Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 13th, 2010 #21
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,448
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Journalists "must" portray 'minority communities' fairly and accurately - i.e., in the officially prescribed way. They are only being "fair" and "accurate" when they portray "minorities" in the way the government tells them, with no reference to their actual behavior. This kind of enforced doublethink is characteristic of jews, communists, feminists and any body they control.
Old January 21st, 2010 #22
drinking tea
Bev's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247

Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Journalists "must" portray 'minority communities' fairly and accurately - i.e., in the officially prescribed way. They are only being "fair" and "accurate" when they portray "minorities" in the way the government tells them, with no reference to their actual behavior. This kind of enforced doublethink is characteristic of jews, communists, feminists and any body they control.
I've been hunting high and low for more on this, and I think this might be it.

I've had a skim read. Unfortunately I can't copy and paste it but everyone should have a look as it contains some great statistics - London is 40% non-white. Birmingham is 30%. Other things that jump out from a quick read are: Black and ethnic minorities in the UK are not foreigners or visitors. They're British!

A journalist can now be found guily of stirring up racial hatred if they print something likely to stir up racial hatred. So if they print that a gang of muslims have been arrested and convicted of grooming young girls - they can be done for stirring up racial hatred!
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.

Last edited by Bev; January 21st, 2010 at 04:13 AM. Reason: early morning + not enough caffeine = typo
Old June 25th, 2012 #23
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,448
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[We've lost all perspective on how ridiculous this is - the police now routinely across Europe spend their time investigating people saying 'bad' things about other people.]

Police investigate alleged racist Twitter abuse of Ashley Cole and Ashley Young

FA expresses concern over Twitter comments after footballers missed penalties at Euro 2012

Police are investigating a Twitter user's alleged racist abuse of Ashley Cole and Ashley Young after they missed penalty kicks at Euro 2012.

In a series of tweets, the user appeared to goad other users who criticised him. Later he wrote: "All I got to say is this was just a joke, you guys need to relax, police know i was kiddin around and they won't bother me hopefully, cheers."

Another tweet said: "The police won't bother me mate i can assure you that."

A Metropolitan police (MPS) spokesman said on Monday: "We are aware of alleged racist comments on Twitter following last night's England game and have launched an investigation.

"The allegation was made to MPS on 25 June by a member of the public relating to comments on a Twitter account supposedly based in London."

He said no arrests had been made.

The Football Association said in a statement: "We are concerned at the reports regarding allegations of abuse aimed at England players Ashley Cole and Ashley Young on Twitter.

"They have just given everything for the national team at Euro 2012 and it is appalling and unacceptable that messages of an abusive type are being posted. We support any police investigation in identifying who is behind this."

Cole and Young have returned home with the rest of the England team after the 4-2 penalty shoot-out defeat in the quarter-final against Italy.

Liam Stacey, 21, from Pontypridd, South Wales, was jailed for 56 days in March after racially abusing two Twitter users and mocking the Bolton footballer Fabrice Muamba when he collapsed and almost died during a match.

Stacey, a student in the final year of a three-year biology degree, was also banned from Swansea University for the rest of the year.
Old July 14th, 2012 #24
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,448
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[footballers screaming at each other on the pitch becomes a legal case because some cunt watching at home lip reads a racial insult, and racial insults are against the law in the UK. "never shall be slaves" - might want to think about rewriting that line.]

John Terry Found Not Guilty Of Using “Fucking Black Cunt” In A Racial Sense

Barry Petchesky

Go ahead, try out your lipreading: What does Chelsea's John Terry say to QPR's Anton Ferdinand in this video from back in October? If you see anything but "fucking black cunt," you're wrong, because that's totally what he said. He even cops to it.

This being England, Terry, formerly captain of the national team, was taken to court. Real, criminal court, not some soccer tribunal. To face a charge of a racially aggravated offense, which would have carried a small fine and no jail time, but that was the least of his worries. But Terry was cleared this morning, having successfully used the "I didn't mean it as a racial insult" defense.

This was a weird trial. Ferdinand never heard the words, and only found out about it after seeing the replay on YouTube. No players or officials made the official complaint, but rather an off-duty police officer, watching the game at home. And Terry's defense was that he was sarcastically repeating what Ferdinand had accused him of saying, not actually saying it. The magistrate found reasonable doubt, and Terry prevailed.

Ferdinand's account of the run-in:

"He called me a cunt, and I called him a cunt back. And he gave me a gesture as if to say my breath smelled. I said to him: "How can you call me a cunt? You shagged your team-mate's missus, you're a cunt."

And here are some selected passages from the chief magistrate's verdict.

The Crown say that Mr Terry responded by aiming the words "fuck off, fuck off, yeah, yeah and you fucking black cunt, fucking knobhead", and possibly one or more other words, at Mr Ferdinand.

The defendant does not deny that he used the words, "fuck off, fuck off", "fucking black cunt" or "fucking knobhead". His case is that his words were not uttered by way of abuse or insult nor were they intended to be abusive or insulting.

It is obvious, and again not in dispute, that at the time that John Terry said "black cunt" and "fucking knobhead" he was angry.

In cross-examination he accepted that he appears to use the word "and" and as a result the only difference between the prosecution and the defence is that the Crown alleged he says "you/ya fucking black cunt" whereas the defence case is that he said "a fucking black cunt?" There are missing words, and I have not been prepared to speculate as to what they may be.

A related point is the way that Mr Terry's facial expression changed at the moment he uttered the words "black cunt". He tells me, and I accept, that he has received countless taunts, from players and spectators, about an alleged relationship with a team-mate's wife. By the time of this match the taunts had occurred over an 18 month period. He had learned to live with them. They did not anger him. Later I heard evidence from Mr Buck and Mr Wilkins about his unusual qualities of self-control and leadership. I also heard about his disciplinary record. He has been sent off four times in 600 matches, and never for abuse. There can be little doubt from this, and from other evidence that I need not repeat here, that Mr Terry has, over the years, been subjected to the most unpleasant personal abuse and has had to learn to keep calm and continue to play football. On the account given by Anton Ferdinand, there is no obvious reason why John Terry should suddenly become annoyed by the repetition of this taunt.

Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black cunt. However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made.


In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty.

Like we said, this was a weird trial.
Old July 14th, 2012 #25
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle

If it causes untold misery why is it so popular?
Old July 31st, 2012 #26
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,448
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[arrested for 'allegedly malicious tweeting']

Teenager arrested over 'abusive' tweets to Tom Daley

A 17-year-old has been arrested after allegedly malicious tweets were sent to Olympic diver Tom Daley accusing him of letting his late father down.

By Telegraph reporters 8:40AM BST 31 Jul 2012

Dorset Police have confirmed the teenager was arrested on suspicion of malicious communications at a guest house in Weymouth following a series of abusive messages.

Daley and his partner Pete Waterfield missed out on a medal yesterday when they finished fourth in the men's synchronised 10m platform diving event at the Olympics.

Shortly afterwards, Daley retweeted a message from user Rileyy69 which said: "You let your dad down i hope you know that."

Daley responded by tweeting: "After giving it my get idiot's sending me this..."

Daley's father Rob died last year from brain cancer.
Old August 4th, 2012 #27
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,448
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[from David Irving]

Friday March 29, 1996

Britain criticized for rejecting Holocaust denial law


London Jewish Chronicle

LONDON (JTA) -- British Home Secretary Michael Howard has come under fire from Jewish leaders for declining to join his European Union counterparts in declaring Holocaust denial a criminal offense in each of their countries.

Howard's refusal last week at a E.U. meeting in Brussels to seek a British law against Holocaust denial brought a strong response from the Jewish Board of Deputies, which said in a statement that it "deeply regretted" his decision.

Howard cited British freedom-of-speech laws during the Brussels meeting, where other E.U. countries said they feared that Holocaust-deniers would use countries like England as a base for spreading hate literature to E.U. states that have banned such activities.

To counter those fears, Howard agreed to a compromise E.U. resolution that each of the organization's 15 member states would seize racist literature published with the clear intention of inciting racial hatred.

The Board of Deputies, which represents Britain's 300,000 Jews, said in its statement that laws criminalizing Holocaust denial were already on the books in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Lithuania.

The Hungarian government was considering such legislation [they subsequently refused to introduce it] and the Dutch courts had also ruled against Holocaust denial, the statement added.

"It is sad that Britain is isolated in this way," said board president Eldred Tabachnik, who also serves as president of the European Jewish Congress.

Holocaust denial, he added, was a matter of grave concern "not only for Jews and other victims of Nazism, but for all democratic forces determined that neo-Nazi ideology should not be allowed to acquire political legitimacy in Europe."
Old August 8th, 2012 #28
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,448
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Anti-Semitic Facebook page leads to six arrests
May 17, 2012

Nearly 50 police officers in Scotland stormed the houses of allegedly anti-Semitic Facebook users on Friday, arresting six.

A number of citizens of Giffnock, a wealthy suburb of Glasgow, had complained to police about a Facebook page devoted to slamming neighborhood’s Jewish population.

The page, which had almost 1,000 likes, has since been taken down. Some of its content appeared to mock the prevalence of Jewish residents in the suburb. Titled “Welcome to Israel, only kidding you're in Giffnock," its creator reportedly wrote. The page added that though “they have a Gaelic translation in the train station, Hebrew would have been more appropriate."

But many users made far darker comments, reportedly writing "fuck the Jewish Zionist" and calling neighbors "Jewish scum.” One bragged about owning a “Holocaust ring.”

The page’s profile image was a portrait of the late Rev Ernest Levy, a prominent community member and a Holocaust survivor.

Police searched seven homes. They’ve pressed charges against one man, but charged five others, including one juvenile, with breach of the peace and religious and racial aggravations.

In May, a number British citizens have found themselves legally responsible for posting prohibited speech online.

At least a dozen people in England and Wales were arrested for tweeting the name of an alleged rape victim. Another blogger avoided jail time but received a restraining order and mandatory community service for “grossly offensive” and “menacing” tweets towards a London politician.

The Community Security Trust (CST), a Jewish charity established to protect Jews in Great Britain, said “The spread of all types of hatred on social networking sites and similar media is a growing problem,” and noted that it “hoped that this innovative investigation will provide a helpful precedent for all of society."
Old December 3rd, 2012 #29
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,448
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder


By Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
December 3, 2012

From my first warnings about Christian-persecuting hate crimes laws in 1989, I have always told of their creator: the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. Christian conservative leaders claimed this simple fact-stating was “anti-Semitic.” They preferred to blame homosexual activists. This year ADL took credit more clearly than ever. "Our legal experts pioneered hate crime laws and work to implement them nationwide."

Hate crimes laws are unique in the history of jurisprudence because they guarantee extra punishment for bias-motivated crimes against certain minorities in a population (homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, blacks, Latinos, etc.). Such protection is not extended to whites, Christians or males. The texts of all hate crime laws worldwide promise equal protection to everyone but do not grant it. Thus, hate laws are blatantly unconstitutional in the democracies which enforce them.

How successful has ADL been in persuading the nations to adopt hate laws? Stupendously. Since Canada’s federal hate law (Sec. 319) was passed in 1971 and Britain’s Sec. 5 of the Public Order Act in 1986, more than 60 western and eastern European nations have adopted federal hate crimes legislation, all closely modeled after the pattern supplied by ADL.

This brief article summarizes the present status of hate laws in Canada, Britain and the United States. There are some glimmers of hope against the stony backdrop of hate laws’ enshrinement in most western nations.


In 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal astonishingly declared Sec. 13 of Canada’s hate law (forbidding “hate speech” on the internet) to be unconstitutional. It was repealed by Parliament’s House of Commons in June of this year. Although Senate approval is still pending, the next great push by Canadian civil liberties groups (such as Paul Fromm’s heroic “Canadian Association for Free Expression”) is repeal of the original hate law, Sec. 319.

Meanwhile, the most horrendous legal flagellation of offenders continues, such as mathematics professor Terry Tremaine, letter writer Brad Love, and others.

Lovers of freedom everywhere rejoiced with recent acquittal from all hate crimes charges of Canadian pastor Stephen Boissoin. In 2002 Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the “homosexual machine” and “militant homosexual agenda.” A homosexual activist claimed his feelings were hurt and blamed Boissoin’s letter for inciting an attack on a homosexual teacher in Red Deer, Alberta. The Alberta Hate Crime Tribunal found Boissoin guilty of inciting hate and fined him $7000, to be paid to the complaining homosexual. In addition to other punishments, he was gagged from publicly commenting on homosexuality for three years. His 10-year ordeal ended when two Alberta higher courts exonerated him completely.


In Britain “harassment” (causing someone “alarm or distress” or feeling insulted) is a statutory offense. Britain’s hate law, Sec. 5 of its Public Order Act, says,

A person is guilty of an offense if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress thereby.

Popular British actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) leads popular efforts to repeal Sec. 5a. Increasing numbers of writers, comedians, political commentators, social critics and performers cannot pursue their occupations freely without fear of arrest for “insulting” someone. Evangelical Christians are especially under fire.

Sec. 5 charges are increasingly being leveled by police against conservative Christians who object to either the homosexual lifestyle or the government’s plans to institute “gay marriage.”

Adrian Smith is a Christian who recently tweeted, “If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.” Although his position is held by about 80 percent of the British population, Mr. Smith was arrested and charged under Sec. 5. His employer docked his pay 40 percent! says, "The campaign to reform Section 5 is drawing a surprisingly broad array of supporters. . . The campaign also claims 60 supporters in the Commons and the House of Lords including UKIP leader Nigel Farage.”

After 26 years of folly and persecution of free speech, a movement in Britain very similar to that of Canada could deal a painful blow to ADL/B’nai B’rith and a resounding victory for freedom.

United States

The good news in the U.S. is that, with Republicans in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, ADL is unable to push forward new hate laws. Their HR 975 anti-bullying bill, which would make criticism of homosexual youth in U.S. education a federal offense, has languished in committee since conservatives regained power.

The bad news is that the federal hate crimes law, passed just before Republicans came to power, is now being vigorously enforced. Sixteen cases have been tried and fifteen won by the U.S. Justice Department. A recent Kentucky case misfired for the government when three out of four alleged anti-gay hate criminals were found to be bisexual themselves.

By far the most shocking threat to freedom was this summer’s conviction of 16 Amish zealots, found guilty of the federal hate crime of forcibly cutting the hair and beards of theological rivals. Hate laws have never been enforced by governments when bias-motivated acts are between members of the same minority group. After this unprecedented judgment, Christian defendants await sentencing from 17 years to life in prison for going a step further than shunning and forcibly cutting the revered beards of their Christian antagonists. This case is especially ominous because it represents government prosecution of a fairly large group of Christians, almost the number of a small church. Anti-Christian Jewish ADL relishes the possibility of wide-scale arrests of Christians, even denominations of Christians who are judged by the government to be “haters,” “anti-Semitic,” “domestic terrorists,”“seditionists” in the war on terror. The day before conviction ADL’s Abe Foxman rejoiced in testimony before a Senate committee that enforcement of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act was going forward splendidly.

ADL and the Jewish Southern Poverty Law Center yearn for someone from the right wing in America to commit a bona fide hate crime against a person or persons of a federally protected group. In his testimony, Foxman named Wade Page, Sikh temple shooter and member of a white power rock band, as proof the government should consider the anti-Zionist and anti-Islamic right as primary sources of potential hate-motivated violence. Yet ADL and SPLC remain deeply frustrated that their “perfect shooter,” an unstable person with extensive contacts and association with established right-wing groups and media, has not yet materialized.

Meanwhile, no matter how blatant, bona fide hate crimes by members of protected groups are not prosecuted as such. The Fort Hood shooter (army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who killed 13 and wounded 29 from clear anti-American bias) was, as a Muslim, exempted from federal hate crimes prosecution. So was possibly gay activist Floyd Corkins who attacked Family Research Council offices last summer, shooting a guard in the arm and yelling disagreement with FRC’s social policies. Many other glaring examples of preferential treatment toward members of federally protected groups who commit hate crimes can be found online.

Federal and state hate laws prosecute carefully selected cases that will build legal precedent against whites, Christians, males, and members of the political right, cases authorities are almost certain to win. Each, like a brick, helps build prison walls of legal precedent against the Christian right.

Christian Conservatives avoid Jewish Hate Law Issue

Meanwhile, the religious right, largely weary of the hate law issue and its failed attempts to stem passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is content that Republicans, for the moment, withstand new ADL hate bills. But, with enforcement of the federal hate law now moving forward rapidly, the time is past when the religious right can do nothing. It is vital that the numerous legal think-tanks and advocacy groups on the right begin concerted, wide-scale efforts to persuade Congress to declare the federal hate law unconstitutional. This should be extremely simple, logically speaking, since the hate law blatantly deprives most Americans of equal protection, one of America’s most fundamental values.

It is ironic and pathetic that now, with Canada having suffered under a cruel and vindictive hate law for 42 years and Britain for 26 years, significant efforts are not being made to revoke the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The ADL/Justice Department cabal is setting up the same tyranny for America; but the Christian conservative right, from fear of the Jews who are in the middle of the hate law issue, are afraid to approach it aggressively. The only exception to such massive silence is an occasional article in Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily holding up ADL as an expert on hate crimes/anti-Semitism definitions and encouraging evangelicals to use ADL as a trusted authority! Amazingly, the religious right only becomes increasingly obsessed with what it believes is now the number one threat to freedom: radical Islam.

In protecting ADL from criticism, the religious right believes it will avoid God’s curse on those who criticize His chosen people. Actually, by protecting ADL, the right has effectively made possible passage of 45 U.S. state hate laws, the federal hate law, and many so-called “anti-bullying” hate laws, not to mention proliferation of ADL’s hate laws worldwide, an enormous curse to America and the world.
Listen to Rev. Ted Pike and Jeff Rense discuss this article and the threat to freedom posed by the federal hate crimes law:

Jeff Rense
2 Dec 12
Topic: Ted Pike Gives an Update on Hate Laws Worldwide
Listen Download (39min, 9MB)

Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.

TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this topic. Call (503) 631-3808.

National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
Old January 30th, 2013 #30
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,448
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Sheppard rearrested, January 2013
Old February 14th, 2013 #31
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,448
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[In 2013 UK, you could be thrown in jail for distributing the following article]

[Sheppard has been thrown in jail for distributing copies of this article]

Spree Killers: The Forefront of Knowledge

by Simon Sheppard

Heritage & Destiny January-February 2013

On 22 July 2011 Anders Breivik embarked on a carefully planned murderous rampage which ended the lives of 77 and injured 242 others. This much is common knowledge, but he is only a recent example of a long line of spree killers. It can confidently be predicted that there will be more.

The origins, motivations and psychology of the spree killer are little understood. Certainly this is the case in the mainstream but, not for the first time, nationalists have a huge advantage. Not only are we freed from the bounds of political correctness but we are closer to understanding the
motivations of the spree killer, even while we don't condone his action. No doubt agents of the State will be keenly watching, and scrutinising every word of this. Let them read and learn!

Of course, when someone like Breivik goes on a killing frenzy the Establishment fires up its engines of righteous indignation. And what mighty engines they are! The ground shakes, the air pulsates and the walls tremble, so powerful are they. Hour upon hour of condemnatory commentary fills the airwaves; the hand-wringing and angst of the commentators is almost palpable: Why? Why? Why? One might even suspect feigned innocence.

Eventually though we become inured to the awesome clamour of the Establishment's machines of mass influence, and we venture nearer to the source of the constant noise. Our exploration takes us closer and then beyond. Behind the great clanking monolith, located discreetly some distance away and hidden from view, we come upon the machine's exhaust. There we are almost overcome by the great noxious clouds of hypocrisy belching forth. Amid these dense clouds of cant we glimpse some of the 3.5 million German homes destroyed and over 6,000 medieval houses razed in a "terror-bombing" campaign so formidable that whole species of birds and insects were wiped out. The images shift and fade, hard to identify, because they are but ghosts of the Prussian royal palaces, Hanseatic cities, the birthplaces of Bach, Duerer and Goethe and thousands of other unique historic and cultural sites deliberately targeted with phosphorous and incendiary bombs. Most are familiar with the events at Dresden, but that city was merely the zenith of an evil campaign of civilian bombing in an unnecessary war which was certainly not started nor fought for British interests.

Yes, it is wicked to slaughter innocent people; but the present regime, and its bedfellow the media, or rather the tail which wags the dog, is in no position to lecture on this score. All the victims of spree killers added together number less than the innocents who died horrifically in a few seconds of an Allied-created firestorm. The current regime draws its line directly from that wartime one, which the recent action against Iraq confirms.

Here, in treating the subject of spree killers, we are operating at the forefront of knowledge, an environment which is natural territory for the scientist but not perhaps for readers of this magazine. But we have already been there, with the introduction of neurotic transfer (H&D issue 50), so perhaps it is not so unfamiliar. Plus the subject is of such importance, literally involving life and death, that the topic must be explored.

We start with a summary of incontrovertibles - facts which are known - not about Breivik particularly but about spree killers generally. That is, we seek to establish a stereotype. It should be noted though that the spree killer is not a uniquely Western phenomenon, although incidences in Western societies have accelerated since the earliest event I could discover, that of Howard Unruh in 1949. The word amok derives from Malaysia, where there (and reportedly several other countries) a man can suddenly flip and run wild with a machete or other weapon, killing and maiming at random. The cry of amuq is issued as a warning, allowing peole to find refuge and for the men to arm themselves and overcome him. In fact the record before Breivik was held by South Korean policeman Woo Bum-kon who, drunk after an argument with his girlfriend, killed 57 plus himself in 1982.

The facts then are as follows: the Western spree killer is usually a white or Jewish male. He seeks to inflict maximum damage by killing or maiming as many as possible, and he usually finally kills himself or arranges his own demise (e.g. 'suicide by cop'). The killer executes his scheme with a cool rationality such that he is able to kill any bystander, child and even his own family members dispassionately.

It is clear that two categories exist: those who plan their spree and those who do not. In the latter case, the spree is triggered by some event. When the action is planned in advance the impetus to spree kill is evidently nurtured, and with premeditation the attack can be executed to a more devastating effect.

Finally, it is clear that a significant proportion of spree killers possess some conscious racial awareness, as demonstrated by their known history, their comments at the time or their choice of targets. Tellingly, the victims of the few black spree killers to date have been overwhelmingly white.

Typical of this aspect was law student Benjamin Smith in 1999. He had been a member of the World Church of the Creator the year before. Probably as part of his preparation he wrote to its leader Matt Hale in an attempt to insulate that organisation from his subsequent actions, and it may have been the denial of a law license to Hale which triggered his spree. Smith wounded six Orthodox Jews, killed a black, a Korean and then himself.

Achieving greater success (if it may be called that) was Dr. Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish immigrant to Israel from Brooklyn. In 1994 Goldstein burst into a mosque in Palestine to gun down the gathered worshippers, killing twenty-nine before having a fire extinguisher smashed on his head. Goldstein is now revered and his grave is treated as a shrine by ultra-orthodox Jewish settlers. Similarly, chants in support for Breivik were made by Russian nationalists at recent 'National Unity Day' demonstrations there.

With varying racial aspects we have Michael Ryan in Hungerford, Berkshire who in 1987 initially targeted Asians at a service station, Martin Bryant in Tasmania in 1996 whose first targets were Malays and made comments about WASPs, Larry Ashbrook at Fort Worth in 1999 who had previously flirted with racialist groups, and Buford Furrow who in 1999 attacked a Jewish community centre. the latest (at the time of writing) is Wade Page, referred to as "a racist skinhead," who in August 2012 opened fire at a Sikh temple, killing six and wounding three, also killing a police officer.

Having laid down some of the basic elements we now enter into the less tangible area of psychology and motivation. During his trial Breivik was declared sane. What this means is that there was an absence of psychosis; technically, psychosis involves detachment from reality. So Breivik's actions were not just carefully and rationally planned: his scheme followed a logical, grim progression.

Britain has no equivalent of America's NRA, and what advocates of gun freedom there are consist of a few specialist sportsmen. Notwithstanding, the point has been made that in practically every case, the weapons for use by spree killers have been licensed or otherwise legally in the possession of their owners. They were not criminals; in a large number of cases they were normal law-abiding citizens, perhaps even less criminal than average. Despite this, two notable spree-killing incidents in Britain have each led to increased stringency concerning gun ownership: the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 following Hungerford in August 1987, and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 following Dunblane in March 1996.

It is well to recall the position in earlier, more masculine times. Hitler was able to stand and wave to adoring crowds as his procession passed along, this at a time when gun ownership was commonplace and limited only by the requirement that firearms be officially registered, a purely bureaucratic measure. Similarly, in Britain at this time guns were widely available. It was an era of greater social cohesion, during which spurious instincts, to the extent that they existed, were controlled. Nowadays even the Pope rides behind bullet-proof glass.

Restricting gun ownership is no solution, because a means to kill will always be found by the determined. Emphasising this, in October 2012, Matthew Tvrdon went on a hit-and-run spree in Cardiff using his vehicle and steering-wheel lock as weapons. Tvrdron deliberately aimed his van at pedestrians, sometimes even reversing back over the mostly women and children he had mown down. If we are to have any hope of preventing such killing sprees in the future, it is necessary first of all to understand the phenomenon.

The first question we need to ask is, how closely does Breivik fit the mould of the 'perfect' spree killer? The answer to this is - pretty closely. Breivik's only major deviation from the substandard pattern was to live to tell the tale, and in that at least he has done the world a service. I have no doubt that he is aware of this aspect and that it was intentional. Allowing his motivations to be examined subsequently was almost certainly his preferred outcome.

A distinguishable subset of spree killers includes psychotics and social outcasts, a group that probably contains one of the few female spree killers to date, Brenda Spencer, whose 1979 eruption using schoolchildren for target practice inspired the lyric "I don't like Mondays." (In fact the only two she killed were men.) Plus Tristan van der Vlis, who killed six and shot himself near Amsterdam in 2011. However even these cases may not be completely divorced from the general trend: psychosis is a disorder of the mind, or higher brain, while the instincts (motivations) which impel the spree killer, I would contend, derive from a lower level.

My definition of neurosis follows directly from Pavlov: neurotic stress ensues when one stimulus evokes two or more responses. (Pavlov's definition is rather more inolved, but amounts to the same thing.) The ultimate psychiatric reference, the Diagnostical Statistical Manual, states that "in neurosis, reality is grossly intact." This then is an immediate pointer to the state of mind of the spree killer, the "hyper-rationality" which enables him to murder and maim with calmness, disassociation and ruthless aplomb.

Western societies have become highly feminised, and I can quote some observations from Holland (my prototype Super Feminine State) which are pertinent. Due to female influence, all forms of violence were strongly discouraged and thus were generally inhibited by males. Sometimes however sudden eruptions of disproportionate violence would occur, triggered by some relatively trivial incident. These seemed completely unpredictable; there was no forewarning that a 'tipping point' had been reached.

In such an intensely female-friendly environment, a number of factors operate. First, males see females unreservedly following their instincts and not unnaturally want to do the same. Needless to say, he cannot. Second, expression of those female instincts was usually to males' detriment: he could be, and was, manipulated, toyed-with and teased practically without limit. Third, he could not avoid being influenced by that atmosphere of disinhibition, and the burden of restraining his own violent and other socially undesirable instincts increased.

The confused and neurotic male is easy to manipulate. In that super-feminine environment, and increasingly elsewhere, even innocuous male instincts (such as to place indiscriminate markers, just being friendly or passing the time of day) are repressed. This is because disinhibition serves to maintain males in a state of generalised neurosis and maximises female control. The whole environment becomes arduous for males.

Humans are undeniably social animals, and arguably each race has a distinct collective unconscious. Jung, who at least had the wisdom to dissociate himself from Freud, spoke of the 'race memory' - or, to quote Heisenberg, 'Every race has its soul and every soul its race.' The next question we need to pose is, what is that strikes so deeply at this collective psyche to provoke an individual in a society to such casual atrocity? Clearly something along these lines is taking place: spree killings are no longer isolated incidents but have become a social phenomenon by their repetition. At least 75 spree killings have taken place since 1949.

A nationalist perspective would be that three obvious new features of Western societies are mass immigration, the promotion of miscegenation and miscegenation itself. As always, we put our observations of behaviour in its evolutionary context. What evolutionary scenario can be envisaged in which a male could see members of other races moving freely about, promoted to positions of authority over him, and occupying other prestigious roles? Or when might he see his women parading through thoroughfares with a male of another race, transporting children sired by him, and obviously serving his domestic and personal needs, while his own remain untended?

It is that the tribe has been defeated and cast into servitude. In this case, throughout history, the indigenous males would have been rapidly dispatched (put to the sword, or machete, or whatever) or quickly transported away to be sold as slaves. In any event the vanquished males would be hastily got out of the way, for obvious reasons. Their reaction at seeing their women expropriated, their families destroyed and their settlement exploited makes them dangerous to keep around. With nothing left to lose a humiliated male would, given any opportunity at all, strike back with maximum force. This would be without regard for his own future, for the simple reason that he has none.

In leading these social changes the media are probably the main offenders, so we would be naive to expect them to point the finger at themselves. Not only do they encourage and mendaciously portray as normal the mass immigration and miscegenation which strikes deeply at the core of the male psyche, but non-whites are elevated to the positions of newsreaders and presenters. This can only be a deliberate, finely calculated insult. It is surely stretching credulity to believe otherwise - think of the millions of native British men who would eagerly take such a well-paid and prestigious job!

Digressing for a moment to the serial killer, he is better understood. A huge volume of literature exists so that at least a primitive comprehension of him exists. Putatively the defining characteristic of the serial killer is control, because ultimate control is power over the life of another person. If he leaves some form of signature, this is an expression of his ego. The male desires control; this is how his ego is expressed. If powerful he issues orders and affects destinies. A craving for control seems to be the essential characteristic of the serial killer.

In contrast, the essence of the spree killer is rebellion against his devaluation. His protest at his derogation is expressed by the number of victims; his tally is a demonstration of his worth. In most cases the spree killer has already decided to end his life, either because of events immediately beforehand or as part of a long-standing plan. Circumstances have ceased to make his life worthwhile, and he raises the cost of his demise with a final statement of his value.

We can now consider his choice of targets in light of this, particularly his emergence in modern, feminised, Western societies. In the male-female 'game of opposites' I have referred to before, males value the old while females value the young. Thus in the feminine mindset, children are valued more than men. This has become especially manifest since the State has supplanted the husband as the female's protector and ultimate provider.

Female largesse extends to the many groups with which she feels affinity or sympathy. Yet practically everything that has ever been discovered or invented has arisen from white male ingenuity. Although virtually all our modern amenities derive from the efforts of exceptional males, our society could not function without ordinary men performing mundane jobs. Nevertheless in contemporary society he is constantly devalued and insulted; his concerns routinely dismissed. What more profound insult can be delivered to a man than for a woman to advertise that she prefers a male of an alien race, even who a century or so ago was called a savage, to seed future generations of her line? These are the provocations which can transform a normal, law-abiding and otherwise unexceptional man into a kind of Vulcan murder-machine.

Thus in raising the cost of his demise, the spree killer can target the young, raising the cost according to the values of his opponent. Breivik's choice of target was coldly logical - since the State, as in this country has defined 'the invaders' as a protected group, any action against them will only increase their guardianship and exacerbate the situation he is rebelling against. Plus of course, information about where the blame really belongs is hard to come by. Pointing the finger can land you a jail sentence.

Even moderate critics of the Establishment's suicidal immigration policies are marginalised and vehemently traduced as 'racists', 'xenophobes' and the like. The fate of Matt Hale is a case in point. Nationalists' concerns are ignored, or they are the theme of phony, stage-managed debate by a closed group of 'media darlings' who only repeat their stock agenda. The spree killer arises out of repressed fury at the despoliation of everything he is, has or holds dear; indeed spree killing might be regarded as the ultimate displacement activity.

Under this analysis it becomes apparent that fathers who destroy their children and then themselves, usually after the mother has spurned the marriage, are another form of spree killing. Including these personal tragedies adds significantly to the total number of spree killings already recorded.

This is only a provisional analysis of the spree killer phenomenon -- H&D is an invaluable forum for intelligent nationalist thought but it is not an academic journal -- and there may be some loose ends. At the forefront it is easy to lose your way. However evolutionary psychology provides us with a reliable guide, and the tribal scenario above is consistent with phylogenetic (ie natural) principles and the gut instinct of many individual males. It has always been, and will ever be, the male who fights to preserve the integrity of the tribe.

The spree killer may be at the outer boundary of the range of normal human behaviour, but nonetheless his is the natural response of the social animal provoked beyond endurance. He is merely the forerunner, and until he is given legitimate expression of his valid and justified anger, and allowed to respond to the daily injustices and affronts he must presently endure, each new atrocity will only herald more to come.

Simon Sheppard, Yorkshire, England

Editor's note: Simon's website is at:


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 AM.
Page generated in 0.20992 seconds.