Letter from Bill White + Ongoing Trial Coverage (12/09 forward)

[Bev]

In addition to Henry's post, this post seems to neatly rebut the various claims being tossed about of Strom's innocence.

In the past he has asserted that the claims against Strom came out of a divorce fight. Even though neither Strom had ever filed for divorce, which is a matter of public record. VNN long ago disassociated from Strom because of his crappy personal character, which is not overridden by the excellence of his editorial work. The pedophilia, occurring years after we first denounced him for what he turned out to be, was merely the busted cherry on top of the sundae. It was NOT what ZOG said against KAS, in the matter of pedophilia, which turned out to be underwhelming, but his own signed agreement that he needed treatment for it that convicted him in VNN's eyes. So NA has argued a number of different ways. Then he blamed Elisha and non-existent divorce proceedings for lying about Strom's pedophilia. Now he tacitly admits Kevin Strom is a pedophile, but says ZOG has cured him of it.

Other threads of interest:

It appears some are going to welcome Kevin Alfred Strom back with open arms...


Kevin Strom Update (first post contains the love sonnet he wrote to the child)

In-depth coverage of the trial



taken from:

Kevin Strom Arrested On Child Porn

It seems the overwhelming majority conclude that he is a paedophile.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Bev

It seems the overwhelming majority conclude that he is a paedophile.

Regarding a label like pædophile -- and we are talking about a term of psychopathology here -- I will take the word of an expert with firsthand knowledge over the opinions of "the majority" every time.



Note the date, 2008. It is later than and supersedes other things that people are adducing. Kevin Strom had signed a contract in 2006 where the admission of "being a pædophile" was crossed out and emended to "concerns relating to pædophilia." So, Strom did not admit "being a pædophile" in the first place. This is Yoder stating two years later his conclusion that Strom was not a pædophile.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Hadding

Regarding a label like pædophile -- and we are talking about a term of psychopathology here -- I will take the word of an expert with firsthand knowledge over the opinions of "the majority" every time.



Note the date, 2008. It is later than and supersedes other things that people are adducing. Kevin Strom had signed a contract in 2006 where the admission of "being a pædophile" was crossed out and emended to "concerns relating to pædophilia." So, Strom did not admit "being a pædophile" in the first place. This is Yoder stating two years later his conclusion that Strom was not a pædophile.

The problem is, Yoder did not have access to the full story, did he? All he knew was that Strom looked at pictures on the over-18 site. That's not paedophilia and it's not illegal.

What else do we have?

In 2008 Strom pleaded guilty to possession of ten images of child pornography and was sentenced to 23 months in prison

It's pretty hard to get away from that.

So on the one side we have:

Evidence

Guilty plea

Signed "confession"/contract.

Tape of him admitting he looked at "shockingly young girls". Looking at that phrase, the salient word there is "shockingly". Would anybody be "shocked" by a heterosexual man looking at pictures of 18 year olds in the nude? Of course not. There's nothing shocking about that. It's reasonable to assume from the phrase, therefore, that the girls were so "young" that a normal person would be "shocked" and that leads to just one conclusion.

Sentencing. Now, what's interesting about this is that he received 15 years supervision. I presume this is similar to our sex offenders register whereby convicted sex offenders have certain conditions attached to their freedom. Now if he had said he was guilty for an easy life, and the judge agreed with him that no crime had been committed but he had to sentence anyway based on the guilty plea, he would not have hit him with a 15 year supervision order.

---------------------------------

On the other side, we have:

A report written by someone who lists himself as working in the fields of Psychology and Family and Marriage Counseling, paid for by Strom's mother and who did not know the full story at the time of making the report, a report that Strom didn't use in his trial, interestingly. The report just serves as a red herring, therefore.


The balance of probabilities says he is guilty as charged.

[Henry.]

Originally Posted by Bev

The balance of probabilities says he is guilty as charged.

In fact six days after Strom paid Pastor Yoder to put his name to that letter, he was imprisoned for admitting he had done the very thing that Yoder said he wouldn't do.

Though in fairness to Pastor Yoder, he was acting under the direction and influence of Strom's mother who'd employed him in this unpleasant task.

@ Hadding:

A NINE-year-old girl, dude....That ain't no woman.

Perhaps Hadding thinks it is....But I'd sooner agree with Kevin Strom, and say it's a ''shockingly young'' girl.

In the sound recording where this is revealed, Strom concludes by confirming ''that's very embarrassing for me to confess but it is true''

[Henry.]

Originally Posted by M. Gerard

If another WN was there, who was it?

Hadding, have you managed to come up with an answer to this question yet?

[M. Gerard]

Seems to me if you say Bill White got what people who push the limits of free speech laws get, then Strom got what people who push the limits of the kiddie porn laws get.

Strom stalking the little girl is different. ChoMo neighborhood nuisance.

[Alex Linder]

Bottom line: Stroms are bad news. Both of them.

Kevin is clearly interested in little girls. Whether he has acted on this, I don't know. But the fact he was writing love poems to and stalking/spying on an under-10 girl is unrefuted by Hadding or any other of his remarkably tolerant (and invariably childless) defenders.

As for Elisha, her hands are not clean either. She was fucking at least one of the cops involved in this investigation, and did not see fit to disclose that when she came to VNN.

Bottom line?

Stroms are bad news. Both of them.

They will both be kept miles and miles and miles away from VNN.

Boy, you just got to love Pierce's elite cadre.

Strom, Gliebe, Williams...the hits just keep coming.

It raises my hair that our beloved nerd-pettifogger Hadding is the most nearly normal of this disturbing lot.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

It raises my hair that our beloved nerd-pettifogger Hadding is the most nearly normal of this disturbing lot.

Gee thanks.

But do you really think that Bill White is preferable to Will Williams? At the time when you banned Will Williams, you kept Bill White, and the reason was Will Williams' responding in kind to personal attacks from Bill White. I don't think many people would agree that you had your priorities straight that day.

The last thing on my mind was to try to rehabilitate Kevin Strom for VNN Forum. I didn't raise the issue here. I think you know who raised it and with what motive.

Essentially all that I've had to say about the matter of Kevin Strom is, Harvey Yoder.

It was interesting to observe the pattern of behavior when I cited Yoder, which is a pattern that I've also seen in reaction to "Holocaust Denial." Once the believers in the established story find out that there is a skeptic, they will constantly provoke arguments with the skeptic, and then blame him for giving the response that they had solicited, as if he were the one that constantly wanted to discuss the matter.

What interests me in regard to VNN Forum is a much less difficult question than Kevin Strom. It's the fact that you have this feminist bitch from hell moderator named Bev who recklessly applies the word pædophile to a man, Jeremy Forrest, about whom there is not the slightest indication of pædophilia. Pedophilia is sexual interest in prepubescents, of which Jeremy Forrest shows not the slightest indication.

Because Forrest's girlfriend is a few months short of her 16th birthday, whereupon it will be legal under British law for Forrest to have sex with her, according to Bev he should be castrated. What do you have to say about such a venomous, bloodthirsty bitch, who wants a man castrated for something that is barely illegal in the UK but legal in France (where he did it)?

I understand that you've told Bev to say that it's only her opinion that Jeremy Forrest is a pædophile who should be castrated, but that doesn't really make it better. If I should say that it's just my opinion that Alex Linder is [INSERT INFLAMMATORY FALSE LABEL] over and over for weeks on end, I am sure that it would give you small comfort to know that it's accompanied by the words, "my opinion." Does it make everything better? No.

On top of that there is the very predictable response to any criticism of such inflammatory labeling: "You must be one too." That seems to be pretty much universal, regardless of what the inflammatory label may be. If somebody is being called a Communist, a Nazi, a queer, a pædophile, or a witch, in the context of a crowd that reprehends that particular kind of person, it almost automatically happens that anyone who says that they shouldn't rush to judgment will be accused of being in collusion with the already accused person. That is a strong disincentive for all but the hardiest souls (like me, but I get sick of it after awhile) to try to inject reason into such a situation.

An inflammatory label endlessly repeated without even being accurate is not an opinion: it's a smear, and an attempt to induce irrational behavior. Constant repetition of baseless smears, regardless of who the target may be, is dishonest and destructive and ought not to be allowed.

I think this is a much bigger and therefore more serious problem than the fact that Thomas de Aynesworth insulted you. It ought not to be the case that a problem has to impinge on Alex Linder personally before he will take it seriously.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Hadding

Because Forrest's girlfriend is a few months short of her 16th birthday, whereupon it will be legal under British law for Forrest to have sex with her, according to Bev he should be castrated. What do you have to say about such a venomous, bloodthirsty bitch, who wants a man castrated for something that is barely illegal in the UK but legal in France (where he did it)?

I understand that you've told Bev to say that it's only her opinion that Jeremy Forrest is a pædophile who should be castrated, but that doesn't really make it better.

I don't want to get into another argument with you but would you, for the love of jeboo, just stop lying and spinning for one second?

The girl was not a "few months short" of her 16th birthday. She was 14 when we know it began. Photos of her from that time show her as borderline pubescent. It began with him finding her "bucket list" and fulfilling items on it. I maintain that is grooming. Writing a love song to a 14 year old pupil that you have had barely no interaction with? How do you do that? How do you "love" someone you see for 30 minutes a week with 29 or so other pupils? Lust, maybe. Love, no.

It began in this country, not France. He did it here where it is illegal, not "barely illegal", but illegal. He took her to France when the word went up and it was obvious he was about to be suspended and arrested.

He was a 30 year old newlywed teacher (who had indulged in inappropriate behaviour with young girls at a previous school) who took her to France to evade the law in this country.

I've demonstrated pretty adequately, using Gov. links, dictionary links, child protection links, and common usage that there is good evidence for me to say that in my opinion he is a paedophile who groomed her and kidnapped (yes, she took his wife's passport and went willingly but he is charged with kidnap because she is not old enough to make that decision. It's a legal term) her. Just because you don't agree with legal, dictionary and common use definitions does not mean they are wrong.

[martinbarrett]

women are there to be fucked. it is a crime against the race these jewish sexual values of locking up teenage girls and teach them retard crap in schools in their best years.

You would swear it is the worst thing in the world to fuck a woman without paying her first if you follow the Uk media and canned outrage over Saville.

the state should be minimal . One could argue that the state is an oriental idea originating in the middle east. That is why Greece was the "first european civilisation" as it was located right next to the wogs.

Revenge should be private as with Vikings so no cops. Maybe in the real world this is not practical but this is how Whites lived until corrupted and tamed. Something to think about anyway.

Sexuality should be policed on a local basis and the family made strong.
The ZOG state is anti-hetero and always power grabbing. With the help of Sun reader types and their hypocritical outrage.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by martinbarrett

You would swear it is the worst thing in the world to fuck a woman without paying her first if you follow the Uk media and canned outrage over Saville.

I don't know how much UK news you get over there, but Savile is now accused of raping 9 year old boys, mentally handicapped young girls, necrophilia. and, as of yesterday, procuring young children for an elite grooming ring which appears to have included a former Prime Minister. Savile appears to have been protected at the highest levels. His peace medal from Israel, his friendship with the Krays, his friendship with the Royals, his association with Bilderbergs and Sir Anthony Blunt etc - something gave him the confidence to know he could act and nobody would touch him. The CPS folks have tried to get him so many times and each time they were prevented - why? Even his own great-niece was allegedly mauled by him and he paid off her family to keep quiet. He's linked to the Jersey children's home where abuse took place and where skeletons were found. It wasn't just a case of him going after teen groupies as it first appeared.

I'm more interested in who protected him and why.

[Henry.]

Originally Posted by Hadding

The last thing on my mind was to try to rehabilitate Kevin Strom for VNN Forum. I didn't raise the issue here. I think you know who raised it and with what motive.

Well I didn't invoke his name so you're wrong (as usual) if you're implying it was me.

I believe his name first cropped up in relation to your malicious speculations re Ed Steele's sanity. The contrast you exhibit burying the hapless Steele while lionising the pervert Strom is quite remarkable.

People do notice, you know.

I did say Strom is a ''self-confessed kiddie fiddler'' and he is. You took exception to this and said I'd libelled him. I then gave you my understanding of the phrase which is correct:

Originally Posted by Henry.

.....If he used photos of children, as he did, to pleasure himself, then he's kiddie-fiddling in his mind, and that's simply not allowed cos photographing children so that remote viewers can abuse them is a serious criminal offence.

Supply and demand for child pornography is crime regardless of how you try to spin it.....

And what about this plaintive squeak:

Essentially all that I've had to say about the matter of Kevin Strom is, Harvey Yoder.

It was interesting to observe the pattern of behavior when I cited Yoder, which is a pattern that I've also seen in reaction to "Holocaust Denial." Once the believers in the established story find out that there is a skeptic, they will constantly provoke arguments with the skeptic, and then blame him for giving the response that they had solicited, as if he were the one that constantly wanted to discuss the matter.

You've lied repeatedly about Yoder and the Stroms however when presented with the fine detail of your many deceits you simply ignore what's placed before you and go straight back to lying.

The latest example of this can be seen here: http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1...postcount=1000

To compare Yoder and yourself with the martyrs of holocaust denial is pretty low even for a sewer rat like you, Hadding.

[andy]

Originally Posted by Bev

I'm more interested in who protected him and why.

Of more immediate interest here at VNN is why sexual deviants of all types have the admiration and support of the likes of barrat,ian,haddin,akins et al.What role do these blighters have in ,promoting,saving and redeeming the Aryan race. the Aryan race ?Their posts demonstrate quite clearly that they are enemies of the race

[Solskeniskyn]

Originally Posted by Hadding

...Pedophilia is sexual interest in prepubescents, of which Jeremy Forrest shows not the slightest indication.

... Because Forrest's girlfriend is a few months short of her 16th birthday, whereupon it will be legal under British law for Forrest to have sex with her, according to Bev he should be castrated.

This is not my fight, and not my business, but just for the record: Bev and others have numerous times stated that you are disregarding the fact that his interest in her goes a long way back(how long? do they have a good approximation?) and that therefore the term paedophile is warranted, although she by now has grown old enough where hebophilia would be more correct. Any comments on this?

And even though it looks to me that you might be correct that hebophile is technically more accurate, the term "pedophile" is pretty well established in folk tongue, though not always - maybe even very seldom - technically accurate, to cover a bit more than only interest in pre-pubescent children. This case, where a teacher hooks up with a student that is in a dependent position, probably pushes that definition even further higher age-definition-wise among the people (especially those who have children themselves), and though it's not technically accurate, like it or not, 99% (especially parents) reading about this story will find that "teacher pedo" fucking disgusting, and would like to give him a good ass kicking, if not worse. And to me that is a good, natural, valid reaction.

Most are *not interested in learning the exact definitions of paedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia etc., yes, I'll vager to say that most are not familiar with them (personally, I had to look them up on google), and the common- what i call 'sensical' and you'll probably call 'ignorant' -broader definition of 'fkn pedo' is good enough, even more valid, than the one stated in the textbooks.

Also, seeing you use the term 'barely illegal' also feels kind of strange, given that you have a reputation of being very nitty about definitions (not least evident in this discussion).

What are you hoping to get out of this? Even if you are only valiantly fight for the proper use of the different pedo-definitions( and I'll use that vague abbrivation which ever way I want), I think most, me included, will read your posts as at best a bit wierd and anal, probably more like a bit suspect passive-defensive pedo-appeasment, and at worse walk away thinking you're a pedo yourself. That might not be at all fair, but it is how you come across, and you should know that, and that it damages your reputation and credibility, casting a shadow over your otherwise great postings and expertize on other, more important, pressing subjects on VNNF. Atleast that is how it is for me.

It is pretty clear that you and Bev(&Henry.) despise each other, and if that is really the main cause of this squabble, maybe it's just better to stear clear of eachothers way instead of engaging in endless bickering.

[Bev]

Great post, Solskeniskyn. Yes, the relationship began when she was 14. (It may be before that, but 14 is the age when fellow pupils flagged it.) Photos of her from that time show borderline pubescent, which is enough for a definition of paedo as per Wiki. The exact definition is 13 and under although it adds a note that this also can depend on whether the child is pubescent or not.

It is pretty clear that you and Bev(&Henry.) despise each other, and if that is really the main cause of this squabble, maybe it's just better to stear clear of eachothers way instead of engaging in endless bickering.

I don't despise him; (though after the way he's been talking to me and other posters, he ain't top of my Xmas card list) I don't even know him. I wasn't even aware of him other than as a VNN username until he decided to start bickering because I doubted the Steel is insane theory.

[Solskeniskyn]

Originally Posted by Bev

Great post, Solskeniskyn. Yes, the relationship began when she was 14. (It may be before that, but 14 is the age when fellow pupils flagged it.) Photos of her from that time show borderline pubescent, which is enough for a definition of paedo as per Wiki. The exact definition is 13 and under although it adds a note that this also can depend on whether the child is pubescent or not.

Ok, great. Very straightforward. If Hadding wants to refute what is stated as fact here: that she was 14-years old when the relationship began, one expects him to point it out to clarify the discussion. If on the other hand the rejection regards whether or not the relationship with a 14-year qualifies as pedophilia, or the notion that the photo showed a 'borderline pubescent', or even what he passively thinks should be the legal age, he should make that clear. But if it's the latter, he shouldn't be bringing up the fact that she is 15, soon to be 16, that it's 'barely' illegal, that it would be legal in France, and so on, when he knows full well the legal discussion regards what took place when she was 14-year old, because then he is clearly, for some reason, engaging in dishonest and very suspect argumentation.

I don't despise him; (though after the way he's been talking to me and other posters, he ain't top of my Xmas card list) I don't even know him. I wasn't even aware of him other than as a VNN username until he decided to start bickering because I doubted the Steel is insane theory.

Ok. Yeah, it is pretty clear from the responses that he doesn't have much to gain from these exchanges... So even if he think he has some kind of self-righteous point to prove that he's not managing to get across, that he's right and that he's being unfairly treated, there comes a point where you have to look yourself in the mirror and say: hey, 99% of my compatriots at VNNF, who usually respect me, says I'm coming across as a lying pedo-appeaser/alt. pedo myself, and that I'm destroying my rep, maybe it's time to call it quits and choose an eventual other topic to bitch about the exact defintions of terms, or pick a fight with Bev(if that is what he's doing)?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Hadding

Gee thanks.

But do you really think that Bill White is preferable to Will Williams? At the time when you banned Will Williams, you kept Bill White, and the reason was Will Williams' responding in kind to personal attacks from Bill White. I don't think many people would agree that you had your priorities straight that day.

My banning one has no relation to the other. Will Williams is what I say he is: an eternal juvenile. I don't want him here, all he does is get in fights. Bill White wasn't allowed to post here either, after a point. I post his letters because he's in jail, and not for a valid reason, as even ZOG has admitted.

This is why you're in measure a figure of fun to me, Hadding. You truly don't seem to grasp that people in politics are generally shitheads. It doesn't attract good people, and it's not like people come in that flavor anyway.

Politics is considered more difficult than pretty much any human activity because it takes everything a man has, and he only has a limited number of things. He must synthesize the qualities he doesn't have. He must judge men and situations he has no direct experience of. All this in an environment rich with lies and people out to fool him.

Will has political skills, but he is unwilling to lead, and there simply isn't another position for him. The fact that he was unwilling to take over NA and run it himself, although being unquely equipped to do so means something. I don't know precisely what. What I do know is that although Will can do good for our cause, he can't do it here. He's simply destructive at VNN.

The last thing on my mind was to try to rehabilitate Kevin Strom for VNN Forum. I didn't raise the issue here. I think you know who raised it and with what motive.

I'd just like to see you admit the guy likes underage girls, and I don't mean 17-year-olds.

Essentially all that I've had to say about the matter of Kevin Strom is, Harvey Yoder.

Yeah...this is what people mean when they say certain basic social feelings are foreign to you. This guy is a fucking weirdo. Don't you get that? You don't. And that's one reason your influence will be limited to text parsings. Where you are quite valuable. There are things you can overlook and things you can't, but they're the wrong things. Pedophilia is not something that can be overlooked.

It was interesting to observe the pattern of behavior when I cited Yoder, which is a pattern that I've also seen in reaction to "Holocaust Denial." Once the believers in the established story find out that there is a skeptic, they will constantly provoke arguments with the skeptic, and then blame him for giving the response that they had solicited, as if he were the one that constantly wanted to discuss the matter.

I could call you a document denier, since you explain away or simply don't attribute any meaning to ol' Kev's signing a document agreeing he has feelings for little girls.

What interests me in regard to VNN Forum is a much less difficult question than Kevin Strom. It's the fact that you have this feminist bitch from hell moderator named Bev who recklessly applies the word pædophile to a man, Jeremy Forrest, about whom there is not the slightest indication of pædophilia. Pedophilia is sexual interest in prepubescents, of which Jeremy Forrest shows not the slightest indication.

Bev's not a feminist. If you're right then trust your argument to make her look foolish. I simply don't care about the matter unless Forrest is a WN. I do agree pedophile tends to be used loosely.

Because Forrest's girlfriend is a few months short of her 16th birthday, whereupon it will be legal under British law for Forrest to have sex with her, according to Bev he should be castrated. What do you have to say about such a venomous, bloodthirsty bitch, who wants a man castrated for something that is barely illegal in the UK but legal in France (where he did it)?

Her opinion. I don't agree, although I don't think Forrest is someone to be admired. He should get whatever the established penalty is. He could easily have waited until she was legally of age.

I understand that you've told Bev to say that it's only her opinion that Jeremy Forrest is a pædophile who should be castrated, but that doesn't really make it better. If I should say that it's just my opinion that Alex Linder is [INSERT INFLAMMATORY FALSE LABEL] over and over for weeks on end, I am sure that it would give you small comfort to know that it's accompanied by the words, "my opinion." Does it make everything better? No.

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty varies). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

That's from Wikipedia. Eh, so she was 15 instead of 13. And maybe he started when she was even younger, I haven't followed it. I guess I can't get that worked up about it. Wikipedia doesn't agree with your definition, anyway, since most people have gone through puberty by 13.

On top of that there is the very predictable response to any criticism of such inflammatory labeling: "You must be one too." That seems to be pretty much universal, regardless of what the inflammatory label may be. If somebody is being called a Communist, a Nazi, a queer, a pædophile, or a witch, in the context of a crowd that reprehends that particular kind of person, it almost automatically happens that anyone who says that they shouldn't rush to judgment will be accused of being in collusion with the already accused person. That is a strong disincentive for all but the hardiest souls (like me, but I get sick of it after awhile) to try to inject reason into such a situation.

I just don't care that much. Either way, this guy goes after mid-teen girl - that we know for sure. When he's their teacher. He deserves punishment. Has he done this before? How do you know he hasn't gone after even younger girls? He's not someone to be admired. Why waste your valuable niggling skills to defend such a shady subject? Yes, sure, there would be very easily got up a witch hunt, but hey, that's the risk you run when you start messing with young teenagers as an adult charged with their care and nurturing.

An inflammatory label endlessly repeated without even being accurate is not an opinion: it's a smear, and an attempt to induce irrational behavior. Constant repetition of baseless smears, regardless of who the target may be, is dishonest and destructive and ought not to be allowed.

I think this is a much bigger and therefore more serious problem than the fact that Thomas de Aynesworth insulted you. It ought not to be the case that a problem has to impinge on Alex Linder personally before he will take it seriously.

I've just demonstrated that a commonly used source defines pedophilia the opposite of your definition, so I don't think things are as clear as you do. Also, I have not and will not follow that case because I simply don't care. He should be punished, I'm content to let British courts sort it out.

[Alex Linder]

[received two letters from Bill White today]

OCTOBER 20, 2012
169 DAYS REMAIN

Hello Alex:

I hear I sparked some controversy with my recent remarks on Hal Turner and Kevin Strom. I am always surprised and suspicious as to why these things are controversial. No reasonable person can believe either one was framed, innocent, or someone you'd want to associate with. Say Hal Turner was following federal instructions when he solicited the murder of three judges? Is that a reason to accept him?

Anyways, I do not wish to respond to ad hominems. I'm tired of fighting It takes 10 seconds to assert a lie and hours of effort to research and refute it. I doubt anyone believes I'm a federal informant - the irony being that I experienced terrible brutality and forewent an early release by not being one - or that I attempted suicide in a mental institution or was part of Kevin Strom's case or any such garbage, particularly when I hear who this is coming from.

However, rather than attack, I've written a rather long essay on how federal informants work, how to find evidence someone is an informant, how to evaluate evidence, and how to say "so what" when things just don't matter.

I think the white movement needs to move past the failures and has beens and look towards the successes and the men who are left standing. You are one of them. Willis Carto is another. I wish the same could be said about things like Stormfront - but, doctrinally, it's really no longer in the pro-white camp. There are so few white projects that have not been destroyed by Bush and Obama and their thugs, it saddens me to see we still argue about whether or not to accept informants back into our ranks, and to see serious discussions sidetracked by noise.

Hope all is well with you. My release date is now April 7th. My final resentencing is Oct 23rd. I am still hoping for a halfway house and for not having the hell kicked out of me by the BOP when I am transferred to them in the next week or so.

If you publish this, please get my address off of BOP.gov and include it so people can write.

Sincerely,

Bill

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinde...Age=&x=80&y=11

11. WILLIAM A WHITE 13888-084 35-White-M 04-07-2013 IN TRANSIT [as of 1pm cst 10-30-12]

[Alex Linder]

[letter from Bill White]

OCTOBER 24, 2012
165 DAYS REMAIN

Hello Alex:

A few things are going on, and I thought I'd write. If I'm flooding you with information or writing too much, let me know. All of this is "movement" stuff. ;-D

1) I heard from Matt Hale the other day. A lot has been going on with him -- which is not bad for a man who has been tortured by being locked in a room for 9 1/2 years.

At Matt's request, I have asked my attorneys in Chicago to make available to Matt's attorney the discovery in my Chicago case, as well as the transcript of the testimony of Mark Hoffman, the gay juror, describing his biases. Matt believes my case in Chicago has opened up a path for his appeal --- which has been accepted by the Seventh Circuit, and I hope that is true.

Also, Matt says he has written three books in prison, and I am currently finding him a publisher. I expect my book publishing associates and I will be able to get at least one to press wtihin 6-12 months of my associates receiving the handwritten manuscripts. AFP/TBR [American Free Press/The Barnes Review] has an interest, but is badly backlogged with titles -- we are currently focused on teh memoirs of Rudolf Hess' male nurse, including an account of Hess' murder.

A typist, or financing to hire one, may be needed for this project. If anyone has an interest in that, have them post here on VNNForum, and someone I know should pick up on it.

2) I was resentenced yesterday to 33 months time served. I served just about 30 months straight in prison from Oct 17, 2008 to Apr 20, 2011. I had five months good time. I lost much of that good time for fighting and slicing things with razors, but not all of it. I don't believe there will be any change in my April 7 release date. I'm told this was portrayed differently in the media.

The judge also ordered the government to designate me minimum security, place me in population in a camp, and stop holding me in solitary confinement. They may not comply -- but that is grounds to release me.

The judge also refused a government request to revoke my passport indefinitely. [end pg 1] and a request to impose a new publishing ban. My computer equipment from 2008 was ordered returned.

The government objected to returning my driver's license, my watch pictures my kid has drawn me, etc., claiming they are "evidence" for an "investigation" in Florida. They have not served a search warrant, have not found evidence for an indictment, have admitted in court there is no evidence I was personally involved in whatever this is, and have not explained how my driver's license is evidence, but this issue will have to be addressed in Florida, and that is underway.

Also, I was informed of a latest incident of violence against those who have persecuted me. Tom Bondurant - the Assistant US Attorney who indicted me - approached my counsel and said unknown men have been stalking and threatening his two (adult) daughters -- threatening to "rope them and butcher their families." Bondurant apologized for indicting me and asked that I do somethign to stop this. Obviously, I have nothing at all to do with this. I have trouble feeling sorry for him -- when he was a US Attorney, he had a reputation for arresting people's family members and ordering them brutalized to obtain confessions, and one his daughters sexually molested a woman I know about four years ago, when the woman was a teenager - among others. However, I pass his apology along.

3) An amusing story, in a way

I have spent the past two months locked up with this Negro serial killer. He has admitted to me the details of four people he has killed from 1997 to 2012, and is currently being held for murder. He has been charged with two of these murders in the past, and acquitted in both. Despite my aversion to talking to him, he has regaled me with detailed descriptions of his killings because he wants to write and publish a book on how he killed three people and got away with it. (He has killed others for which he's never been charged.)

I lost my patience with this guy after he started masturbating regularly [end pg 2] through the food slot in his door and I have now spent two weeks trying to turn his confessions in to the police. Each day, I write down his nonsense for the day, and keep a log.

Now, I have nothing to gain by this. I ahe asked my counsel to arrange for the US Attorney's Office not to interfere with my housing conditions and my release -- to let me get what I've got coming anyways. Usually, turning in a murder means immediate release -- I have seen people get a 23-year time cut for reporting murder. I've asked for none of that.

When my attorney brought this to the US Attorney's Office, they tried to discourage me from providing the information. They told my attorney they would prosecute me for cussing someone than accept information from me on a triple murder (I've added a fourth since then). And, I and my counsel have written to the Virginia Commonwealth Attorney's Office and called and left messages with the Roanoke City Police. For two weeks, no one has come to talk to me.

Those who've been in prison know this is unheard of -- but the government would rather potentially lose a third murder case to a Negro serial killer, than potentially be put into a situation where they would have to show leniency to a "white supremacist."

I thought this would be an interesting test - and it has been.

And, if anyone blames me for trying to turn this guy in -- fuck you. (LOL - That goes to your readers. ;-D)

4) I was chatting with someone yesterday and kicking around ideas.

What are your thoughts on the American Free Press? Would you consider writing regularly for AFP? Would your readers be interested in it? If not, why not?

Also, have you ever thought of writing a book? It would need to be 60,000 words or more.

I cannot extend any offers on my own, but thought feeling things out would be [end pg 3] a good idea. We also have some new projects coming up webwise - we are slowly moving from the 1950s to the late 90s/early 00s - where we may be able to help you by plugging into your XML feed and redistributing content, and may be looking for radio content as well.

I know you guys have launched a radio project and have tried to launch a newspaper and thought there were opportunities there.

Hope you are well, Alex, and your illness has continued to recede. Keep in touch,

Sincerely,

Bill

[Alex Linder]

[hand-written essay from BW, also posted in his thread in General Discusson and in FBI thread in Strategy]

HOW FEDERAL INFORMANTS WORK

There was once a time when a group of people could get together, shout "informant" in unison, and slander the reputation of a political activist. With the emergence of the internet, and the easy availability of government records, it has become easy for any person to quickly determine whether someone has rendered substantial assistance to the government. Here, I will explain how federal informants work and how one can access information on them. I also urge people to stop treating this subject so lightly - rehabilitating actual dangerous informants, while using the term "informant" as a smear.

SNITCH CULTURE

The US Department of Justice employs about 10,000 FBI field agents. FBI regulations require each agent to employ at least 4 confidential informants, and suggest 10 as an appropriate mean. This means that approximately 100,000 Americans work as informants for the FBI. When America's other 32 law enforcement agencies are considered, between 600,000 and 12 million Americans -- perhaps one out of every 200 adults -- works fulltime for the federal government reporting on other Americans.

Informants are paid approximately $400/week for their services. Thus, this profession tends to attract those for whom $1730 a month -- $20,800 a year -- is a substantial incentive. People who are not mentally ill or otherwise living on disability and welfare benefits, or people laboring at the lower echelons of drug organizations, tend to be particular recruitment targets, as are those who are otherwise unemployed. Informants also receive a bonus for convicting others -- generally, they receive $100 for every year of sentence a victim receives -- 20 years is a $2000 bonus, for instance.

The method of the informant is usually the instigation of inchoate crimes. The federal government may convict any two people who agree to commit a crime, one of whom has taken an act in furtherance, of conspiracy. There are few restrictions. The government must show a propensity towards the crime -- being previously convicted of drug dealing is enough to allow an informant to target someone with a drug conspiracy; speaking out angrily is enough to justify trying to involve someone in an act of terrorism. The only rule is that the informant may not be one of the two required people.

In cases where the government cannot put two people together, they often try to invite a solicitation. This is how Matt Hale was framed. The government will infiltrate someone into an organization they believe is committing crimes, and try to involve them as "security" or as a "soldier." This person will let the group leader know he is available to commit a crime, and will wait to be solicited. In the case of the Blind Sheik -- and Matt Hale -- the informant may say he is going to commit a crime, and ask for the leader's blessing.

The government targets these inchoate crimes because they are easier to prosecute than actual crimes. The FBI, for instance, has manuals -- playbooks -- of how crimes are to be put together. For instance, in an interstate murder-for-hire, the informant is instructed to tell the target that their codeword will be "to paint the house." This is one way we know the alleged "Iranian" plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador is a fraud. A few years ago, several White Revolution members were drawn into a plot to rob drug dealers -- stealing and selling fake drugs by robbing a "stash house" is another standard federal script.

Below the level of investigating crimes, federal informants also monitor political and media organizations and shape public discourse. Many newspaper reporters are on the federal payroll, or have a less formal relationship with federal law enforcement. This channel prevents negative coverage of federal cases and allows journalistic information to be funneled to US Attorneys. Within organizations, deeper-cover informants identify targets and help shape discourse -- promoting other informants to leadership positions and doing federal dirty work.

Some examples:

- MP is a mentally ill man in Indiana. He became involved in an anti-immigrant organizing group. He has written he meets monthly at McDonalds with Indiana State Police and the FBI to discuss the white movement. He is not paid -- though he would be if he was smart enough to ask. He's an informant.

In the future, if the government decides he is suitable for a "leadership" role, others will be told to go on white message boards and support him. He may be asked from time to time to speak well, or speak badly, of other white activists. MP may not even realize he is being manipulated -- but he is being used.

- HT ran a radio show on FM radio in New York, and on the internet. On his radio show, he would call for violence against blacks, Mexicans, and federal officials. When a listener would respond, HT would turn them over to the feds -- often for further investigation. His show was a "honeypot."

- Violent skinhead groups were a concern to the feds. One day, a group called VSC was formed. This group declared "war" on all other skinheads. Then, they declared they were not "racist." They would attack other white organizations, beat, stab, or set on fire white activists, and claimed nothing could happen in Indiana without their permission. Every once in a while, a few of their worst members would be arrested and sent to prison.

This group is a "false front." It was organized by federal informants as a "honeypot" for violent thugs, but its violence was used by the feds to suppress and control non-violent white organizations. Thus, in addition to social control, physical violence is used to control and suppress political dissent.

- MR joined the Imperial Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. He used a fake name, calling himself JR, because he knew no one would check. One day, he was asked to distribute literature by the Klan boss at a County Fair. While there, he incited two Klansmen he was with to attack a Phillipino youth. The incident was widely reported as a "hate crime," and the two Klansmen were convicted, while the Klan was bankrupted. The media and the feds made claims about a "hate crime" and MR, who manufactured the crime, moved on to another organization.

- BH was a "deep cover" federal informant. He did office work for DD, a prominent white politician, for years. Then he joined a major "Nazi" group. He agitated against the legitimate members, and worked his way to chief security. His major role was reviewing membership applications. he was only revealed when the FBI fired him.

These examples show FBI priorities -- monitoring groups for future targets, establishing media to shape political opinion, establishing groups to use violence to suppress political dissent, inciting "hate crimes" (legal "terrorism") for political purposes, and placing members in leadership positions to guide and monitor organizations.

Also note what the FBI did not do -- and never does. They did not establish any legitimate businesses or organizations or attempt to involve anyone in legal activities. They did not foster charity or attempt to build anything to help other people. And, they never made an effort to legitimately influence the political process through elections.

The FBI always tries to disrupt or control legitimate political and business activity. Their informants are usually -- but now always -- ignorant people without marketable skills. People with professional skills and family ties rarely take the risk of involvement in spying on others -- they are too focused on their own advancement.

My experience is that FBI agents always portray a Jewish caricature of the movements they infiltrate as well. They may play the skinhead thug; rarely will they play the New Right intellectual. This has been changing lately -- the FBI has made efforts to recruit smart people -- but without much success. They average informant believes in nothing; people with beliefs are harder to flip.

PRISON SNITCHES

So far, we have talked about informants in the civilian world. Now, we examine informants in the federal justice system.

The federal justice system is structured to reward informants and guilty pleas. A person pleading guilty in the federal system has their sentence reduced by about 8%. If they "accept responsibility," perhaps by cooperating, their sentence is reduced by one-third. If they receive what is called a SKI reduction for "substantial assistance," their sentence is reduced 50%. They may also receive a "safety valve," voiding a mandatory minimum.

The easiest way to see if a federal inmate provided pre-trial cooperation is to look at their sentence. If their sentence is not within sentencing guidelines -- all federal sentences are controlled by federal sentencing guidelines -- find out why. If they received or asked for a SKI reduction, they cooperated.

After sentencing, an inmate may continue to cooperate. An inmate who provides substantial cooperation after sentencing receives a Rule 35. A Rule 35 is a post-conviction sentence reduction for cooperation.

To determine if someone received these things, use PACER, PACER.gov is the US federal court website. All documents filed in federal court are available here. They may be under seal -- but the type of document will be described. So, you may not be able to read the Rule 35 -- but you can see if it was filed. Further, unsealed pleadings often reference sealed pleadings, or discuss the background of a case.

You can be 100% assured that if a person cooperates on a federal case, you can pull their PACER file and discover evidence of their cooperation. Hearing transcripts are public documents, as are pleadings -- anyone can look these things up.

THE DANGER OF FEDERAL INFORMANTS

The federal government arrests and tortures people for political reasons. To justify its policies, it needs a steady stream of terrorism and hate crimes. Because there is very little real terrorism and few actual hate crimes, the federal government manufactures both. The people it targets are often vulnerable and ignorant -- they are angry people too stupid, sometimes, to understand they are breaking the law, or too disabled, often, by addiction or mental illness to say no. The FBI does not hesitate to coke someone up, drive them to the US Capitol, hand them a bomb, and tell them to shout al-Qaeda, and then use this to justify everything from anti-Islamic repression to aggression overseas. Similarly, they didn't hesitate to give McVeigh and Nichols detonators and then use Oklahoma City to justify gun control and acts against "domestic extremism." The FBI's security actions are a real threat to legitimate and legal political activism.

Because this is a serious issue, treating it like a funny gossiping game is inappropriate. Real federal informants are never rehabilitated -- the feds will continue to approach them 20 or 30 years after the fact. Fake allegations of informing trivialize a serious issue. The federal government is the party who most wants informants rehabilitated and honest activists smeared. Game-players play into federal goals.

Because this is a serious issue, serious evidence should be required. Because our societal institutions are dishonest, all evidence must be treated skeptically. However not all government documents are false, nor are all media reports.

Evidence begins with an individual's own statements. Individuals cooperating with the FBI usually know to keep their cooperation secret -- but some don't. MP has openly discussed his regular meetings with law enforcement. In my case, an individual, VB, openly went on message boards discussing information he provided on me to the federal government. When others discuss meetings with the FBI, it should cause some concern. Not everyone visited by the FBI is guilty of cooperating -- but the best way to approach an FBI visit is to say "I'm represented by counsel," to give the name of an attorney you know, and refuse to speak without that counsel present. Any other response is unwise.

The real danger, though, comes from paid informants pushing the FBI agenda. It is hard to tell these types apart from honest weirdos sometimes. Certain behaviors, though, are suspicious. One is making allegations about others without specifics or evidence. When evidence is presented, truth can be discerned -- when an individual will not make a specific, disprovable allegation, and is not open to reason, they are suspicious.

For instance, I sat in KS' trial. I watched a nine year old girl and her mother testify KS was hiding in the bushes outside the girl's school, and saw the receipt for the pink angora sweater KS sent her -- and I've seen Stanley Kubrick's Lolita and I know what the sweater means. I saw the photos of Lamb and Lynx Gaede Photoshopped onto lesbian porn. I know KS is a pedophile.

Those are specific allegations -- I give details of what I know, how I know, and why I believe as I do. Someone else could get the court record and disprove it. No one does, because it's true.

Compare that to all the world's other allegations. I've learned over the years not to say something unless I have reason to believe it's true -- and to withdraw it and apologize if I'm wrong. For instance, I have been reasonably told Jared Taylor's wife Evelyn Rich is not Jewish, and received a good explanation of how the ADL misused a paper she wrote. I have apologized for this allegation. I still dislike Taylor's politics -- but I withdraw my ad hominem as incorrect.

Evidence continues with first-person accounts. First person accounts may be wrong. They are often not objective. They should be investigated and substantiated. For instance, I disliked KS before his arrest for child porn. My first hand account should be corroborated. Other white activists should have attended his trial. However, there are media accounts and there are court records. There is also KS' guilty plea.

First-person accounts should be considered a jumping off point for further investigation. We should ask for details and investigate why someone believes something -- then gather evidence. The FBI opened a "Terrorism Enterprise Investigation" into me in 2007 because a police detective in 1996 said I had been involved in an arson. An FBI investigation into the arson concluded there was "no evidence." The agent who used the report took the allegation without the investigation report to justify "getting me" within FBI rules. White activists often do the same thing -- take one allegation without investigation, and assert it as true.

In most cases, there are documents and records to justify or deny an allegation. I have made myself a promise never to again accuse someone of anything without reasonable proof. This is why I seek documents and witnesses. I didn't accuse HT of involvement in my case until he was alleged to have said at his trial he accused me of plotting to assassinate Obama with a truck bomb. I then obtained his trial transcript, and read the evidence presented. Later, a report on his statements was released to my trial counsel in Chicago. Similarly, I attended KS' trial to find the truth.

In contrast, at one point, an effort was made to persuade me DJ and PA were informants. At first, I wrongfully believed this. Later, I read the FBI reports and determined they were not informants. I heard PA testify at trial. I have publicly apologized to DJ. There was an allegation, I jumped to conclusions without proof, and I retracted and apologized.

There are many people I dislike in the white movement. HS is one example. HS once argued KS was okay because a sexual interest in pre-teen girls was normal. I disagree. HS often makes a point of calling me names on message boards, or making false allegations. I suspect HS is a pedophile -- and so I often mention his professed interest in little girls. I do not call HS a Jew or an informant. He denies he made these statements; I direct people to the archives and I block him. This is an appropriate way to deal with bizzarity.

So, allegations without evidence have to stop -- as do efforts to deny or obfuscate evidence. Certain characters decade after decade seek to "return" to the movement by tearing down those who know the truth about them. All one can do is repeat the truth and move on.

THE "SO WHAT" FACTOR

There is also the question of -- if an allegation is true, so what?

Informants are dangerous because they often lie to manufacture crimes, and the FBI's internal files are like an internet message board where the accused can not only not respond, but can be jailed and tortured based on rumor.

However, there is the "so what" factor. One example.

GJ is a homosexual. He is also a very intelligent guy who has produced a lot of good white material and who "gets" Savitri Devi and Tradition. He has also launched a successful and needed publishing operation. Should he be driven out of the white movement?

My thought on this was no, until GJ stole money and the membership list of CMS and then blackmailed them into not complaining. He then moved on to try to scam money from a friend of mine, and, I discovered, he had scammed others. This made me think he was not acceptable for the white movement.

My question is this -- homosexuality is a sign of a mental disorder. Homosexuals, like other mentally ill people, are often less honest than other people. Thus, should homosexuality be seen as a warning sign for theft? Should we exclude homosexuals altogether, even when they are discrete about it, as GJ is?

Usually, this is not a question. White nationalism attracts a large number of homosexual men and extreme S&M fetishists. Usually, these characters are very extreme and very forthright. Many uniformed "National Socialist" marches are, for many, a species of "gay pride" parade. People who cannot keep extreme sexual perversions -- homosexuality, urine and feces obsessions, extreme brutality -- quiet should not be in white organizations. People who are keeping them quiet should not be in public roles.

In contrast:

AP ran a prominent white record company. His project was successful and contributing to the white movement, but he was a little swarthy. One day, a Jewish homosexual group exposed the fact that his birth certificate said he was half-mestizo. The white movement ran the guy out. This was wrong. We should have said "so what?"

We know that 22,000 genes -- 2% of our DNA -- is primarily responsible for our physical development. There are an average 2200 points of difference between whites and blacks. There are an average 900 points of difference between whites and yellows or browns. If AP was half-mestizo, merely being mestizo means at least half-white and half American indigenous. He would have had about 225 points of difference with an average white- less than someone who was one-eighth black. He is approaching the normal range of variation between white ethnicities and individuals.

Given the contribution, did the vice overwhelm it?

True National Socialists are attracted to NS because they seek goodness in a corrupt world. Many become too enthused and become too obsessed with moral purity. I've been in this category. When one strives for virtue, it is easy to reject flawed mankind. However, our excessive surface "purity" and our movement's inner corruption has paralyzed white activism.

Thus, in addition to demanding evidence, the white movement needs to start asking "so what?" DD is a womanizer -- but an amazing organizer, writer, and speaker. So, we ask ourselves -- does the womanizing matter? RP is a coward -- he publicly disavows us -- but holds public office and furthers our goals. Should he be shunned for that?

These are difficult questions -- but they belong in a broader discussion of baseless allegations. In addition to demanding evidence -- we have to also ask, if true, do these allegations matter? Are they within an acceptable range of human error and fallibility, given what needs to be done.

CONCLUSIONS

I reduced names here to initials to avoid attacking anyone. Perhaps a publisher will want to use fake names. The names, in this context, do not matter.

I am no longer involved in white political activity. If the white movement wants to destroy itself -- insofar as further destruction is possible -- that is its busienss. But, I believe in the vision of Adolf Hitler -- in a beautiful, orderly world that promotes life and human happiness -- and I am saddened to see the same-old same-old predominate as the world dies.

What should be a beautiful celebration of iove has been polluted and turned into a celebration of degeneracy and hate. The FBI directs white activism into criminal activity and Jewish groups direct white power parodies into white ranks. Many of the most cynical have abandoned NS ideals to support the "new right wing" -- Zionism -- and many others seem to be talking just to earn their government check.

I urge people to set fantasy aside and to focus on evidence, on reality, and on what can be demonstrated. There are many resources available to us to sustain the gossip and rumor-backed communities of 20 years ago. These efforts, often sponsored by people trying to harm white people, ultimately lead nowhere. //