I’m sure people will appreciate some news of what I’m up to. I’m now enjoying an extended ‘holiday at home’ in my new flat, which has been newly decorated and carpeted, and I’ve been reunited with my surviving possessions. Police took away large quantities of material during the three police raids, and when Steve and I flew to the USA a good friend and supporter, Rick Hobbs, put the remainder into storage. Sadly he died of a heart attack while we were incarcerated in California. Another friend recovered some but a lot has been lost. Rick was a good friend, a larger-than-life character who spoke much common-sense and it’s still difficult to accept that he’s no longer with us. He was only 49.
I’m under many restrictions, banned from the internet except under supervision and obliged to see a probation officer regularly. That has recently been relaxed to fortnightly which gives me a bit more freedom. As with everyone released under licence, I’m not allowed to leave the country. Being an enemy of the State, rather than a mere danger to the people, I’m classed as a top security risk. The authorities seem to think that I only have to say the word and the masses will rise in revolt. If only!
Besides getting my life back together, I’ve been writing, which at the moment is mainly articles for Heritage and Destiny magazine. I’m presently writing about a procedure I call neurotic transfer. This can account for people acting against their own interests. For example, it can explain how someone can walk into a police station and confess to a highly publicised crime they did not commit. I try to write something every day, no matter what else is happening. Then, no matter how hard the project is, you always get there in the end. Unfortunately, prolific I am not, although I like to think that what I do produce is high quality. I wish it were otherwise (that I was more prolific, I mean). So I hope that those supporters and well-wishers who have written recently will forgive tardy replies; I simply must get on with various writing projects and sorting out other, long-outstanding matters.
Sometimes things approach comedy. One morning a few weeks ago a policeman arrived at my door, one of those plain-clothes types who want to be your friend, returning an article. Then later that day I had the expected visit from my probation officer. My latest tactic with such officials is to talk to them about ‘joint enterprise.’ Some may recall that Steve (‘Luke O’Farrell’), until recent changes, had committed no crime at all. Writing isn’t illegal and never has been, and at one point, thinking this was still the case, I told Adrian that I would do what I could to let Steve walk, because that was all he had ever done – write. It’s the distribution that’s illegal, according to their nefarious, lately made-up laws.
But then Blair and his cronies brought in ‘joint enterprise.’ I met several in prison who claimed they had been caught up as a result of sharing a phone call with someone at a particular moment, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they had been convicted under ‘joint enterprise’ solely for that. I suppose it’s the same as American laws where (I understand) if there are five people in a car and one shoots out of the window, killing someone, all five are charged with homicide. No wonder America has two million people behind bars!
Like many things though, the new law of ‘joint enterprise’ cuts both ways. The British government is committing treason, which until recently was a capital offence. Applying ‘joint enterprise’ the police, probation officers and many other agencies can be regarded as active participants in a criminal, treasonous conspiracy. The police enforce the laws passed by crooked politicians and probation officers monitor you at the other end. Under joint enterprise, all are culpable.
Treason includes “aiding and abetting a foreign invasion.” Any agency that features multiracialism in its literature, portraying this as normal, is committing a crime by this measure. So all the state’s enforcers and legions of propaganda merchants presenting "multiracial Britain" as a normal situation are contributing to the criminal conspiracy, equally guilty according to ‘joint enterprise.’
My jibes to policemen and probation officers about this have been refined over the weeks to culminate in the crack that “It’s a good job my licence prohibitions don’t include associating with criminals, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to let you in the door!”
If we think freely, with an awareness that not a single word the Establishment says should be taken at face value, how can we tell whether something a government has defined as criminal is truly so? That is, how can we establish whether one of the thousands of activities which have recently been made illegal is really a crime, or just the product of an arrogant political class flexing its muscles?
I can say that government polices are sick, I can say they are criminal, but that is an opinion. We need an objective measure. Furthermore, an objective test of criminality should be applicable beyond Britain, with its scattered constitution (not in a single document) to other countries. This topic was touched upon in a previous web page (Sheppard: Science of Sex –> Supplemental, posted around 2004; I fear the page is a little dated now).
Procedural analysis is capable of providing a logical test for such situations, some more controversial than others! It is of course a theoretical model, but it has never failed yet, not at least, in any significant way that I’m aware of. In fact I recently found a simple example of something which is a handle but not a marker, which resolved the difficulty I discussed in the web page above. Until recently practically every handle I conceived seemed also to involve a marker.
That example is the expectation (tacit request) that a couple think of each other while they are apart. It is a handle, but there is no unambiguous indication of it.
A quick recap is in order. A handle is a request that evokes a fixed and predetermined response (e.g. calling someone’s name; being able to touch someone without being rebuffed). A handle state is a condition in which handles are issued (knowing someone’s name; being married; sharing a jurisdiction). A marker is an unambiguous indication of involvement (talking to someone; leaving something at a place indicating that you will return). A handle, the strongest element, can be in the form of signals (a customary exchange of nods), a marker (touching someone) or a token (an expected gift at an anniversary). Spoiling is formally defined as removing an essential component, thereby to devalue something (or someone).
The important thing here is that most handles are implicit. We don’t normally (in Britain) see signs saying “Drive on the left” or “Please don’t burgle this house.” People don’t walk around with badges that say “Please don’t stab me.” The implicit handle requests are that we drive according to the established norm, respect others’ property by not stealing it, and the expectation of being able to walk around and not be harmed. The normal handle response is to maintain these expectations.
A crime involves the mutation of a handle to a marker, and it is hard to imagine a real crime for which this is not true. If such a thing is shown to exist, then of course the counterexample would disprove the hypothesis. The buyer of an old coin expects it to be genuine (the implicit, or even explicit, handle, is that he pays his money and gets an authentic coin in return). When the victim discovers the coin is fake he will feel anger, and with just cause; the fraudster and victim are unambiguously involved with each other to a much greater extent. The criminal forces himself upon his victim in many ways.
The burglar who ransacks a house has discarded the owner’s expectation of his privacy and property being respected. He has replaced it with markers, imposing himself upon the owner and his territory, and is unambiguously involved with both. Seasoned victims of crime will appreciate that offences are often not committed for gain, but more to ‘get one over you.’ Some criminals can drive around proudly pointing out the places they have robbed, where they have marked territory much as a painter of graffiti does.
Sometimes when a house is burgled gratuitous damage is done, such as shredding sheets or curtains, and the marking may even revert to the primitive, when the burglars defecate in the property. An old story in Yorkshire jails recounts how a gang of likely lads identified the house of a judge and burgled it while he was out, defecating in his bed. They were later caught, as they had been, indeed, before. This is a notable example, but the instance is not unique. It is primordial spoiling (the component being removed is cleanliness) and that it sometimes occurs supports the thesis that a necessary condition for a crime to take place is that a handle is discarded and replaced by one or more markers. Interestingly, primordial spoiling is also sometimes performed by aged people with dementure.
Discussion of the opposite case – when something should by this test be unlawful but is not – is left to another day. The salient issue is that mutating a handle to a marker is a female procedure – it derives from raising the cost of sex. In the evolutionary time-line, sex came before crime.
Now the essential handle state which exists between government and nation, the source of its authority to issue handles, is that the government acts for the governed. Acting in the interest of the nation is its entire raison d’être, and if it has not this as its goal, that government must be regarded as renegade. Acting in the collective interest of the nation is the sole reason it was brought into being and the only justification for its existence.
Thus if the government acts for another population, the whole basis of its authority collapses. (A population is any arbitrary group, and here it is certainly fitting, as by nation I mean a people sharing a common heritage, its original definition.) Of course opinions of what is best for the nation vary, but there is little doubt that the modern regime in Britain has presided over long-term decline. The political class seems intent on dragging us into the gutter, cramming this small land-mass with millions from elsewhere. Billions are borrowed to subsidise their policies. They are spending the tax income of our grandchildren to pay for foisting their twisted political dogma upon us. Our national stature has diminished and living standards have fallen.
We neglect the illusory prosperity of cheap consumer gadgets and apply a real test, a sort of grown-up ‘Big Mac Index.’ In 1965 a working man could buy a family home with a mortgage lasting 10 years; now a couple must both work for 25 years to achieve the same if, that is, they can raise the deposit. We buy oil, gas, electricity and our water from foreign companies; even our football teams are owned by foreigners. Everything that turns a buck has been sold off. The government is clearly acting for the benefit of other populations, making available to them land, infrastructure and resources properly the assets of native Britons.
A yet more fundamental expectation, recalling the definitions of treason, is that the government will not give away the powers it holds in trust – upon which its entire ability to govern relies – to a foreign power.
Legislation which demands that the native population tolerate the presence of an alien one, or that they acquiesce to it, or any law that serves the interest of an alien population, is the imposition of a handle without the necessary handle state. There is simply no legitimate handle state by which a peacetime government can demand these things. Imposing a handle for which there is no handle state puts the government precisely on a par – game-wise – with a mugger.
Imagine some unfortunate individual, perhaps merry after a few beers, walking home late one night to be waylaid by some scumbag who demands, through glistening white teeth, that our befuddled reveller hand over his wallet and his watch. There is an evil-looking blade in the scumbag’s hand. He is doing just the same – issuing a handle without the existence of a handle state. The mugger mutates a handle (the victim’s implicit request that he not be so treated) to a marker (his involuntary engagement). The mugger’s handle is ‘Do what I demand or face the consequences.’ The government and the mugger are equivalent – both are issuing handles without the essential prerequisite of a handle state.
Returning to more general matters, I’m trying to get my new book published. Started in prison, it steers clear of the most controversial topics and should therefore be capable of being published in the mainstream. In a sense, I’m back where I started fifteen or so years ago, knowing that I can write reasonably well and, more importantly, have something to say. I hope I’m not going to be boxed into a corner again, that is, forced to self-publish, because it’s a lot of work.
I’m only just online, but I must have a snooping program on the internet machine, so I’m not sure I want to be permanently online under these circumstances. I may wait until my licence has expired, because I’m also not happy about correspondents’ privacy, with the computer effectively having a direct line to a police station in Northallerton. Perhaps I will catch up then leave it until I can do so without compromising my own or others’ privacy. I’m also forbidden from contacting Steve.
So I’m enjoying having my own flat again, playing with my “toys” (88-note Yamaha electric piano, computers running NT4 with Dell’s USB add-ons, hi-fi for listening to classical radio, though still only in mono at the moment) and generally resuming normal life. I hope my elation lasts a little longer, because we so often take for granted things which are not appreciated until we are deprived of them.
I think that’s a good thought to leave you with. Plus my best wishes to the many people who donated to our legal fund and wrote to us in jail. That support made an enormous difference.
Simon Sheppard, June 2012