Agents of the State
Simon Sheppard relates some personal experiences and lessons
I am proudly Yorkshire born and bred, though I’ve done my share of globe-trotting. I’ve even seen the inside of a California jail! That was before being shipped back, escorted by four federal flunkies, to do time in Britain. There I was sometimes asked by drug-dealers, burglars and other petty criminals why I had received such a long sentence for publishing a comic book and website. “You’re an enemy of the people” I would reply, “while I’m an enemy of the State.” This is the theme of this article: the mentality and crimes of agents of the State.
Presently I live about fifty miles from Rotherham, which is in “South Yorkshire,” and the recent scandal there was the inspiration for this article. Actually “scandal” is too tame a word, but I’ll let that pass for the moment, as I will the reason why “South Yorkshire” is in ironic quotation marks. There, 1,400 girls were reported having been exploited by Pakistanis over several years while agents of the State – police, social workers and the rest – looked the other way. In fact the only taxi-driver to be warned about associating with under-age girls was white. As is now very clear, Rotherham is not an isolated example.
This can be contrasted with my experiences over Christmas 2013, of twice being raided and arrested, and my flat searched and computers taken away, for giving two young women Christmas cards of my own design. Presumably if I’d doused them with petrol to terrify them into acquiescence then passed them round my mates, and been Pakistani, I could have done so with impunity.
One incident following from those events has stuck in my mind, because it seems to so typify the State’s behaviour. On being charged at the police station for one of those Christmas cards I replied “You’re barmy.” This was duly noted on the record and I was looking forward to hearing it repeated later. A couple of months down the line, in York Magistrates’ Court (two women and a man), the prosecution lawyer was giving a typically distorted account of events. When he came to “and when Mr Sheppard was charged he replied—” he paused, looked down at his notes and quickly added “it’s not recorded.” He outright lied. It was a minor, but somehow telling, reminder that towards us, the principles of fair play do not apply.
One of the tactics Marxists use to bend society to fit their ideological mould is to disrupt continuity and tradition. Originally, Yorkshire had three “thridings” (as in “thrice”). These eventually came to be called “ridings.” Now Yorkshire has four “thirdings” which is plainly absurd. “South Yorkshire” is an entirely bureaucratic invention.
Levels of bureaucracy in parts of Britain compare with the old Soviet Union; indeed the local nickname for departmental headquarters in Leeds is “the Kremlin.” Officialdom has descended into farce: the unemployed are pressured to find a job while having to compete with 10,700 newly imported foreigners every week (official 2014 figures). People who are handicapped or too sick to work are declared fit only to die weeks later.
In a healthier, more masculine society, State employees would find ways to work around such official lunacy, aware that the government had achieved power with only a small proportion of votes. Instead the agencies of State follow their orders, most of which are merely political posturing, with sheep-like obedience.
Hitler was one of the most popular politicians in history, with an overwhelming mandate, but even so “following orders” in his regime was deemed to be no defence. In Britain the governing party often holds power with the slenderest of margins in a ‘winner takes all’ voting system, yet their legislation is followed scrupulously, even voluntarily extended.
There seems to be a fundamental difference between the Continental attitude to law and the British one – perhaps the distinction is between a Germano-British approach and a Franco-Latin one. This, indeed, encapsulates why we do not belong in the EU. When in many Continental countries a law is passed, say that all dogs must be kept on a lead, it doesn’t mean that all dogs must be kept on a lead. No, it means that the State, in the form of one its officials, has the power to oblige you to put your dog on a lead if he (or often now, she) thinks it’s necessary. The functionary may just be throwing her weight around, but woe betide the dog-owner who displays open defiance. The Germano-British attitude on the passing of such a law however is that dogs must be kept on a lead invariably, and everyone obediently does so.
Similar outcomes in Holland and Britain wonderfully exemplify the promises by which government policies are sold to the electorate. The Dutch were keen members of the EU, and while I was there implementation of the Schengen Agreement was pending. Many looked forward to being able to travel to other European countries without a passport. The next I heard, people were being arrested on their way to the local snackbar (the Dutch equivalent of the corner shop) for not carrying their identity card.
Almost identically, for the British, EU membership was supposed to lift Customs restrictions, easing the movement of goods between European countries. Now at the Post Office one is interrogated about the contents of a parcel being sent even within our own country.
Whether politicians believe their own lies is another matter. What we are mainly dealing with, I contend, is mass psychosis. Psychosis is separation from reality. When women dismiss all the male endeavour which has created the amenities and civilisation they now enjoy, this is separation from reality. When public figures maintain that Western countries can be stuffed with peoples from all over the world, and everything is going to be hunky dory, this is separation from reality.
One factor we should not neglect when we contemplate our situation today is rationalisation. Its power should not be underestimated because for one, it accounts for people’s apathy. Faced with constant multi-racial propaganda, the bullying of the State toward ‘race dissidents’ and the fait accompli of massive non-white immigration, it’s no wonder that many convince themselves that it’s not all bad. Confronting the harsh truth would make one’s blood boil and cause all manner of upset. By such process an insane situation can be accommodated, if with no other motivation than to have a quiet life. But, as I have said before, the present course cannot continue indefinitely, because sooner or later reality will supervene.
The Establishment promotes multi-racialism at every level, from the selection of parliamentary candidates to leaflets produced by local government and the Post Office. The media of course play a leading role. Miscegenation inevitably follows from that and many men have an innate, instinctive aversion to both (while the female reaction is often the opposite). In my view miscegenation is worse than bestiality or paedophilia. Bestiality rarely has any consequences save for the soul and standing of the perpetrator; the abused or exploited child can recover. Indeed many think it is normal (and in some cultures it is). Now feminine forces seize upon any intimation in a sort of modern-day witch-hunt against males. When someone is prosecuted for crimes committed decades previously, what is effectively being applied is retroactive law, which is a feminine expression. Those crimes were committed in an altogether different social milieu, when different attitudes prevailed.
Traditionally only murder has no statute of limitation. It offends the basic principles of justice to apply modern (actually very new) standards to old transgressions, just as it is a travesty to apply modern attitudes to historical events. Contemporary paedo-hysteria is a product of the disinhibition of female instincts, instincts which were formerly constrained. Probably some of the blame for the current unedifying situation can be laid at Esther Rantzen’s door.
But to return to miscegenation. The creation of inherently mixed-up individuals, who face a lifetime of confused identity, if not built-in schizophrenia, is a crime the effects of which can rumble on for generations. My regular readers will know that I am fond of quoting Darwin, but here is Darwin quoting another, the famously presumed Dr. Livingstone. “An inhabitant remarked to Livingstone, ‘God made white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made half-castes.’”
From the time of World War Two at least the British Establishment has been rotten at its core. The rot has now extended much further. The mould has spread outward until the canker has permeated entirely. Following the script set by the media, even the lowliest State officials seek to identify with what they perceive as the dominant ethos, to feel they are “swimming with the big boys.” The media conjures a sense of being part of a great, progressive movement and this plays particularly on females’ adherence to their emotions.
Consider the humble, traditionally innocuous public librarian. Now I don’t wish to tar every librarian with this brush, because there must be exceptions. As Fred Reed so nicely put it, I mean none of this to apply to those to whom it does not apply. I know for fact that censorship of material in our public libraries is commonplace, and the staff of two entirely separate libraries attempted to have me jailed. One succeeded. Yet another library informed on Luke O’Farrell and had him sent back to jail. There seems to be an insidious, Soviet-style snooping operation in place between PCSO’s and public librarians. Our public servants are no longer such, but apparatchiks of a malevolent State.
People forget that State oversight of every aspect of our lives is a very recent phenomenon. A couple of hundred years ago there were no police and one would have had to travel to the nearest large town to find a magistrate. People were expected to sort out their problems themselves.
What would have happened if a heroin dealer had set up shop in some olde-worlde housing estate? The elders of the place would have muttered and met, and a warning would have been issued. Should that warning be ignored, the house would have been burnt out. The problem would have been solved, before it grew larger.
Now the State has taken on that responsibility, but is inept, if not intentionally ineffective: there is a limit to what can be attributed to incompetence. We can be sure however that anyone taking matters upon themselves and doing it “the old way” would be pursued with the fullest rigour. This is because the State cares not for its citizens, only for itself. Maintaining power is its sole concern.
Let us be perfectly clear. We are not just dealing with the pursuit of political dogma regardless of the consequences, we are dealing with criminality, of crimes against the British people. I told a detective, during one of my recent encounters, that the police are now “henchmen of government criminality.” The sole reason for the existence of government is that it acts in our collective interest. It was created, and exists, to represent the interests of the British people. In the language of Procedural Analysis, that is its handle state, on which basis it issues handles (in this instance, laws). Without a handle state, the government is little better than a mugger who, similarly without a handle state, demands money and valuables under threat of punishment. This is especially true of laws which benefit aliens to the detriment of native Britons.
Another aspect is “Joint Enterprise,” an old principle which has been greatly extended in recent years. It was applied in the prosecution of Luke O’Farrell. Under British law it has always been that writing something was not illegal: only distribution (equivalently, publication) could be unlawful. However Luke was convicted and imprisoned under Joint Enterprise. While in jail I met several who told me, quite believably, that they had ended up in prison simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Joint Enterprise cuts both ways. State employees who believe they can delegate all responsibility for their actions to their superiors, share culpability for the State’s crimes under that same principle of Joint Enterprise.
Another exchange with the police took place while I was being driven home after a police raid. I said something to the detectives about the government’s failure to control the supply of hard drugs. “I thought that’s what we were supposed to be doing” one said. My reply was “You can do anything you like so long as it doesn’t work.” That about sums it up.
Many examples could be quoted but I shall give just two. A young woman, totally unfit and irresponsible, was once pointed out to me who had had three children taken from her by social services and put into care. Shortly she was pregnant with a fourth. The obvious remedy to prevent her creating yet more problems is to tie her tubes. Such an action could be performed perfectly humanely, with even the option of reversal should she demonstrate her fitness for parenthood in the future. However, even suggesting this is beyond the pale for the “liberal elite.” The truly effective solution has been made anathema.
Two days after Lee Rigby was slaughtered by Moslems on a London street, four Blackpool men got a pig’s head in a carrier bag and threw it into a mosque car park. They received prison sentences of between 7 and 14 months. This was certainly harsh, considering the circumstances. The reason the men were punished so severely was precisely because such action is effective. Something that works had to be discouraged.
The back of the famous 2013 Heretical Christmas card
In order to maintain its façade of legitimacy, the State doesn’t deal in heroin – it imports drug-dealers instead. It doesn’t commit common crimes of burglary and theft – it imports Eastern European gypsies and all manner of others to perform these tasks on an industrial scale. It doesn’t engage in the mass rape, exploitation and impregnation of naïve white girls, it imports others to do it. Britain is being turned into one big landfill for Chinese tat and Raspail’s novel The Camp of the Saints is actually coming to pass. Really, could they have made a bigger mess of things? Could their crimes against the British people be greater?
Despite all this, I don’t think the outlook is entirely despairing. What is being inflicted on us is regression – evolution in reverse – and this obliges us to relearn lessons from the past. For instance, there was a time in history when women were prohibited from any male role. Then males, secure in their own identity, allowed the occasional exception to be made. Now we have the situation where women (and feminine men) are taking over everything, and securing the best of everything for themselves. I can foresee a time when those blanket prohibitions return. The challenge for whites is to survive the next few decades so we can relearn those lessons. We have a duty to our forebears to maintain our belief in ourselves and pull through.
It is profoundly saddening that for some species native to these islands, due to over-population and cats (both feminine expressions), it may already be too late.