Holocaust Fundamentalism And Th

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-busing 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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090209/wl_nm/us_pope_jews

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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5693687.ece

"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 years in jail 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:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,3844853.column

"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

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. 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.

Mark Green can be contacted via www.PersecutionPrivilegeAndPower.com

Source: http://www.rense.com/general85/holfun.htm

*************

For More Information Visit http://www.heretical.com/