Stephen Whittle of the Heretical 2 Writes!

Posted by Nicholas Stix

[Previously, on the Heretical 2:

“The Heretical 2: Asylum Seekers the Refugee Industry Won’t be Fighting for,” July 31, 2008, VDARE;

“The Heretical 2: Requests for Asylum and Letters from Santa Ana Jail,” September 17, 2008, VDARE;

“Another Letter from Stephen Whittle of the Heretical 2, [II]” May 18, 2009, VDARE;

“Letters from Jail, Cont’d. [III]: The Heretical 2’s Stephen Whittle Writes”;

“What the Heretical 2 Case Says about the Federal Hate Crimes Bill”; and

“Letters from Jail Cont’d. [IV]: The Heretical 2’s Stephen Whittle.”]

[N.S.: A thousand apologies to Stephen Whittle, who sent me this letter on August 23. I’m just awful. I pile up documents on my pc, that I want to post, and then it freezes or crashes, and some of the docs are lost forever, while others are mislaid in my pc’s internal world. I then find them again, only for it to freeze or crash again, before I post them, and so on. And then people think I’m mad at, or snubbing them.

And I’ve never even met Stephen Whittle! I’ve also set up letters and packets of articles for old friends and teachers, and mislaid them for 10-15 years at a time. Sometimes, when I finally write people, unfortunately, the letters have to be rerouted to heaven. Thank goodness, that is not the case with Whittle.]


Dear Nicholas,

Please quote any of this if you want (but no email address please). There's no need to apologize for neglecting anything -- we were very grateful for your VDare articles and our case is only one among many and often far worse examples of the anti-white system following its Marxist/Marcusean agenda. I've been free for over a year, after being recalled to jail for breaching the conditions of my release when I foolishly used the internet in the library near the bail hostel I was staying in. I did think of thanking you as soon as my sentence was properly over and I could use the internet again. But I decided not to, for one reason and another.

My view of being jailed is simple: when criminals are running a country, it will be a crime to say so. The First Amendment has retarded their attack on free speech in the US, but you've written yourself about how it's being ignored. [N.S.: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here]. The question for Americans is whether your criminals will be able to destroy the First Amendment before they destroy the country. In the U.K., our criminals have no distractions and can focus simply on destroying the country. Ditto for the rest of Europe. Free speech is not liked by Marxists and Marcuseans. For example, there's a neo-con/Chris-Hitchean website here called Harry's Place. The site's motto is from Orwell: "Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." Its article about the Heretical Two was tagged "Freedom of Expression". Its comment on our imprisonment was: "Good riddance."

Their deliberate attempts at humour, as you might expect from neo-cons, are not as successful. But I'm happy to report that what they lack in intellectual and logical rigour they more than make up for in self-righteousness and self-regard -- again, as you might expect from neo-cons.

I'm also happy to have gone through jail here and in the U.S. while there was still lots of (borrowed) money in the system. And almost all guards at Santa Ana Jail, male and female, Hispanic and non-Hispanic, were perfectly pleasant and professional, perhaps because, as employees of the S.A. police department, they were selected for higher I.Q. and lower psychopathy than might otherwise have been the case. The I.C.E. guards were fine too, with the exception of a dim steatopygous blonde called Kelly, who confirmed stereotypes about why stupid people like wearing uniforms and wielding authority. The immigration judge Rose Peters and the federal attorney Michelle Myers were dim too, and I think both enjoyed sending us back for imprisonment. I agree with your VDare colleague Paul Gottfried about certain ethnic and religious cultures having no tradition of free speech, but I don't think women, generally speaking, are big supporters of it either.

I'd also like to acknowledge Steven Greenhut and the late Alan Bock, two libertarian journalists at one of the world's most boring and badly written newspapers, The Orange County Register. Both libertarians in question ignored letters from us when we were in Santa Ana Jail, though we thought we were an interesting case from a libertarian point of view. Bock was described as "the happy warrior for human liberty" in one of his obituaries. I wish Mark Steyn had been writing for the Register when I was in Santa Ana, because he believes in free speech, is very entertaining and, within his limits, is very insightful about liberalism. As it was, I preferred the Spanish-language La Opinión and its far-from-boring stories about assassinations, decapitations, Mara Salvatrucha, etc.

I understand what you meant about my "sophomoric" articles and why you thought I am a "Holocaust denier". I would have thought the same, but in fact, unlike my co-defendant, I do accept that the Nazis had a deliberate policy of mass murder for their real and supposed enemies. But I am definitely not a believer in "Holocaustianity", i.e. that a particular part of that mass murder is the central evil of human history, that the West must abolish itself as a guilt-offering, that a certain group must be above criticism, etc. Despite any jokes to the contrary, I am not a neo-Nazi either: neo-Jeffersonian or neo-Voltairean is closer to the truth. Both Jefferson and Voltaire would have fallen foul of Britain's thought-crime laws if they were alive and writing today, and would be on the A.D.L.'s and S.P.L.C.'s hit-list in the U.S. That may have something to do with why the U.S. is in such big trouble.

Best wishes,

Stephen Whittle.