heretical.com
| Max Sauco, ‘Kali Yuga’ (2007) |
|
The Jew Church LadiesSheppard’s account of his last (hopefully) time in jailPart 3: Women AmokPublished in Heritage and Destiny magazine, issue 99, Nov.-Dec. 2020 |
The original Church Ladies were the driving force behind Prohibition in the 1920s, when religious fervour was applied to the goal of eradicating alcohol. As a consequence of media conditioning, a similar uncompromising mindset is abroad today. Jack Donovan and Jim Goad have written of this new generation of Church Ladies, fervent in their neoteric religion. It became the underlying theme of my journey through the courts and time in jail.
Adherents of the new religion greatly benefit from their delusions: the creed enables the achievements of men to be dismissed. If modern marvels such as electricity, washing machines, medicine etc. were acknowledged as being the product of Western male ingenuity and resourcefulness, males might demand benefits in return. Various populations find it advantageous to bend reality, and once the separation from reality is made, it is freed from restraint. Return to earth, metaphorically speaking, will only occur when there is a counter-force, or real-world consequences supervene.
Seldom admitted but glaringly obvious is that females have little practical ability. The vast majority of women, probably 99%, cannot mend a bicycle puncture. This divorce from hands-on reality, plus women’s greater religiosity, accounts in part for the Church Ladies’ zeal. For it is not now Temperance which is being championed, but “equality” and “diversity.” The dogma is irrational, but that is the nature of the beast. No-one goes around earnestly trying to convince others that 2+2=4, because that is just obvious. It is precisely because it is not obvious that the assertion is fervently made. The very intangible nature of the belief inspires religious ardour.
Women’s lack of practical ability shifts how the world is viewed: not how it is, but how it should be. It’s easy to sit in comfortable, over-heated offices and pontificate about ideals while unfamiliar with practical considerations. In the real world, compromises and trade-offs are almost always required. The designer of an electronic circuit has to weigh optimum performance against his knowledge that the operating temperature will rise, altering the characteristics of the semiconductors in his design. A boat-builder must be aware that a hull which is ideal for the harbour will be lethal at sea. Oblivious to a million practical realities like this, the female falls prey to the suggestion that just the right belief, just enough effort, or just the right law, will realise the ideal. In social psychology this has been termed a phantom, an objective which appears attainable but in reality is not. By promoting a phantom the media can manipulate people, and women especially, to pursue a futile or destructive agenda with great enthusiasm. A moral ideal they want to believe in is presented as something that can actually be achieved.
Some may remember the “Make Poverty History” campaign of 2005. This was an interesting case for contrast because despite considerable backing it failed, never gaining traction. Likely it failed to become a popular phantom because it was too obvious that the goal was impossible.
The puritanical environment which follows from this new religiosity manifests in many different ways. There is the new dogmatic attitude toward smoking, but in this case perhaps other factors are in play. Common foodstuffs are affected: Heinz Oxtail Soup never tasted the same after they removed the tiny amount of red wine it contained, pandering to those for whom even a trace of alcohol must never pass their lips. Similarly, McVities Digestives are now inferior after the removal of a small amount of pork fat from the recipe. This wasn’t done to pander to Moslems at the time, but to vegetarians.
The new dogmatism can be compared to the early days of the Cultural Revolution in China, 1966-1976. During that time anything revered by traditionalists, that is, anything which had been around a long time, was considered suspect and crushed by the fanatical youth of the Red Guards. Much priceless, irreplaceable artwork and architecture was destroyed and perhaps a million people were murdered during that particular mania.
A feature of Western civilisation is the adoption of moral absolutes. This has far-reaching effects. While I was in jail, the descendants of those carried to Britain on the iconic Empire Windrush (and subsequent voyages) were running amok in London with knives, inspiring the creation of yet more new laws which, applying the creed that everyone is the same, a moral absolute, everyone is subject to. Shortly someone in Scotland was dragged before the courts for carrying a potato-peeler.
Our legal system has evolved over centuries on the presumption that only a small proportion of people are really bad. That only about 1% of the population are born without a conscience, or with other personality traits which predispose them to crime. (Of course there are others: imitators, drug addicts, opportunists etc., but this is inherent criminality, the people who will commit crime whatever the environment.) It is on this basis that we have the presumption of innocence, the right to silence, the almost automatic granting of bail and so forth. The point is that a hard core of 1% criminality is true of White Europeans; for other populations the proportion is known to be higher. When disparate populations are mixed in the same jurisdiction, these long-standing protocols cannot be maintained.
Sex differences in practical ability and outlook are also pertinent to the issue of women serving on juries, especially in light of an effect well known in psychology, the fundamental attribution error. In this, others’ mistakes, lapses in judgement etc. are attributed to character while one’s own are attributed to circumstance. Since women tend to be passive observers rather than active, contributing participants in practical projects, this results in judgement from women who have no intimate experience of the actions they are judging.
When women become zealots they act as religious enforcers. Misdemeanours will be reported to anyone who will listen and this includes minor civil servants reporting heretical comments to the police. With their preoccupation with “race crime” our police have effectively become religious police, and might even be more rigorous in their approach than Saudi Arabia’s official religious police.
My experience going through the legal system revealed anew the extent to which our police have been co-opted and corrupted. Overall, what I experienced was a regime which was energised above all to exercise its religious mania. The police now encourage and even solicit complaints. Before a trial, complainants are apparently coached to help secure convictions. I learned of one underhand trick during my terrorism interviews, when I was shown photographs of the scientific equipment at my flat. Now I cannot claim to be the most fastidiously clean of persons (I was an Amsterdam squatter for years after all), but in my work I am as scrupulous as possible. In the police photos however, everything looked absolutely filthy. Some special camera setting had been used which made everything look disgustingly grubby. Shown to a jury, these photographs would evoke the image of a slob sweating away in a pigsty of a room. They certainly made an impression on me. I had seen similar photos in newspapers without realising how false they were.
Many senior police are now women, forming a police sisterhood. This follows the pattern that the sharp end requires a practical outlook and physical stamina, so women gravitate toward administrative roles, helped of course by “positive discrimination.” Soon we find large numbers of sedentary women telling men on the ground, doing the actual work, what to do. Another consistent feature of a feminine society, first observed in Holland years ago, is pairs of officials consisting of a non-white man and a White woman. The face of the regime evolves into non-white males and White females, most conspicuously as police pairs.
One of the differences between men and women is that men limit their behaviour, while women are more likely not to. We are all slaves to our instincts but this is especially true of women. Throughout evolutionary time men have had to restrain themselves, because of the strength they possess and their capacity for aggression. Women, on the other hand, have always had others limiting their behaviour. It is the weakening of checks on female instincts that has our society so lop-sided.
An interesting topic for future exploration would be female crime. It would start with the supposition that males and females commit crimes at a similar rate, similar to the intelligence distributions. That is, male variation is wider but the male and female averages are similar. An examination could be made of those female behaviours which are naturally criminal, conforming to the strict procedural template of crime. It would include behaviours which in the past were socially discouraged but not actually illegal, and female actions and stratagems which are certainly not prosecuted now. For example, evidence indicates consistently that about one in six children do not have the father they think. Thousands of men are working to raise children that are someone else’s.
For the record, what happened was that in 2015 a Nigerian was given a second home by the local council right opposite me. One day in June 2017, under a lot of stress at the time and unwell, I blew up at a Sky TV employee who was repairing the satellite dish of his flat. A couple of weeks later I surrendered for arrest then, while in custody, I was re-arrested under the Terrorism Act.
Being treated as a terrorist was a novel experience. My current work involves chemistry and some snowflake police-person must have taken fright, with the result that at around 3am all eleven of the nearby flats were evacuated. Several doors were broken down. The area around became a sea of blue lights, with ambulances, police vehicles, an Army bomb disposal team, the whole works. I only heard about this later as I was in a police cell at the time, under 24-hour watch.
I didn’t even know what they wanted me for at first, and with the whole thing being such an upset, my memory of these early events is a little hazy. I remember engaging many of the personnel, giving them “mad scientist lectures” on various topics. While in my cell, with the door permanently open according to terrorism-suspect protocol, I gave forth to the officers seated behind a table in the corridor. They, meanwhile, struggled to write everything down. However during three formal interviews I just said “No comment” which led to some consternation. “You’ll talk to everybody but us” one of the interviewing officers complained. I suppose I was a bit cocky, but I had a good lawyer and knew they had nothing on me for making bombs.
Eventually my lawyer and I drafted a short statement accounting for my laboratory and nothing came of it, though I had to sue the police to get my computers back.
For the original cause of my arrest, my Nigerian accuser claimed I had repeatedly shouted abuse at him, which was untrue (someone else did, once). He twice failed to turn up in court. However the prosecution and judge were so determined to proceed that for the third attempt to get the trial underway, by this time a year later, the police were instructed to lie in wait for him and deliver him to court. Thus at last the prosecution got underway.
I shouldn’t have blown up at the Sky TV man and I’m not proud of it. Early on, I relayed via my lawyer that if they were to frame the charge as offending him, I would plead guilty. However the prosecution was adamant that the Nigerian be the aggrieved party.
In court, my accuser lied and I was convicted under the Public Order Act for a single verbal altercation. For my outburst I received a 9-month prison sentence, but I did manage to escape a more serious harassment charge. It’s astonishing how the police and court can fall over themselves to inflict punishment on behalf of an immigrant, while the immigrant himself is disinterested. The framework of religious mania proposed here fits all the facts.
White women will unabashedly discriminate against White men. It’s built in. This bias is so routine that it often passes unnoticed, or specious rationalisations are accepted as valid. In this case I was a prime candidate for a non-custodial sentence, which usually involves going around in cleaning-up teams (“Community Service”). On my conviction however the Church Lady from the Probation Service failed to provide a pre-sentence report, condemning me to imprisonment, on the ground that she “didn’t want me working alongside ethnic minorities.”
In a sane world such circumstances would never arise. An analogy will illustrate the reality, because evidently, reality needs reinforcing. Imagine a hypothetical Mr Smith, who had an illustrious ancestor, a mogul during the industrial revolution perhaps, so there was family wealth. With that legacy he owned a beautiful, sprawling house, a veritable mansion. However he becomes incapacitated, and with him out of the way, Mrs Smith lets an impostor inveigle his way into the house. Perhaps the impostor has played on the wife’s affections, or hinted at being a distant relative. Whatever the ruse, he pretends to be something he is not.
The newcomer settles in and for a while everything continues as before. As time passes however the interloper starts giving away items from the house. Complete strangers passing by are given gifts of family heirlooms and antiques. The house is being stripped. Others of the Smith family protest, and the police become involved. When they arrive however they arrest the family members who have complained, for hurting the feelings of the people receiving the gifts!
Making the analogy plain: we are all Smith’s extended family and the impostor is women, who nowadays dominate local councils. The fraud is women’s pretence that they are as capable as men at maintaining our civilisation, which is our heritage, our patrimony. Local councils are giving away wealth which isn’t theirs to people who shouldn’t be here.
Somehow it is in both female and Jewish interests to promote immigration and exogamy. The motives may be different but the outcome is the same. The original immigrants brought by the aforementioned Empire Windrush were tricked into coming to Britain by a Jewish shipping mogul. The extended family involved was known as the ‘Jewish cousinhood’ at the time. Similarly the ships which carried Black slaves to America were Jewish-owned. Now, following precisely the same pattern, the Jew Church Ladies in local councils are moving immigrants into what few all-White areas remain: they have become the foot-soldiers of slow White genocide. Women’s worst traits are their unfounded arrogance, their ingratitude for everything men have done for them, and their willingness to miscegenate us out of existence.
Altruistic behaviour toward non-relatives is a common form of pathological altruism, that is, altruism which harms the benefactor. It is contrary to Hamilton’s rule, which is ubiquitous in nature. This rule is the natural law which underlies the long-standing practice by which a person’s wealth passes to their relatives on their death.
In altruistic punishment, individuals bear the cost of punishing others they believe are acting against the common good. This is in play when heretics of the new religion are shunned and persecuted. In actuality the persecutors have been tricked into thinking that modern-day nonconformists (e.g. “nasty racists”) are a bane to a healthy society. Actually the dissidents are trying to defend their distant relatives. Put another way, they are acting for their kinsfolk, in accordance with Hamilton’s rule.
Pathological altruism and altruistic punishment have been institutionalised in the form of political crimes. Normal crime involves individual benefit at collective cost, practically by definition. That is, the criminal personally benefits, while the cost of his crime is borne by others. The opposite is true for these new “crimes”: an individual bears cost to obtain collective benefit. It is not true crime at all.
When a nationalist acts for collective benefit, for example speaking out against mass immigration, or alerting others to the danger posed by a certain strongly cohesive minority, there is always cost: the individual’s time, his energy, money spent on fares, printing leaflets or whatever. Now with new laws, the cost of acting for one’s kinsfolk has been enormously increased.
In the usual way of things, a criminal might commit numerous crimes before the police have enough evidence to convict him. Obviously the criminal is going to avoid leaving evidence of his identity, seeking to avoid arrest. He might commit a dozen crimes before being convicted of one. I remember being banged up with a half-Egyptian I think he was, in one of the old cells in Hull with thick iron rings embedded in the wall to which high-security prisoners were chained in earlier times. His scheme was robbing telephone boxes. He would drive into the countryside, find a remote telephone box and use a car jack to prise the moneybox off the back panel..I was told that the takings were surprisingly high. He would change the coins at a local shop run by a Pakistani, who knew that the money was ill-gotten but didn’t care.
The main point however is that he had never been caught, and was happy because his sentence was two weeks for driving while disqualified. I can’t recall what exactly I was in for that time, but it was probably a leaflet which had all but my name and address at the bottom.
Not only are the new crimes not genuine crimes, it is extraordinarily easy to secure convictions for them. All it takes is a nationalist to utter or print a few ill-chosen words and the whole weight of the State falls upon him.
New terms have been talked into existence by the media such as “racist” and “hate crime” to ostensibly justify the repression. No deviation from that narrative is allowed. The distortion in perception which decades of media “gaslighting” has achieved is quite astonishing, and it is embedded. For most, the true reality is so distant it is beyond their ability to comprehend. Now, two years on, harsher realities loom which people will find impossible to deny.
