civil War and rave reviews of the stunningly racist movie Birth of a Nation, helped usher in the age where America turned questionable personal habits into concrete walls and steel gray bars. It was called the Harrison Tax Act of 1914, and it was the result of nearly fifteen years of disinformation and racist propaganda promulgated by Wilson’s associates.
In 1900 the Journal of the American Medical Association published in a report that “Negroes in the South are being addicted to a new form of vice – that of ‘cocaine sniffing’ or the ‘coke habit.’” That was followed up by several newspaper reports that cocaine was causing blacks to rape white women and was improving their pistol marksmanship. Eight years later President Teddy Roosevelt appointed Dr. Hamilton Wright as the first Opium Commissioner for the United States. Among his most notable observations was that “cocaine is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by Negroes of the south and other sections of the country.” Wright also postulated that “one of the most unfortunate phases of smoking opium in this country is the large number of women who have become involved and are living as common-law wives or cohabitating with Chinese in the Chinatowns of our various cities.”
Let’s see. A bunch of drug crazed horny black men and a growing number of loose white women with no qualms about crossing racial boundaries? Yeah, man, it was time for war, alright; time to break out some fucking law and order.
Charles Bowden and Molly Molloy: Who Is Behind the 25,000 Deaths In Mexico?
No one seems to know, but on the ground it is death. Calderón’s war, assisted by the United States, terrorizes the Mexican people, generates thousands of documented human rights abuses by the police and Mexican Army and inspires lies told by American politicians that violence is spilling across the border (in fact, it has been declining on the US side of the border for years). We are told of a War on Drugs that has no observable effect on drug distribution, price or sales in the United States. We are told the Mexican Army is incorruptible, when the Mexican government’s own human rights office has collected thousands of complaints that the army robs, kidnaps, steals, tortures, rapes and kills innocent citizens. We are told repeatedly that it is a war between cartels or that it is a war by the Mexican government against cartels, yet no evidence is presented to back up these claims. The evidence we do have is that the killings are not investigated, that the military suffers almost no casualties and that thousands of Mexicans have filed affidavits claiming abuse, often lethal, by the Mexican army. Here is the US policy in a nutshell: we pay Mexicans to kill Mexicans, and this slaughter has no effect on drug shipments or prices.
Julian Isherwood: Free Heroin Gives Good Results
A test-run of issuing free heroin to addicts in Copenhagen appears to be successful, with initial results showing reduced crime and prostitution and improved health and life quality for those taking part in the project. Since March this year, some 20 addicts have been part of a programme under which two clinics provide them with heroin each morning and afternoon. The head of the Valmue Clinic in Copenhagen says that his centre has registered both a physical and psychological improvement among the addicts.
“They don’t have to wake up in the morning with how to get money as the first thing they think about. That gives them a surplus that means that we can talk to them about their housing situation, how we can help them apply for a disability pension if they need that, or perhaps about the child they have lost contact with,” says Valmue Clinic Head Torben Ballegaard. At the same time, Ballegaard says that addicts say that they commit fewer crimes, have stopped prostitution and have improved health. Several have put on weight because apart from heroin, they are provided breakfast and a hot meal during the day. Daily contact with a nurse also means that infections, boils and illnesses are discovered earlier, according to Senior Nurse Vivian Kjær at the KABS institution.
Problem, problem, solution. End prohibition. Thousands will die – thousands fewer than die from prohibition.
Dena Potter: Rasta Inmates Spend 10 Years in Isolation for Hair
It is [Kendall Gibson's] hair — winding locks he considers a measure of his Rastafarian faith — that makes him a threat, according to Virginia Department of Corrections Operating Procedure No. 864.1. The rule took effect on Dec. 15, 1999. Inmates had two choices: cut their hair no longer than their collars and shave their beards, or be placed in administrative segregation.
Paul von Zielbauer: Inmates Are Free to Practice Black Supremacist Religion in New York, a Judge Rules
Mr. [Intelligent Tarref] Allah is a Five Percenter, part of a black militant group that broke from the Nation of Islam in the 1960′s. The New York State prison system has long regarded it as a violence-prone gang, much as the system also regards the Latin Kings, Crips or the Aryan Brotherhood. The name derives from the concept that only 5 percent of the world’s people break free from the worship of a false ”mystery God” and become gods to themselves and their families.
Justin Penrose: Rapist Jamaile Morally in Boiling Oil Jail Attack
A jailed killer poured boiling oil over another inmate because he refused to convert to Islam. Jamaile Morally, 26 – sentenced to life as part of a gang that raped, tortured and murdered a teenage girl and left another for dead – led two other inmates in carrying out the attack.
BBC: Kenya ‘Deports Muslim Hate Cleric Abdullah al-Faisal’
He has served four years in a UK prison after being convicted of soliciting the murder of Jews and Hindus.
Religion Cause: Miranda Rights Waived In Answers About Religious Belief and Prayer
Earlier this week in Berghuis v. Thompkins, (Sup. Ct., June 1, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision made it easier for police to obtain a waiver of Miranda rights by suspects being questioned. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, held that police can continue questioning a suspect until he clearly invokes his right to remain silent. Furthermore, when questioning continues after a Miranda warning has been given and understood, the accused’s later uncoerced statement implies a waiver of his right to remain silent. The uncoerced statement in this case was a response by the accused to questions about his belief in God. Here is Justice Kennedy’s account: About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, [Police Detective] Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?” …. Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said “Yes,” as his eyes “well[ed] up with tears.” … “Do you pray to God?” Thompkins said “Yes.” … Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” … Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away…. Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later.
Nick Griffin of the [British National Party] has been gagging to appear on Question Time, because it is a test of his continental-style strategy of normalising and legitimising the extreme right. On the model of the Italian National Alliance, Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National and Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, Griffin is attempting to yank his party into greater acceptability and live down its Mosleyite roots of confrontation and street violence. Since the BNP’s objectives have not changed – and they remain racist – that is a very good reason to be sceptical about the BBC’s decision to give him a platform. However, the issue is one of thresholds. The BBC has judged that two MEPs in a nation-wide election entitles the BNP to a voice on Question Time, just as previously a similar threshold elevated Ukip and the Greens. The BBC’s duty of impartiality is too important to have broadcasting executives decide that some opinions are acceptable and others are not, providing of course that those opinions are within the law (notably in avoiding incitement to racial hatred or violence). Therefore I do not myself criticise the BBC for making the invitation, even though I am acutely aware that extending such democratic rights to a party that does not respect them is paradoxical. [...]
The issue here is different to the old “no platform” policy. I would not appear at a meeting organised by the BNP, and nor would I extend an invitation to them. It is no part of the business of an elected liberal to drum up larger audiences for our most reviled opponents. They are welcome to their freedom of speech, but they can choose their own street corner and their own soapbox without my help. But the BBC has decided to invite Griffin, and I fear that Thursday night’s excitement would not have been called off just because the Liberal Democrats decided not to participate. Better surely to champion the great British values of moderation and tolerance rather than give bigotry the only say.
Article continues at link, with much to recommend it. I am not a member or supporter of the BNP, and I don’t expect them to fare well on the television show Question Time. I am a supporter of public debate. I believe people’s words and actions speak for themselves. I believe accurate judgments are best gained by access to source materials and not second-hand opinion. The contradiction of offering a debate platform to someone who would not do the same to you is an important one. It is exactly the reason the tradition of debate is superior to the ‘no platform’ policy. If you can articulate why it is superior, you will have advanced in your defense of free speech.
Having said that, a few comments on Huhne’s article. Huhne compares the BNP to the Italian National Alliance, Front National and Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. But only the BNP has limitations on the race of who can join, so the comparison is not entirely accurate. Huhne writes about confrontation and street violence and incitement to racial hatred or violence. Are these all the same thing, or points along a continuum, or actions that always and only appear as a set? The heart of public debate is confrontation, and there’s no getting around some of that confrontation being awful. Incitement to racial hatred is illegal in England and in much of the world, but not in the USA. I do not support ‘hate speech’ laws for the same reason I do support public debate. I do not believe hate speech leads to violence (in the street or otherwise) any more than I believe love songs lead to love. Huhne talks about Mosley and Pin Fortuyn, who did know about street violence. Watch a film of Mosley in 1936 trying to march down Cable Street. Look at a photograph of Mosley in 1962 as he speaks to a crowd. Marching, speaking, violence – but who is committing the violence, and against whom, and for how many decades? Free speech has its contradictions, and Mosley had some practical lessons in these contradictions by being put in prison (along with his wife) for years without charge or trial. Pin Fortuyn had fewer experiences with street violence, but one was enough. Again, who is committing the violence and who is speaking their mind?
No matter your beliefs, at some point in its evolution it got in your head because you or someone else proposed it at a time when it was a heresy. All religious founders are by definition people who were heretics of their time. Science progresses by questioning what has come before, not by observation of what is. I sometimes feel frustrated (even confronted and incited) by other people, but the knowledge that belief is a market of ideas and not a battleground of ideas gives me calm. I am glad the BNP will appear on Question Time and that has nothing to do with my general dislike for the nationalists, racists or television.
The Heretical Two are Simon Sheppard [Wikipedia] and Stephen Whittle (Luke O’Farrel). Their web site is heretical.com. Previous OVO editorial about The Heretical Two here. Their words speak for themselves. Their words and many of the sites listed below contain words and images I find in error and cruel. It remains that words and images never hurt anyone. It is wrong to imprison people for ownership or publication of words or images. It is maddening that these two are in prison while the governments that put them there are releasing known murderers (US / UK). Their freedom of speech is no different from that of Jews, Christians and Muslims, no different from political or sexual minorities, no different from yours. Throw away the freedoms of one and you can be sure the freedoms of the others will not be far behind.
The following is a summary provided by Simon Sheppard, as archived from heretical.com on 16 October 2011:
Prosecution of the Heretical Two (H2)
Simon Sheppard was found guilty on Friday July 14, 2008 of eleven counts of ‘publishing material deemed likely to be racially inflammatory’ – all relating to internet publishing posted in Torrance, California – words protected by the First Amendment! Stephen Whittle (Luke O’Farrell) was found guilty on five counts also relating to internet publishing. The case had some analogies with the (failed) extradition hearings in London for Dr Toben’s deportation for trial in Germany for ‘holocaust denial’ and with the Zundel trial. However the Germans claim jurisdiction over German nationals even if they post material on the internet abroad and/or live abroad. In the case of the H2 an English court went further still by asserting jurisdiction over writings on the internet if they could be downloaded in England.
Simon’s remaining seven charges were considered by the jury the following Monday. These related mainly to printed material on which the jury was unable to reach a decision. However, they left over the weekend for Ireland, then flew to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and surrendered to officials in order to seek political asylum in the U.S.A.
The law over internet publishing in the UK had been reinterpreted without debate to end freedom of speech on the internet, presumably acting on the orders of their masters in the E.U. and the Heretical Two were facing the imminent prospect of lengthy prison sentences. They were held by the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) at Santa Ana Jail, California, USA. Correspondents were asked not to place return address stickers on envelopes; as all letters with labels of any kind were sent back marked unauthorized. They could only send two replies per week so used this site to thank the many people who had already written with messages of support and requested they kept writing, as it all helped. They also thanked those who contributed to the defence funds.
The first immigration court session was held on September 17 with Bruce Leichty who was hired as defence attorney. The judge claimed that she did not have the power to release the Heretical Two under the defensive procedures adopted by the US authorities. The ‘asylum-only proceedings’ for the Heretical Two was heard by immigration judge, Rose Peters, on October 14. An attempt to get them released before the ruling on asylum was denied by the judge, whose reasoning appeared contradictory. At the ‘calendar meeting’ of the immigration court on Thursday 13 November – the judge set the merits (main) appeal for three afternoons in blocks of four hours from 2 pm on March 10, 12 and 24 of 2009.
The H2 were still detained in jail in California for activities in America which the British government now deems to be crimes, i.e. exercising the right to free speech, but which ironically are not held to be crimes under American law.
In December 2008 Simon’s retrial was held in his absence, as the British government was not prepared to wait for the outcome of the political asylum proceedings in the US. The new trial commenced on Monday December 8 at Leeds Crown Court and six charges were considered – one charge was dropped. The trial was deferred on December 22 to January 5, 2009 – the following day the jury went out to deliberate and on January 8 found Simon guilty on three counts relating to Tales of the Holohoax and later in the day, by a majority verdict on two charges relating to Don’t be Sheeple – even Professor Rabkin’s cogent arguments that the Jews were a religion and not a race had failed to impress the jury.
The establishment had so far effectively managed to contain reporting on the trials and asylum attempt to cold and slanted reports in the Yorkshire and Lancashire media, without any discussion of the many issues arising from the case. The H2 belatedly obtained considerable publicity in this area – The Yorkshire Post carried the most extensive reports, but was extremely biased, to the point of dishonesty. The Main Hearing on March 10 only lasted 90 minutes and concerned documentation.
Reports on the Hearings on 12 and 24 March, 2009 follow: …. the Heretical Two’s asylum hearing proceeded before the U.S. Immigration Judge, Judge Rose Peters. Simon Sheppard and Steve Whittle (who were brought into court in handcuffs and leg irons, which, they confirmed, was standard procedure when asylum seekers are held in detention pending the hearing of their case, and not victimization of themselves) – the H2 presented their own cases. The U.S. government was represented by its attorney, Miss Myers. The Court heard evidence from Simon and Steve about their experiences at the hands of the British police and Crown Prosecution Service, and also from their English counsel, Adrian Davies, who gave evidence about the relevant provisions of English law (the Public Order Act 1986, as amended) and the English Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over web pages hosted on a server located in Torrance, California. The hearing was conducted in a very fair, courteous and thorough manner, though inevitably Simon and Steve were at some disadvantage, because they are not lawyers, and are moreover being held in prison, where they have had very limited facilities to prepare for the hearing.
After a lengthy sitting, the Court adjourned to 1 p.m., West Coast time, on March 24, when Simon and Steve addressed the Court on their own behalf, and Miss Myers made representations on behalf of the U. S. government. [Report ends]. On, Tuesday, 24 March, HHJ Peters heard closing arguments from Miss Myers, counsel for the U. S. government, and Messrs Sheppard and Whittle on their own behalf. At the conclusion of the argument, HHJ Peters reserved judgment, which was to be handed down in writing in due course. Since the case of the Heretical Two involved unusual questions of fact and law and more documentary evidence than is usual in asylum hearings, the judge’s decision to reserve her judgment was not surprising. It was delivered within 30 days. In the meanwhile, Messrs Sheppard and Whittle remained in Santa Ana jail.
The Leeds Crown Court Hearing on March 30 was deferred until May 15 to await the decision of the American asylum court. There was been further limited reporting in the UK – Yorkshire Post March 31 and Hull and East Riding News March 28.
The Heretical Two lost their Claim for asylum on April 5, 2009 – Anglo-phobic ‘judge’ Peters, had previously supported the cause of Sean Kelly (O’Cealleagh). She granted asylum to this IRA member because “it was a purely political case.” Kelly was one of three men sentenced to life for the public beating, stripping and shooting of Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes in Belfast in 1988. He had been released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, relocated to the USA, and then post-9/11 served with a deportation order. The H2 had 30 days to appeal against the, clearly, pre-determined decision, but Simon subsequently contacted the authorities to say that they would not appeal. Simon and Steve were deported from LAX on June 16, arrived in London June 17, where they were arrested, taken briefly to Leeds Crown Court, and then to prison. The Heretical Two would like to express their sincere thanks to all their American supporters who wrote with letters of support, visited and sent in funds.
The H2 appeared in Leeds Crown Court again on Friday on July 10 2009 for sentencing. Simon received a very harsh sentence of 4 years and 10 months sentence and Stephen – two years and four months. Simon’s sentence comprised 12 months concurrent on the three counts relating to Tales of the Holohoax, followed by a consecutive sentence of 12 months in aggregate on the two counts relating to Don’t Be Sheeple, followed by two years and six months in aggregate on the eleven Internet counts, followed by four months on the Bail Act charge.
On Tuesday, July 14 the Court of Appeal (Richards LJ, Jack J and HHJ Baker QC) gave leave to appeal against conviction on all the Internet counts, but refused leave to appeal with respect to the hard copy counts.
A forfeiture hearing took place on Friday July 31st before Judge Grant at Leeds. The judge decided every contested point against Simon and contravened the letter, as well as the spirit of the law, as many items had been illegally seized by the police in the first place on their three raids. He ordered the forfeiture and destruction of large amounts of valuable office equipment – mainly comprising large printers, which Simon had serviced. An appeal was lodged against sentence re: forfeiture of the printers, computers and other office equipment was heard at the same time as the internet publishing appeal, i.e. not within the statutory twenty-one days. This full appeal hearing before three judges was held on Thursday November 26 and 27, 2009 at the Law Courts, Strand, London.
An appeal is being made to the European Court of Human Rights over the decision by the Leeds Appeal Court judge not to review the notorious decision in Reg. v. Birdwood when Judge Pownall’s decision that “the truth is no defence” in race cases was upheld. This appeal should result in some useful publicity in a few years’ time. Stephen was moved from HMP Leeds (Armley prison) to the lower category Everthorpe Prison in East Yorkshire, but Simon remained at Armley voluntarily as a category C prisoner, as he had a “decent job in the print shop.” On January 29, 2010 – news was received that the appeal against conviction on internet publishing on a foreign website was lost. The appeal against forfeiture of good was also lost.
Fortunately, the appeal judges ruled the sentences were excessive and reduced Simon Sheppard’s sentence by a year to 3 years and 10 months and Stephen Whittle’s sentence by six months to 1 year and 10 months. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted on internet publishing, but appeal with respect to the forfeiture of goods order was denied. A subsequent appeal court hearing certified “points of law of general importance” which enables the H2 to directly petition the Supreme Court for the right to appeal on these points.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, formerly the judicial committee of the House of Lords, refused the H2 leave to appeal (no surprise there then!!!). It is the practice of this Court not to give reasons for refusing leave to appeal, whereas it would be considered an error of law for any other court not to give reasons for its decisions. The H2 are now entitled to petition the European Court of Human Rights for leave to appeal to that court, which they could not do before, as would-be petitioners are obliged to exhaust all domestic recourse first. All Simon’s office equipment has now been destroyed by the Authorities – who are exuding quiet satisfaction over a ‘job well done.’
Meanwhile, Steve, out on bail at a bail hostel in Blackburn which he found fairly agreeable, was caught in a minor breach of his bail conditions a few weeks after his release, and sent to Preston prison in June 2010. He was found by the police using the internet in Blackburn public library. The UK is not so different from China and Burma in its treatment of political dissidents – except that there are far fewer of them, as most opposition is safely contained within the system – genuine opponents are hysterically denounced as ‘racists’ and ‘nazis’ by the covertly controlled media. Four months later Steve was released back to the bail hostel, and finished his sentence in mid April 2011.
On 15th July 2010 Simon Sheppard was moved from Armley to a privately run prison – HMP Wolds and was ‘downgraded’ to a category D prisoner. He was moved again – this time to HMP Sudbury in Derbyshire on December 17, 2010. This is an open prison and has a good reputation and extensive grounds, but has large numbers of Moslem prisoners and “racist incident report boxes everywhere you looked.” On Wednesday 22 December, five days later, three prison officers arrived at 7.30 am and he was handcuffed to a Negro officer, in a deliberate attempt to provoke him, he was then banged up in a segregated holding cell to await transport back to HMP Wolds. The Prison governor refused to explain the reason for this apparent abuse of authority, but Simon was later informed that his ‘offence’ put him in a special security classification which meant that the jail could not allocate him – a higher office had to give permission, but this procedure had been ‘overlooked.’ The allocation to Sudbury was therefore flawed, so he had to be shipped back to HMP Wolds. His treatment, ostensibly, had nothing to do with his actions in prison [but more to do with his views and comments made by supporters?]…Simon was kept at HMP Wolds in East Yorkshire until May 17.
He was then released under licence from prison, and escorted to a bail hostel in York. He is now subject to ‘MAPPA3,’ the only one in North Yorkshire, as he is classed as one of the ‘critical few!’ This regime involves two roll calls per day, case conferences by senior police and probation service, and no internet access. “MAPPA3 is for high risk, or high profile offenders, it is not exclusively for sex offenders.” The usual stay at the hostel is 12 weeks, but he could be obliged to stay there until the expiry of his licence in 2013 – depending on various factors, such as availability of somewhere else to live. This is a back door way of increasing his sentence and he has been treated as if he were a recidivist criminal, or a dangerous paedophile. However, the hostel is small and at least he is now be able to go out and visit a library, park, or cafe…
Simon reports that he is spending his time productively and is writing a book on psychology.
“If you want, you can have this future.”
Japan, the world’s second largest economy, is facing a demographic crisis that will shrink the population dramatically. The Japanese aren’t having babies, and the country won’t accept immigrants to help bolster the population. But Japan may have a unique solution – Robots!
If you are someone who thinks or writes about race, immigration, labor, technology, population or culture in the USA this video of how things are done in another country might be of interest.
This full kaleidoscope of skin colors was a relatively recent evolutionary development, according to biologists, occuring alongside the migration of modern humans out of Africa between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago.
An Ottawa man has been granted refugee status after an immigration board panel ruled he would be likely be persecuted if he returned back to his native South Africa — because he is white. A Canadian immigration and refugee board panel ruled Thursday that Brandon Huntley, 31, could stay in Canada because he presented “clear and convincing proof of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect him.”
White South African granted refugee status | Ottawa and Region | News | Ottawa Sun
This is what the future holds for Hip Hop if this doesn’t stop, you clowns won’t continue on for ever with this mess.
The brick, thrown through a 4-year-old boy’s bedroom window, read “Keep Eastside Black. Keep Eastside Strong.” Police have not classified this incident as a hate crime, said Austin Police Sgt. Richard Stresing, because hate crimes target an individual specifically because of an identifying characteristic, like race. [Make sense.]
Police investigating brick thrown into East Austin home | The Blotter
Affirmative action has always been more about the restoration of legitimacy to American institutions than the uplift of blacks and other minorities.
Shelby Steele — Affirmative Action Doesn’t Solve the Real Problem – washingtonpost.com
Since the site admins respect freedom of speech, it is inevitable that some readers, including the admins themselves, will find some comments or entries offensive.
MajorityRights.com: A site for the discussion of issues affecting Western societies
The ugliest race site I’ve ever looked at.
N.I.M. Front Door, NIM International Political Lobby, National Independents Movement
Ashok Mahajan went berserk inside Court 11 of the Royal Courts of Justice as appeal judge Mr Justice Underhill delivered the unfavourable ruling against his race discrimination claim. [Quaker, Buddhist, Muslim: if you had money to bet on it, which would this guy be?]
High Court barrister burned in courtroom acid ‘attack by furious litigant’ | Mail Online
