Zionist Jihad:
‘Holocaust
Fundamentalism’ and the War on Dissent
Two British Writers Languish
in Obscurity in a California Jail. Their Crime? Satire, Mockery and
Disbelief.
By Mark Green
An
international
court battle involving government-imposed restrictions on political
expression has ensnared two right-leaning British intellectuals.
Writers
Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle stand convicted of violating modern
British laws against “stirring up racial and religious hatred” for
publishing, among other things, an allegedly anti-Semitic comic book
called “Tales of the Holohoax” as well as a nativist-British pamphlet
called “Don’t Be Sheeple”.
As
the irrepressible creators of a pugnacious web site called
‘Herectical.com’, Shepard and Whittle (who writes under the pen name,
‘Luke O’Farrell’) have published scores of taboo-busting manifestos,
cultural critiques and satires, as well as numerous scientific papers
and ‘general interest’ material. But it all came to a crashing end last
year under the boot heel of a British court. What’s worse, their
prickly commentary was about to earn them a multi-year stint in an
English jail.
Outraged
at what they consider politically based persecution, the two dissenters
chose instead to seek political asylum in America. Then the US Dept. of
Homeland Security stepped in.
The
most recent chapter of their political odyssey began on July 14, 2008,
when Sheppard and Whittle (dubbed the ‘Heretical Two’) delivered
themselves to US authorities at Los Angeles International Airport upon
their arrival from Europe. But instead of sanctuary they received a
one-way ticket to the Santa Ana jail; this, despite the fact that they
entered the US legally and the contents of their published works
violate no US law. In fact, the server headquarters of their web site,
Heretical.com, is located in California. Despite this, an American
judge presiding over their asylum case has refused to grant them bail.
Sheppard
and Whittle remain in police custody under the watchful eye of the US
Dept. of Homeland Security.
‘News
Blackout’ Spells Invisibility
Meanwhile,
the mainstream media has shown persistent indifference to this
noteworthy First Amendment brawl, even though the case’s legal
implications are newsworthy, perplexing and perhaps even precedent
setting,
But
why would the mainstream media play a passively hostile role towards
these Free Speech activists? Why? Because the Heretical Two qualify as
exemplars of Britain’s ‘far Right’, a movement that’s antagonistic
towards many modern conventions concerning race, sexuality, feminism,
Third World immigration and Israel’s elevated status in the West.
The
‘far right’s’ political agenda stands in direct opposition to the
multi-cultural transformation of Europe and North America that’s been
in progress for the past half century. Many rightists allege that these
cultural changes have been promoted by influential jurists, financiers,
as well as major players in news, publishing and entertainment. With
this in mind, the media’s self-imposed blackout becomes far easier to
understand.
As
for the British laws designed to inhibit 'racial or religious hate',
it’s significant that the only other figure to come under the sway of
this decree was dissident Australian historian, Dr. Frederick Toben,
who was seized by British authorities last year for denying the
magnitude of the Holocaust. Defendant Stephen Whittle contends
that “for those who hate truth, truth is hate”.
Bruce
Leichty, Sheppard and Whittle’s immigration attorney, had this to say
about the bizarre British edict that prompted the Heretical Two to take
flight: “Under this novel application of [British] law, American
citizens, or indeed citizens of any nation, are rendered subject to
arrest and prosecution by the British authorities if anything they post
on the world wide web is deemed in breach of British laws governing the
discussion of race and religion”. These extra-national laws pose a
direct challenge to America’s First Amendment rights.
Meanwhile,
Sheppard and Whittle languish in an American jail, unseen and unknown.
This undermines their quest for freedom since publicity is vital to
raising funds to sustain their legal battle. But the Heretical Two are
not alone. New dissidents are now being targeted. Others, like
Holocaust skeptics Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf, remain behind bars.
One
recent target, a conservative Catholic Bishop named Richard Williamson
has come under intense pressure for remarks he made about the official
Holocaust story on Swedish TV. This is how it’s playing out in the
mainstream news:
Jews
Tell Vatican: Holocaust Denial is a Crime
By
Philip Pullella (2/9/09)
VATICAN
CITY (Reuters) - World Jewish leaders told Vatican officials that
denying the Holocaust was "not an opinion but a crime" when they met on
Monday to discuss a bishop they accuse of being anti-Semitic.
The
meetings, the first since the controversy over Bishop Richard
Williamson, who denies the extent of the Holocaust, began last month,
took place three days before Pope Benedict is due to address a group of
American Jewish leaders.
Williamson
told Swedish television in an interview broadcast in January: "I
believe there were no gas chambers." He said no more than 300,000 Jews
perished in Nazi concentration camps, rather than the 6 million
accepted by most historians.
"Today
we strongly reaffirmed that the denial of the Shoah is not an opinion,
but a crime," said Richard Prasquier, president of the French Jewish
umbrella organization CRIF, using the Hebrew word for Holocaust.
The
headline and narrative are fairly typical of the news-bites that frame
this unique kind of dispute.. In this instance, the reader finds the
accused Bishop alone, stigmatized and denounced by numerous
authoritative sources and even a court. The Jewish perspective is given
overwhelming prominence. Nowhere in the article are there any defenders
of Williamson’s position. The vital issues of Free Speech and political
liberty are altogether absent. Case closed.
In
most any other context, the attempt by government to impose criminal
penalties for mere utterances would be questioned--if not deplored--in
the article itself. But arguments involving the Holocaust and Jewish
sensitivities are treated, in the mainstream media at least, with
unique partisanship.
The
London Times (Online edition, 2/9/09) proclaims:
British
Diplomat Arrested Over “Anti-Semitic’ Rant
“Allegations
that a senior British diplomat launched into an anti-Semitic rant in a
London gym while watching TV footage from Gaza will not upset the
"treadmill of diplomacy", the Israeli Ambassador to London said today.
In
a curiously tongue-in-cheek response to a case that has provoked
concern within the Jewish community in Britain, Ron Prosor added that
the tirade did not reflect "the health and fitness of our relations".
The
diplomat, 47-year-old Rowan Laxton, allegedly shouted "f***ing
Israelis, f***ing Jews" while watching television reports of the
Israeli attack on Gaza last month.
He
is also alleged to have said that Israeli soldiers should be "wiped off
the face of the Earth" during the rant at the London Business School
gym near Regents Park on January 27. The tirade reportedly continued
even after other gym users asked him to stop.
After
a complaint from a member of the public, Mr. Laxton was arrested for
inciting religious hatred - which can carry a seven-year prison term -
and bailed to reappear at a central London police station at the end of
March.”
When
the dust settles, the curious reader is left with this unanswered
question: What’s worse?—using the F-word in the same sentence as the
word ‘Jew’?—or a military invasion and assault upon a civilian
population by an overpowering, nuclear-ready foreign power? The London
Times’ coverage would suggest that insensitive language is the more
reprehensible of the two. On this key question, the editorial pages at
the same paper are silent.
Meanwhile,
Mr. Laxton is facing real jail time for his verbal indiscretions.
‘Overrepresentation’:
So What?
Have
Big Media and Big Government joined forces to advance an ethnic agenda?
It’s looking that way. Writing in the LA times (12/19/08) columnist
Joel Stein adds humor and realism to the stunning reality of ethnic
monopoly in Big Media/Entertainment.. He writes:
“How
deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page
ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen
Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News
Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman
Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger
(Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew),
Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive
Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister
of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief
Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein
brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut
down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on
hand to fill a mikvah.”
Stein
clears the air. And he’s pretty funny about it. But the impact of
ethnic activism in media and government must be assessed, and
critically—without the threat of reprisal. Stein takes good-natured
pity on Hollywood’s ethnic outsiders (plain old white folks) saying:
“The
Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six
Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called
them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused
to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC
President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.”
But
concentrated power with a global agenda can become very un-funny
indeed. Just ask the Heretical Two. When wealth, talent, religion and
government merge, there can be many, many causalities.
Glenn
Greenwald, writing in the American Conservative Magazine, makes this
disturbing observation about Israeli influence in the US Congress:
“From
the moment Israel began dropping bombs on Gaza, leaders of America’s
two major political parties rushed to announce their total support,
competing to see who could most fulsomely praise the offensive. So
complete was the agreement that they all seemed to be reading from the
same script. While other Western government issued even-handed
statements condemning both Israel and Hamas and their diplomats worked
furiously to forge a ceasefire agreement, America’s political leaders
stood on the sidelines, cheering [Israel’s invasion] with increasing
fervor.
“In
the Senate, support for the resolution was absolute across party an
ideological lines. Its chief sponsors were Majority Leader Harry Reid
and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Not a single senator—not
one—expressed opposition, so there was no need for a roll-call vote. On
Jan. 8, as images of a burning Gaza were being broadcast around the
world, the Senate approved the resolution by unanimous consent, without
objection.”
Greenwald
also cites a recent University of Maryland study which found that 71%
of Americans do not want the US to take sides in the Israel-Palestine
conflict, and asks “How are US interests advanced by insinuating
ourselves into such a an entrenched conflict?”
Whittle,
in the meantime, warns about federal legislation here in the US that
also poses a danger to traditional American liberties. “[House] bill
HR-1955”, he notes, “is ready to begin pushing the US down the same
slope as the UK and European Union”. Though this bill finally stalled
in the Senate, it received overwhelmingly support by both parties in
the House of Representatives.
The
bill, HR-1955, was named the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act” by its liberal (and Jewish) sponsor, Jane
Harman (D-CA). It contained numerous provisions criminalizing, among
other things, “hate speech”, which is code for selectively targeting
political expression. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is expected to
sponsor a similar bill later this year. Other bills now under
consideration in the House (HR-256 and HR-262) also seek to broaden and
enhance ‘hate speech’ penalties.
But
as America’s Zionized conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran push
forward, larger problems surely loom. Nevertheless, eliminating
politically incorrect speech remains high on the agenda of both
political parties. With help from advisors linked to the ADL, lawmakers
are now crafting legislation aimed at circumventing Free Speech
guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Pro-Zionist
Personality Syndrome?
The
pro-Zionist personality that’s been on the forefront of condemning
dissent was put under the microscope recently by blogger/activist Karin
Friedmann, who avers:
“Jews
in America are socially empowered to go way beyond the learned trauma
of the Jewish experience that results in typical reactionary behavior.
They actually participate in group behavior that is deliberately
manipulative and abusive - aimed at punishing activists who stand up
for human equality and justice. Over the years, US Jews have become
increasingly nutty not only due to current events but due to the
internet "alerts" coming to them from Jewish lobbyists, who solidify
their brains in this self-righteous fantasy world where Hamas is a
terrorist organization, where Israel has some kind of right to kill and
rob non-Jews.
“So
we are dealing with not only dangerous reactions based on past trauma -
actually learned trauma based on a glorified and fictionalized past -
but American Jews are actually being trained since childhood to
interact with non-Jews in a deceitful and arrogant manner, in
coordination with each other, to emotionally destroy Gentiles and
Israel critics, in addition to wrecking their careers and interfering
with their social relationships. This is actually deliberate, wicked,
planned behavior motivated by a narcissistic self-righteous fury.’
The
pro-Zionist personality is so commonplace that it’s now considered
normal. But when far right dissenters (often smeared as white
supremacists) gather publicly to legally and non-violently advance
their own worldview, they are typically set upon by even larger numbers
of left wing ‘counter-demonstrators’. There’s hate speech aplenty
during these rare encounters, only it usually comes from the so-called
anti-fascists. I recall attending a rally for Pat Buchanan when he ran
for President a decade or more ago. At an otherwise peaceful assemblage
of Middle Americans who came to hear Buchanan’s speech, was a raucous
band of protesters with signs the read “Stop Fascism” and “No Nazis
Allowed.” If the shoe were on the other foot, these fiery insults would
be classified as hate speech.
A
confrontation of this kind happened in Germany recently, when rightists
attempted to commemorate the Allied annihilation of Dresden during
WWII. The problem again, was that hundreds of self-described
anti-fascists showed up, ready for a fight. Many were arrested.
Significantly, when democratic privileges are at play, the anti-fascist
crowd shows a remarkable disregard for civil liberties. It’s likely
that quite a few of these anti-Fascists also have more than a passing
interest in the security of Israel.
At
the center of so much contemporary indoctrination and censorship lies
the Holocaust, an event that’s gradually becoming as large—or
bigger—than any episode in modern history. In America today, denying
the existence of God is a trifle compared to expressing skepticism
about the How and Why and How Many died at the hands of Nazis during
WWII. Significantly, comparable (or greater) crimes by Stalin during
the same era are deliberately overlooked. This is probably because
those details detract from what’s become the dominant narrative of our
time.
The
Holocaust has come to stand for the supreme inhumanity of the Gentile
world towards an innocent and less-numerous (but greater) people. It
also serves to reminds Jews that only their cohesion, determination and
vigilance can possibly save them from the lurking and ubiquitous evil
found within the hearts of Gentiles.
On
a more practical level, the Holocaust is essential to the maintaining
the dubious legitimacy of the Jewish State, a race-centered entity set
aside for the world’s wealthiest and most accomplished ethnicity,
Without
the unique and supreme suffering entailed within Holocaust lore, Israel
would be seen as a chauvinistic colony on a land that deserves, at the
very least, to be shared by all.
Opposing
views about The Holocaust (and Jewish history) now define the outer
limits of Free Speech in the Western World. Without the courageous
sacrifice by a handful of dissidents, this might never change.
Please
support Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle. They can be contacted
at:
Simon
Sheppard
08-6404
Stephen Whittle 08-6408
C/O Santa Ana
Jail
C/O Santa Ana Jail
Box
22003
Box 22003
Santa Ana, CA
92701
Santa Ana, CA 92701
USA
USA
For
information about making an urgently-needed financial donation to help
free the Heretical Two, please contact Paul Ballard who is heading up
their Legal Defense Fund. Paul's emai address:
paullballard@totalserve.co.uk
Contributions
can also be sent to the Fund in the UK addressed as follows: Croydon
Preservation Society, P. O. Box 301, Carshalton, Surrey, SM5 4QW,
United Kingdom.