Canaries in the Coal Mine

Thought Crime - The Heretical Two

by Jack Donovan on January 3, 2010

In 2008, two men in the UK had their houses raided, their papers and property seized. They were prosecuted and convicted of ”inciting hatred.” They were sentenced in absentia. They fled to the United States, where their controversial web site was actually hosted, to seek asylum. They waited in jail for over 80 days, and were denied asylum by a judge who had granted it to an IRA member who participated in the beating, stripping and murder of two police officers. These two men are writers. They have not committed any acts of violence or theft. These two men, known as the Heretical Two, were deported back to the UK, where they were immediately jailed. They remain in prison today.

Their website, containing much of the material that was used as evidence against them in court, is still online.

http://www.heretical.com/

Some of the material on the site is inaccurate, skewed or distorted. Some of it is funny, some of it is crude, some of it is angry, and some of it is mean. Some of it is racist. Some of it is sexist. Some of it is true. Some of it is in direct conflict with my own beliefs and writings, and some of it is offensive to me on a personal level. Some of it would be denounced by most people. Almost all of it would be denounced as unacceptable by cultural Marxists, feminists and other leftists.

Many of the same things could be said about the posts and comments published on The Spearhead.

You don’t have to agree with everything these men have written or published to agree that it is wrong for them to be in prison for THOUGHT CRIME. If you say, write and believe things that could be selectively identified as “hate speech” by the powers that be,one day, this could be you.

I know it could be me.

This story needs to receive much more attention than it is getting. It needs to be told over and over, because it is a sign of things to come. In America, protected by the United States Constitution, we still have the ability to say what we like and face mostly social and professional consequences. We take this for granted. We shouldn’t. We currently have hate crimes laws–our President recently expanded their scope — and many on the left believe that our Constitution is “a living document” to be altered and reinterpreted according to prevailing whim. Progressives and liberals in the US idolize European and Canadian systems, many of which have and defend the same kinds of hate speech laws that put these men behind bars.

Women — as many of you know well — will be happy to tell you what you can and cannot say. Women are ascending to power. How long will they continue to allow you to freely and openly question them? How many feminists would defend your right to free speech if they found what you wrote threatening, insulting or politically incorrect?

If my characterization of feminists here is incorrect, I challenge five pro-feminist sites to post blogs demanding the release of “The Heretical Two,” who were vehemently sexist as well as racist. Otherwise, I will continue to characterize feminists — and a large percentage of women — as enemies of free speech.

 

Release The Heretical Two!

 

Related Links:

http://www.heretical.com/

http://www.freethehereticaltwo.com/

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/03/local/me-brits-jailed3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8010537.stm

The Hoover Hog: Two Writers

//
//

{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }

Paul January 3, 2010 at 06:06

Jack asks how long before feminist try to silence him and others like him. Not too long is the answer I fear. Indeed if he would try to say what he does on a university campus he would be silenced already by being shouted down. Here in the UK it use to be the case that speech was only illegal if it constituted incitement to violence. Now we prosecute speech if it is offensive to others. Of course when I say ‘others’ I do not mean people like you and me Jack but those ‘others’ who are special in the eyes of the law. Along with hate speech we also have hate crime. Well we know all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JDApostasy January 3, 2010 at 07:17

Such extreme measures are likely to elicit extreme responses. I would not be surprised if, as free speech curtailed, violence increased.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel January 3, 2010 at 07:40

JD

“Such extreme measures are likely to elicit extreme responses. I would not be surprised if, as free speech curtailed, violence increased”

I hope that you understand why it must happen. A simple increase of violence is not enough: uprising is the word I have in mind. We need to “deconstruct” our governments, our main enemy.

I want to encourage all men to practice civil disobedience.

It doesn’t have to be violent. Much more damage can be caused if one works underground, in secret.

(Ex: underground press in ex-USSR helped dismantle the system).

Likewise, we can dismantle the yoke that strangles us by starving the government of our money: that is, work less, spend less and hide carefully any asset you might possess and do all you can to avoid paying income tax.. (I suggest gold as assets for safety: not a house…)
If we cut the supply of money to the government, everything will come back to normal in a few years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tarl January 3, 2010 at 07:53

The USA is not the country to come to if you’re fleeing charges of Jew-bashing.

Many Muslim loons are preaching hate in the UK and will never see the inside of a jail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 3, 2010 at 08:39

What I wonder is why the state over there sees these guys as enough of a threat to merit imprisonment. Maybe they don’t see them as a threat at all, and that’s why they’re throwing them in jail.

IRA terrorists and Muslim radicals can have people killed, and judges know this. I think those who are in “power,” in general, are fundamentally cowards, so they choose the safest targets.

What could be safer than jailing a couple of white guys whose views antagonize pretty much everyone across the board?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Athol January 3, 2010 at 08:40

I just don’t know on this one. Yes they are writers, but when your work outlining how you think Nazi death camps were in fact holiday camps for Jewish people is getting shoved through the mail slots on synagogues, you know people are going to get pissed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow January 3, 2010 at 08:49

Great point Welmer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 3, 2010 at 08:50

I just don’t know on this one. Yes they are writers, but when your work outlining how you think Nazi death camps were in fact holiday camps for Jewish people is getting shoved through the mail slots on synagogues, you know people are going to get pissed.

-Athol

In that case, charge them with harassment. But don’t put people in jail for what they say. This is where I draw a clear line between the US and Europe. As an American, I believe freedom of expression is worth fighting for, literally. This is why we have the right to bear arms, you know; the 2nd amendment was written to uphold the first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 January 3, 2010 at 09:30

@Welmer

From what I’ve heard, law in the UK is just that. A police scared of the real criminals that puts in jail the first idiot they come across just for look like they are doing something. That’s why they came out with all kinds of reactionary laws. Pathetic.

Politicians would gladly give the country to the Muslims if they could keep giving orders in their name. Which is not going to happen (and deep down they know it), so they only do this agonizing degradation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Schopenbecq January 3, 2010 at 09:36

The scary thing is this recieved very little media attention in the UK and, as far as I know, not a single important commentator voiced any concern over it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul January 3, 2010 at 09:38

There are many interesting feature of this case . Since the material appears to have been published on the internet in a sense it was published in every country. So could every country prosecute? Alternatively the material was on an American sever. So in that case was it only published in America and hence the prosecuting should have been in America?

This all leads to this point. The people where British. So does the British government feel empowered to prosecute their citizens when the offence in committed in other countries? If you look at this case and others you will see that there is increasingly a tendency in British law to do just that. So what emerges from this line of reasoning is that the citizen is ownen by the state no matter where they are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Trevor Blake January 3, 2010 at 09:53

Thanks for the links to OVO, and your contribution to discussion of the Heretical Two.

To those new to this case, a few more details: No evidence was presented at the trial that any ‘racial hatred’ had resulted from the internet material. No evidence was presented at the trial that anyone had accessed the relevant internet pages other the single police officer who had downloaded the website for the purpose of the prosecution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry January 3, 2010 at 10:44

They were prosecuted at the behest of various powerful Jewish lobbies in the UK who give millions of dollars to both the left and the right main political parties.

I presume that these lobbies threatened to withhold some of this money if these two men were not prosecuted.

Having said this, there were one or two articles on the site that I read that were quite shocking, in my view. And had the sentiments expressed therein gained wide acceptance then there would have been some fairly horrendous repercussions.

I, myself, do not believe that freedom of speech should be absolute; e.g. see here …

http://www.angryharry.com/esLimitsToFreeSpeech.htm

… and I think that it would be unwise to allow people to say what the hell they like about other people; regardless of the truth or the possible repercussions.

For example, let’s just say that you did not like one of the posters round here. Would it be OK for you to go round telling everybody that he was a paedophile?

Would it be OK to write to his neighbours and work colleagues telling them the same?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
B.B. January 3, 2010 at 10:48

First they came for the national socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a national socialist…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert in Arabia January 3, 2010 at 11:06

Brave post.
Heretical.com was one of first sites to take on the feminists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
valmont January 3, 2010 at 11:15

Words are like bullets, once you shoot them you can’t take em back…so use them wisely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robin January 3, 2010 at 11:21

I knew you could get locked up here for inciting violence, but just for speech that offends people? WTF?!

“Such extreme measures are likely to elicit extreme responses. I would not be surprised if, as free speech curtailed, violence increased”

There will be no violent revolt. If the average man in the street does not believe a law will impact his daily life, he will never violently resist it on principle. The freedom of racists to be openly racist is a very abstract freedom. Few people understand abstract freedoms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 3, 2010 at 11:27

Does anyone know what happened to Duncan Idaho – The Eternal Bachelor?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ferdinand Bardamu January 3, 2010 at 13:12

How many feminists would defend your right to free speech if they found what you wrote threatening, insulting or “politically incorrect?

The answer, Jack, is zero.

One feminist right now is on a crusade against anti-feminist writers she accuses of encouraging violence against women. She’s apparently trying to get Roissy and Nick Savoy of Love Systems arrested for “felony sexual assault.” Check out these posts (and the comments):

http://therealsavoy.blogspot.com/2009/12/letters-from-crazy-people.html
http://therealsavoy.blogspot.com/2009/12/crazy-lady-returns.html

Doubt anything will come of it, but still…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zel January 3, 2010 at 13:15

Can anyone confirm that MND is still on-line? I have not been able to access the site for four days. I get a “Could not locate remote server” error message, yet I can no reference to the site being down.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/

Much thanks

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 3, 2010 at 13:23

Didn’t the Better Beta go down just recently, with no explanation, as well … ?

MRA sites seem to be falling left, right and centre …

/paranoia

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
adan flores January 3, 2010 at 13:30

Double-double-DOUBLEplusungood!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zel January 3, 2010 at 13:33

“the Better Beta” I had not heard of that site. Just tryed it, and yes indeed… it’s no more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Daniel January 3, 2010 at 13:43

I certainly understand why society would want them in jail. They are not only trying to justify violence against women, but also children, women, and non-whites. Even in the United States, not all speech is allowed. While the United Kingdom draws the line a little further towards protecting group rights than individual rights, I don’t see this as an abusive act by the courts. The author points out that there has not been a public outcry about this, and I think we can interpret this as the majority of people being in agreement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Daniel January 3, 2010 at 13:57

Oh, and we left out the various N****r and f*g posts. I think it is elevating this stuff to call it a “thought” crime.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt January 3, 2010 at 14:06

Daniel
That’s the thing about free speech. Where do you draw the line, and more importantly WHO draws it. It is #1 on the bill of rights for a reason. Very slippery slope to ‘extension’ and ‘projection’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Marlon January 3, 2010 at 14:11

The imprisoning and treatment of these two men is far worse than anything they have WRITTEN. To think that men nowadays are such as insipid spineless gutless wonders that these two – merely writing things (WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ) – would land them in jail, and others would approve is …sick, sick, sick.

And the heretical two did not incite violence (yes, I read some articles on the site), nor encourage others to do so.

But for those who approve, fear not! Be of good cheer; for this site and many, many others could be closed down, the writers arrested and lives ruined because they dared to question, (rightly or wrongly), the ruling dogmas of the day.

Very sad and very sick. I suppose as speech grows more and more limited, there will be more and more people who cheer for the constraints!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt January 3, 2010 at 14:50

Marlon
“Very sad and very sick. I suppose as speech grows more and more limited, there will be more and more people who cheer for the constraints!”

I would just as soon leave before the fireworks start, but I will say this. There’s alway the 2nd amendment and I’ll go out in a firefight before I’ll follow restrictions and mandates, i.e. rules that other people make before I give up the right to speak and write whatever I wish to. Secondly “(WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ)” is correct.

If they want to go there, I imagine the equivalent of book burnings will start to…..wait, it may already be happening. If sites are coming down and being attacked and the internet is the last bastion of free speech it is the same damn thing. I will either agree with or disagree with whatever I read or someone says, but it’s my right to do so as surely as it is theirs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo January 3, 2010 at 15:36

Anarcho-tyranny

Samuel Francis argued that the problems of managerial state extend to issues of crime and justice. In 1992, he introduced the word “anarcho-tyranny” into the paleocon vocabulary. He once defined it this way: “we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).”

In one of his last essays, he explained the concept:

What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.

Francis argues that this situation extends across the U.S. and Europe. While the government functions normally, violent crime remains a constant, creating a climate of fear (anarchy). He says that “laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals” routinely go unenforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens. In fact, Middle America winds up on the receiving end of both anarchy and tyranny.

The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites … or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and “pathological” elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms—people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible—not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations.

Francis argued that anarcho-tyranny is built into the managerial system and cannot be solved simply by fighting corruption or voting out incumbents. In fact, he says that the system generates a false “conservatism” that encourages people to act passively in the face of perpetual revolution. He concludes that only by devolving power back toward law-abiding citizens can sanity be restored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Anarcho-tyranny

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steezer January 3, 2010 at 16:56

I support their right to say whatever they want, but these two looks like complete dingbats.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist January 3, 2010 at 17:08

I wonder if some are missing the “canaries” reference.

For reference… Canaries were used in some mining installations (here and elsewhere) long ago because canaries would die quickly to any poisonous gases that may get unearthed, when the canaries died, the people miners would know they had just hit some poison gas and had some time to get out and survive it.

Likewise, these guys are a lot more “out there” in views, and they’d be the first to be targetted by tyrants for merely thinking the wrong thoughts… and putting them on paper (dunno if they’ll ever get to thought scanners). Someone mentioned “first they came for the National Socialists, I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t a National Socialist”, that’s from a poem from.. who to my knowledge is Pastor Martin Niemoller (the “o” in the last name has two dots on it, this computer lacks a 10key):

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I think we can substitute our own groups into this, but the point is the same. Even if the first they come after are your sworn enemies, watch out for the next they come after. This jailing of these guys isn’t a tragedy (unless you’re very idealistic), but it’s definitely a warning to ALL of us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt January 3, 2010 at 17:13

My quick thoughts:

1 – If you want to plant your flag on a hill, this is probably not the right hill.

2 – I do agree that the actual crimes these men were convicted of are at least trivially concerning with regard to free speech issues in the United States (though the UK is not identical in law with regard to this), but I find this to be a difficult case to argue in favor of, given that these guys were clearly in violation of several other laws (harassment, accessories to violence, etc) that are pretty well grounded.

Or, in short, is it really worth arguing a technicality in this case? I have a feeling that, if this is a real problem, there should be far more obvious and egregious cases of free speech being violated under a feminist rubric (given that this one seems to be less of a feminist issue and more of a religious one in the first place). Just look at the False Rape Society blog, for instance; they find plenty of totally obvious, totally ridiculous situations. Why grasp at straws with this one?

Poorly played.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null January 3, 2010 at 17:20

This isn’t anything new though. Several people have been sentenced for thought crimes in Europe, and in Germany the police broke into somebody’s apartment to take down an Israeli flag because it was agitating Muslims (who were ready to storm the building).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 3, 2010 at 18:33

Does anyone know what happened to Duncan Idaho – The Eternal Bachelor?
From June 07:

Well, after almost two-years of typing and posting away, and a fairly impressive 700,000 hits or so, it’s time to close this blog. It’s been fun but there’s only so many times I can rant and rage before repeating myself. Plus as well as running out of things to post about, the blog was taking up quite a bit of time and I’ve just moved to a new country and need to concentrate on sorting stuff out.

Not that I have any intention to stop being an bachelor, naturally.

I’ll probably see some of you on the various forums out there anyway.

He did come back for a bit, and then just stopped posting again.

I miss him. Duncan was my essential reading for years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 3, 2010 at 18:34

sorry, didn’t close the tags.

Perview is my firnd.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 3, 2010 at 18:52

To clarify, these guys would probably not have flattering things to say about me, personally.

Nothing I have written is a defense of any particular piece of material on the site, nor will I argue for or defend any particular piece on the site. I never read the site until I heard about the case.

Some of the material on the site is inaccurate, skewed or distorted. Some of it is funny, some of it is crude, some of it is angry, and some of it is mean. Some of it is racist. Some of it is sexist. Some of it is true. Some of it is in direct conflict with my own beliefs and writings, and some of it is offensive to me on a personal level.

But either you believe that people should be able to say and write what they want without fear of prosecution, even if most people disagree with them, (with the exception mentioned above about outright libel that directly causes an individual or a company harm) or you believe that whomever is in power should be able to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech and prosecute its citizens as it sees fit.

The second option means “freedom of speech applies to everyone, but some more than others.”

To me, that is unacceptable. To me, that is tyranny.

To many Europeans, apparently it is acceptable.

I would prefer to speak freely.

If someone wants to shame me for breaking tea party etiquette and mentioning the unmentionable…go ahead.

This post was a risk, but I truly believe this case deserves attention and if I can do a bit to bring it some, then I feel that I have done something worth doing today.

For some, this may evoke an emotional response, but this cannot be helped.

The Blanque January 3, 2010 at 19:17

One feminist right now is on a crusade against anti-feminist writers she accuses of encouraging violence against women. She’s apparently trying to get Roissy and Nick Savoy of Love Systems arrested for “felony sexual assault.” Check out these posts (and the comments):

She’s also spammed The Rawness and The Real Assanova. She does get around.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi January 3, 2010 at 19:29

Let’s not forget that one of the most important items on the cunt agenda is the prohibition of anonymous blogs (and presumably, anonymous commenters as well). Pretty obvious why.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Niko January 3, 2010 at 19:52

If I were Welmer I’d add a comic strip after every article, satire is a kick arse way of getting out of a legal jam : )

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dawo January 3, 2010 at 21:30

Want to avoid getting imprisoned for speaking the truth?

Learn to use TOR.

http://www.torproject.org/index.html.en

I would say more, but Welmer would kick me off his site for saying things that offended him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 3, 2010 at 21:58

I would say more, but Welmer would kick me off his site for saying things that offended him.

-dawo

Ah yes, all our readers and authors are aware of what a tyrant I am.

:roll:

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gwallan January 3, 2010 at 22:51

Amateur Strategist complained…

the “o” in the last name has two dots on it, this computer lacks a 10key

Hold down your alt key while typing 0246 then release the alt key. This will generate the character you want – ö.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist January 3, 2010 at 23:45

Nope, still won’t work. It’s a laptop that doesn’t have the 3×3 “10 key” number thing. I hold Alt and hit the numbers in the top row, and it doesn’t produce the ö, however, it would on my desktop which does have the 10key if I use the 10key.

P.S. I make this ö by ctrl-c’ing yours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 4, 2010 at 01:58

The Heretical Two asked for it, and they got it. What is the beef?

Your asking for it too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dagezhu January 4, 2010 at 02:53

‘all our readers and authors are aware of what a tyrant I am.’

It’s your site, it’s your property – don’t expect people to speak their minds openly if they know how narrow-minded their host is.

You got a problem, Welmer: if you keep out the radically unacceptable freethinkers, you’ll have fewer shock troops to take up causes that you favor. Of course, you’re going to be the first one to feel the heat if your guests draw the law down on this site – so I’m not pretending you’ve got easy decisions to make. And I’m not forgetting that you’re the one who pays the bills.

David January 4, 2010 at 01:58 wrote:
“The Heretical Two asked for it, and they got it. What is the beef?

Your asking for it too.”

I don’t know what anyone else is asking for, but *I’m* asking for David to start using apostrophes correctly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 4, 2010 at 03:20

The Heretical Two asked for it, and they got it. What is the beef?

Your asking for it too.

That’s it. Just keep on towing the Party line. Report those nasty freethinkers. Keep on repeating those mantras you’re taught. Check in advance to make sure that every thought you have is legally sanctioned. You’re the smart guy!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky from home January 4, 2010 at 04:49

I don’t like to censor speech, even if it crosses established constitutional thresholds that would normally disallow it. The only tool to use against free speech should be free speech. I have my lines, but I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist. I haven’t read these guys site, but if it is obvious they were calling for direct and immediate violence against people, I don’t think you can do that by todays constitutional interpretations, but I’m not sure, and either way, I wouldn’t have banned them unless they were being very specific, as in why, who, and how. Basically, if they were advocating, encouraging, and then telling people who and how, that is a little much. But saying stuff like, “Kill all the Jews.” just wouldn’t do it for me. I don’t care if you have a site that describes the best ways to torture babies (it could be satire), if the site doesn’t actually advocate it or encourage it, it doesn’t do it for me. If a site talks about why babies should be tortured, but doesn’t advocate it, nope. If it talks about why and how to torture babies should be tortured, than the advocation becomes implied to me. You’ve written a manual. Let me put it this way. I wouldn’t stop sites that show bomb construction. I wouldn’t stop sites that advocate for Jihad. You combine the two, I’ve got a problem. I also don’t care if the government puts people from both on a watch list, and people who have been to both sites under investigation. Free speech is a super fine line to walk, and we need to walk it carefully, I know that, and its a super slippery slope, and we should fear, yes fear, the censoring of anything, no matter how vile. One mans politically incorrect bar joke, is another man’s hate speech.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Silver January 4, 2010 at 05:41

What were they “asking for,” David?

Are blacks bad for white societies? Yes.
Do psychometric racial differences exist? Yes.
Does race-mixing lead to racial extinction? Yes.
Is multiracialism a ‘strength’? No.
Does organized Jewry work hard to help cover up these facts? Yes.
Is the Holocaust so full of holes a reasonable man could be forgiven for doubting the totality of the extermination narrative? Yes.

No one is under any obligation to think favorably of these facts but facts they are, which means there are real world consequences for acting in ignorance of them. What anyone does in light of these facts is another question entirely. But surely people are better off informed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 4, 2010 at 06:32

No offence, Silver, but I think you’re missing the point.

For instance, I would disagree with your answers to most of those questions, but I still find it worrying that these two are incarcerated.

In fact, I find their views to be distasteful and even uncivilised, but I still object to their incarceration. Their imprisonment is something I find even more objectionable than their writing – because their writing did not particularly advocate anything, and only existed on a website which a handful of people read and even less took seriously.

This is the point I think Jack was trying to make. No one particularly cares about the canaries. The canaries are there as an indicator of the level of danger present in the coal mine. These men are the canaries; few sympathise with neo-Nazis. Nevertheless, when they can be arrested and imprisoned for nothing more than expressing their thoughts, without advocating anything, then it’s a worrying sign for those of us down in the coal mine, so to speak.

The threshold has been lowered. Anyone, of any political stripe, who criticises the orthodoxy, could be next in line. Do you see the problem now? This will not stop with neo-Nazis, whom, admittedly, I and most others have no affinity for.

The point is not about the rightness or wrongness of their views, but about the regulation of views, full stop.

Free speech means precisely that we tolerate those views which we find morally offensive; it does not mean that everyone is entitled to speak only those views which I, or you, or society in general, is comfortable with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 4, 2010 at 06:52

“Is the Holocaust so full of holes a reasonable man could be forgiven for doubting the totality of the extermination narrative? Yes.”

Um, I’ve seen pictures, pictures of walking skeletons, long before the days of photoshop. I’ve seen moving footage of the same. The sites where it took place still exist. The country that brought about the tragedy does not deny it.
The 1940′s media and mass communiation may not be what it is today, but trust me, no hoax is possible on that scale. The numbers may be exagerated, but millions or hundred thousands, I don’t care. Genocide of the Jewish people took place.

“Is multiracialism a ’strength’? No.”

Diversity is a strength and a weakness. Don’t be so black and white.

“Does race-mixing lead to racial extinction? Yes.”

It leads to evolution. Evolution does not necessarily mean extinction for the “old” species the new “new” species evolved from, although it sometimes does. Evolution does not also imply better, just different, although the longterm trend is toward more sophisticated. You worry to much, and doubt your own genetic legacy. Trust me. Evolution is not politically correct.

“Are blacks bad for white societies? Yes.”

They help us win gold medals in the olympics. Rap is a world wide phenomenon, which is a masculine art form. They have there strengths and weaknesses, just like any group. They should stop having so many out of wedlock babies, and babies period, but that goes for any group that cannot econmically provide for a family.

“Do psychometric racial differences exist? Yes.”

Absolutely.

I also have an IQ around 140. I’m pretty sure you don’t. Should I be able to tell you what to do. Should I be able to muffle your voice based on this alone. Should I deny you your opinion as having less value than mine. Should I be able to deny you rights or an education because I am psychometrically superior to you. If whites are better than blacks, than for the exact same reason (IQ basically, which is a narrow measure of specific cognitive abilities, not of broader, more general intellecutual capability or capacity. Also, plenty of black geniuses exsits, thanks to outliers) then geeks like me are better than the rest of whites in general. Is this what you believe? If so, all you rednecks, jocks, etc. need to sit at the back of my bus then.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 4, 2010 at 07:04

Snark has the correct answer.

whodareswings January 4, 2010 at 07:27

“The scary thing is this recieved very little media attention in the UK and, as far as I know, not a single important commentator voiced any concern over it.”

The same news blackout was in place in the USA during their incarceration in the Santa Ana Jail which lasted almost a year. I tried to get my local alternative media to cover the story, but being culturally Marxist party liners this backfired and two reporters who commented on their case savaged them and then gloated over their situation. I followed the case very closely and communicated with Whittle and Sheppard by mail. They were treated rather shabbily by a lawyer recommended to them. Somehow he contributed to their prolonged incarceration. If they hadn’t listened to him they would have probably been released on their own recognizance until their hearing date. Their judge was female and Jewish and as such preprogrammed for Talmudic retribution. Their case has been ignored by the media on both sides of the pond because it’s a portent of things to come in acceptable speech on the Internet.
These guys deserve the support of free thinkers everywhere. Look at the court’s charges against them. Among other heresies they were charged for being in possession of three politically incorrect cartoons! (two by Robert Crumb). They welcome letters and the gift of books and can be written to here:

Stephen Whittle #A8041AA
Everthorpe Prison
Beck Road
Everthorpe Brough
East Yorkshire HU15 1RB
UNITED KINGDOM

Sheppard, Simon
#A8042AA Wing B3-25
HMP Leeds
2 Glouchester Terrace
Stanningly Road
Leeds, LS12 2TJ
UNITED KINGDOM

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tarl January 4, 2010 at 08:52

Does anyone know what happened to Duncan Idaho – The Eternal Bachelor?

He was killed in a fight with Sardaukar, then returned as a ghola with mentat training, and eventually Stilgar killed him again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 4, 2010 at 09:37

“Tarl January 4, 2010 at 08:52
Does anyone know what happened to Duncan Idaho – The Eternal Bachelor?

He was killed in a fight with Sardaukar, then returned as a ghola with mentat training, and eventually Stilgar killed him again.”

That one is so over my head, I think its hurting the ozone layer.

I was a big Eternal Bachelor fan also. He was my #2 favorite blog, behind Angry Harry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 4, 2010 at 09:51

@Tarl-

Dune. I knew I should have read those books. I’ve heard good things about them. Where’s the time? So much life to live.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 4, 2010 at 14:37

@Jaberwhockie and Tarl.

I read Dune (and the two follow-ons) way back in the day, and need to re-read it from an adult’s perspective.

I still reckon Doon is one of the funniest reads ever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dawo January 4, 2010 at 21:04

“Is the Holocaust so full of holes a reasonable man could be forgiven for doubting the totality of the extermination narrative? Yes.”

Jabherwochie January 4, 2010 at 06:52
“. The sites where it took place still exist.”

Wrong. Your claims don’t match the claims of the Poles and Israelis who maintain the “reconstructed” camps.

However, if there is to be action for the Heretical Two, it won’t come from the Spearhead – it will come from the more hard-core groups and the “vanguard” websites.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Niko January 5, 2010 at 05:40

Thank you Nemo
Anarcho-tyranny is an amazing read.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman January 5, 2010 at 06:26

Free speech is exactly that. Free.

I claimed the right to say whatever I like to whoever I like and I claimed the right to rescind my consent to be subject to statutes.

Wimmin and mangina lackeys who are the useful idiots of the Illuminati say there should be some ‘limits’ on ‘free speech’ between consenting adults.

Yep..the hypocrisy and double standards are very clear.

Western women are crap…..as are their mangina lackeys. And the so called ‘good women’ do nothing. I am glad I am not subject to any of these shitty femnazi statutes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman January 5, 2010 at 06:35

Guys,
saying ‘release the heretical two’ is complete and utter bullshit. Sorry, but it has to be called.

What men SHOULD be doing is convening de jour juries and incarcerating ANY man who has had ANYTHING to do with their incarceration. Their incarceration is clearly unlawful. But you guys here refuse to learn the difference between laws and legislation despite me shoving it down your throats for a while now.

When you say ‘release the heretical two’ you are acknowledging you are children making a request from an ‘authority figure’. And so those corrupt people at the top treat you exactly like you demand they treat you. Like children. Once you realise that the people who have locked these guys up are your SERVANTS and are equal before the law and are required to have observed common law (this is the UK) and can be penalised under common law…THEN…JUST MAYBE we will get somewhere.

As for these two? Well how many other men are rotting in jail from false charges and corrupt family law. Plenty. What are you guys doing about it? Talking. What am I doing about it? I’ve charged two magistrates in Australia with common law theft and I am trying to get them jailed via a de jour jury. And all those men who rail against the system are actually not much help because they don’t have the balls to actually learn about common law and learn about how to dispense justice. They act like children and ‘delegate’ the important issue of ‘justice’ to a bunch of criminals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 5, 2010 at 07:04

“Wrong. Your claims don’t match the claims of the Poles and Israelis who maintain the “reconstructed” camps. ”

You believe the Jews and Polacks over me, a white bretheren?

Race traitor!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 5, 2010 at 07:11

The insult “race traitor” always makes me laugh…it’s so beyond the pale for most people that they wouldn’t even know what to say.

Black&German January 5, 2010 at 13:57

I say they should be let out. There is no right to not hear or read things that offend you. You’d have to shut down half of the Internet down, including my own blog. Goodness knows, I’ve said enough things that make people want to deck me. LOL.

I agree that they’re being picked on as they seem like easy prey. Just as Christians often are (you’ll see outspoken Christians locked up pretty soon, if they aren’t already). You notice that nobody is getting on TV and poking fun at Muhammad any more. You don’t mess with Islam and walk away breathing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 5, 2010 at 14:11

One feminist right now is on a crusade against anti-feminist writers she accuses of encouraging violence against women. She’s apparently trying to get Roissy and Nick Savoy of Love Systems arrested for “felony sexual assault.”

Wow, that’s outrageous. Roissy’s an ass but so are a lot of people I know. Vices are not crimes. Read it, it’s really good.

As Hall wrote: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Let them speak, even if nothing but nonsense and garbage comes out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 15, 2010 at 06:48

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: