Letters

[Alex Linder]

[Paul Fromm]

The Marc Lemire Internet Free Speech Case -- Part 3

Marc Lemire Appeals outrageous ruling by the Federal Court on Section 13 censorship

Judge makes multiple errors and fails to mention he was a key player at DoJ who passed legislation which applied Section 13 to the internet!

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/11/...us-ruling.html

NOVEMBER 30, 2012: Cutting through the post-hurricane Sandy’s driving rain, Marc Lemire filed his landmark appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals, challenging the outrageous ruling of Mr. Justice Mosley.

This appeal takes the question of the constitutionality of Section 13 to the Court of Appeals and questions several aspects of the Federal Court Judge’s decision. This Appeal is a damning critique of censorship and thought control which lay at the feet of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act –Canada’s shameful and thoroughly discredited internet censorship legislation.

Marc Lemire’s 8+ Year Legal Ordeal

For those trying to keep track of Marc Lemire’s eight-year legal ordeal, here is a brief rundown on what has happened. In 2003, serial plaintiff Richard Warman filed a Section 13 complaint against Marc Lemire for postings on a message board he ran, and 1 post on his website – The Freedomsite. Lemire removed the entire message board before receiving Warman’s complaint, and removed the single posting as soon as he received the complaint. (posting called “Aids Secrets” – written by an American). Since Lemire removed the material, that should have been the end of the case – Since the Canadian Human Rights Act is a completely remedial piece of legislation (IE: not meant to punish anyone)

Well, the Canadian Human Rights Commission had different idea of what “remedial” means, and the CHRC went on a fishing expedition to try to find anything else to prosecute Lemire with. The CHRC found a few documents, and Warman submitted a website he claimed Lemire ran. When Warman submitted the website, he also asked the CHRC to hide this from Lemire– which the CHRC promptly did. In the interim, CHRC staffers signed up on message boards such as Stormfront,org and attempted to engage (entrap?!) Lemire in conversation, using an alias known as“Jadewarr”.

Notwithstanding the fact that Lemire remediated everything, the CHRC pushed on, and a Tribunal was setup to investigate Lemire and all the absurd claims being made against him. As part of his defence, Lemire questioned the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act.

After an over 30 day – multi-year proceeding, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal throw out almost the entire case against Lemire. Hundreds of postings, websites and other material was put forward by the CHRC. The Tribunal ruled against every single alleged “hate”message Lemire was accused of one, except for one. The Tribunal also found that Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was unconstitutional.

The censors were not happy with that, and in 2009 (yes three years ago!!) the CHRC appealed to the Federal Court of Canada seeking a judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

With the constitutionality of Section 13 in question, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal stopped all enforcement of Section 13 and put on hold the cases which were before it (Arthur Topham, Henry Makow, etc) until a final decision in the Lemire case. Also while waiting for the Federal Court to rule, the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-304, which repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. (Currently at Second reading in the Senate of Canada)

In early October, 2012, the Federal Court – after taking three years – finally ruled. The court found that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Right Act was just fine but the penalty provision of the law was unconstitutional. Therefore the Federal Court stuck down Section 54 of the Human Rights Act, but left Section 13 intact.

That’s where we are now. If I chose not to appeal, the other cases which were halted awaiting a final decision in my case would be activated, and the victims would have been dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and in some other cases, the Federal Court.

Federal Court Ruling by Mosley

The ruling by Liberal Appointee – Justice Richard Mosley is at times totally inept and at other times vicious and revolting. On the inept side, the Judge could not even get the correct date of the Tribunal’s decision. In his decision, he claimed the decision date was “September 9, 2009”, when in fact, the Tribunal ruled on September 2, 2009.

The Judge totally confuses the history of Section 13 and how the penalty provisions were adopted. And his confusion of the law was then used as reasons to justify Section 13 at a later point. Unbelievable!

Mosley overturned finding of fact which the Tribunal made with respect to mediation. And he totally gets it’s all wrong, and comes to a wrong conclusion. He simply heard the submissions of one party, and refused to look at the entire history of all the mediation in this case.

On the vicious side, Mosley looked at the historical amendments to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and found no issue with applying it to the internet. When it was first passed in the late 1970’s, Section 13 only applied to the limited aspects of a telephone answering machine. Then in 2001, under the guise of the “Anti-Terrorism Act”, Section 13 was applied to the entire internet and to interconnected computer networks.

And guess who was a key decision maker and “point man” for the “Anti-Terrorism Act”? The same Act, which we say has made Section 13 unconstitutional? The one and only; Justice Richard Mosley.

In 2001, Justice Richard Mosley was the associate deputy minister for criminal law at the Department of Justice. During his time as deputy minister, he was the “point man” for the“Anti-Terrorism Act”. Mosley defended the legislation multiple times, including at multiple press conferences and even before Parliament. As Macleans reported“Even so, speaking at a press briefing around the same time, Mosley didn't hesitate to dismiss concerns raised by reporters that the new law could violate civil liberties.”

One of the main arguments against Section 13’s constitutionality is that is now applies to the most interactive and inclusive medium the world has ever known – the Internet. This is a key part of the Lemire Constitutional Challenge. And also expertly argued by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian Free Speech League.

Is it really any wonder that Judge Mosley completely ignored all our submissions with his crappy one line answer: “As found by the Tribunal at para 231 of the decision, the conclusion in Taylor on rational connection to the legislative objective still applies. I am of the same view.” Afterall; the application of Section 13 to the Internet was part of HISlegislation. HEdefended it to the media and in front of a Parliament sub-committee. And it was Mosley that so quickly dismissed concerns about civil liberties over the so-called Anti-Terrorism Act.

Considering that Judge Mosley was a critical player and the“front man” for the 2001 amendments to Section 13 – isn’t it fair to claim a reasonable apprehension of bias? And that Mosley should not sit in judgment over the very legislation that HE was so closely associated with, defended, justified and sold to Canadians?

In Canada, justice must be transparent and be seen to be transparent. It is bloody ridiculous that a Judge would sit on his high horse, and BERATE MY LAWYER, during the hearing, yet not say a word about how he was closely associated with part of the very law which we were challenging! Only in Absurdistandoes this stuff happen!




Lemire Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals

THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Federal Court of Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court dated October 2, 2012 in which he allowed the application by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dated September 2, 2009 [2009 CHRT 26] in the matter of a complaint by Richard Warman against Marc Lemire under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (“Canadian Human Rights Act”).

THE APPELLANT ASKS that:

a)The appeal is allowed and the decision of the Federal Court set aside;

b)This Honourable Court declare that sections 13 and 54 (1) and (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a violation of subsections 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , are not saved by section 1 thereof, and as such, are of no force or effect pursuant to sections 24 (1) and 52(1) of the Constitution Act,1982;

c)An order dismissing the complaint against the appellant by Richard Warman under s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act;

d)An order staying the judgment of Mr. Justice Mosley until the final determination of this appeal;

e)An order for costs to the appellant of this appeal and below;

f)Such further and other order as this Honourable Court may make.

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows:

1.Mr. Justice Mosley erred in applying the doctrine of severance in upholding s. 13 and ss. 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act;

2.Mr. Justice Mosley erred in basing his decision on a misreading of the Canadian Human Rights Act as it existed at the time s. 13 was upheld as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; this misreading of the Act informed the reasons given by Mr. Justice Mosley and led him into further error in upholding the constitutionality of s. 13 and 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act;

3.Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act; the Tribunal was entitled to examine the real and factual context in which s. 13 and s. 54 existed in determining whether the provisions remained a reasonable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter, including the manner in which complaints were prosecuted and the practical operation of the statutory scheme. The decision of the Tribunal that this evidence showed that ss. 13 and 54 were no longer a reasonable limit on freedom of expression was correct;

4.The extension in 2001 in the Anti- Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, c. 41 of the application of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act from telephone answering machines, as considered in Taylor, to computer networks, including the Internet, has rendered s. 13 an unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter;

5.The allegation of “hatred” in s. 13 of the Act imports moral blameworthiness and stigma which renders the provision an unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter;

6.The words “hatred” and “contempt” in s. 13 are vague, overbroad and highly subjective, rendering the provision an unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter;

7.There is no rational, non-arbitrary or fair connection between s. 13 and the objectives of the Canadian Human Rights Act, rendering the provision an unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter;

8.Mr. Justice Mosley erred in challenging and reversing findings of fact made by the Tribunal to which he owed deference;

9.Mr. Justice Mosley erred in failing to respect and defer to Parliament’s repeal of s. 13 and s. 54(1) and (1.1) in Bill C-304, which passed the House of Commons on June 6, 2012 to protect freedom of expression;

[Alex Linder]

Alex,
A couple things for you, should you get a chance/find them useful.

First, here's a summary showing the disparity between ultra-abundant cranks vs. the tiny group certain southrons like to blame for their misfortune.

Christ-cranks: 78.4% of the population
"Atheist": 1.6% of the population

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Seems the intense focus on "atheists" and how they voted in the jew-democracy is a bit diversionary, considering the massive disproportion between the two.

Anybody still voting is authorizing the perpetuation of conditions hostile to Whites by participation in the ruse, anyway.

Also, I wanted to pass along more strong evidence of the abject denial exercised by happily ignorant blind subjugate believers (cranks).

(So what if Whites were enslaved and a majority of them destitute in duh sout? Too, apparently, 1500-1800 was just another time-period during which Whites were so well off under christinsanity!)

"The authors of "White Cargo" think that the black monopoly on victimization has pushed white servants into undeserved obscurity. About the first boatload of press-ganged child beggars sold in Jamestown they write: “While the fate of those youngsters rounded up from the streets of London has been largely forgotten, history would take a keen interest in the destiny of a group of men and women who arrived a few months after the first shipment of children in 1619.”

An indenture from 1683.

These are, of course, the “20 negars” famously observed by planter John Rolfe, who are said to be British America’s first black slaves. The authors point out, however, that these 20 were treated just like white servants, put to seven year terms, after which they received “freedom dues.” Nor did this group mark the beginning of a rush of blacks to Virginia. By mid-century, of the 11,000 settlers in the colony only 300 were black. Their treatment was essentially no different from that of white bondsmen.

Blacks gradually did sink to a status lower than whites, and a man who was almost certainly one of the 20 original “negars” helped push them in that direction. A full-blooded African from Angola, he took the English name of Anthony Johnson. After his term of service he prospered mightily, accumulating more than 1,000 acres and a score of servants both black and white. He found fault with one of his blacks, John Casor, and in 1650, after a lengthy lawsuit, persuaded a court to make the man a servant for life. Casor, then, was one of the first blacks condemned to slavery as we know it. It was only in 1671 that Virginia made all blacks coming into the country slaves for life.

Such slaves brought a higher price than indentured servants because their term of service was longer. This system of pricing was established, however, only after mortality rates declined. It made no sense to pay more for a life-time black than for a seven-year white if both were likely to be dead in five years.

The greater value of life-time slaves meant that masters often used them sparingly. Given a choice between a white who was to be let go in a year or two and a black who was expected to serve for decades, it always made sense to give the most dangerous, exhausting work to whites. One Briton on Barbados wrote to Cromwell urging him to bring more life-time black slaves to the island because expendable whites were being worked to death.

Shortly before the War Between the States, the designer of New York’s Central Park, Frederick Law Olmstead, discovered the same priorities during a trip through the South. He found that it was invariably Irish navvies who were hired to drain swamps and dig irrigation ditches — work that malaria and intestinal disease made extremely dangerous. When Olmstead asked why slaves did not do this drudgery, he was told, “It’s dangerous work and a negro’s life is too valuable to be risked at it. If a negro dies it is a considerable loss you know.” (durrrrr)
Unquote

===================================================

From 1605 through 1804 till the USMC landed in Tripoli, 2.5 million White's have been catured by North Africa Islamic's.

The Untold Story of White Slavery

Whites have forgotten what blacks take pains to remember.

Robert C. Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, 246 pp., $35.00.

reviewed by Thomas Jackson

As Robert C. Davis notes in this eye-opening account of Barbary Coast slavery, American historians have studied every aspect of enslavement of Africans by whites but have largely ignored enslavement of whites by North Africans. Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters is a carefully researched, clearly written account of what Prof. Davis calls “the other slavery,” which flourished during approximately the same period as the trans-Atlantic trade, and which devastated hundreds of European coastal communities.

Slavery plays nothing like the central role in the thinking of today’s whites that it does for blacks, but not because it was fleeting or trivial matter. The record of Mediterranean slavery is, indeed, as black as the most tendentious portrayals of American slavery. Prof. Davis, who teaches Italian social history at Ohio State University, casts a piercing light into this fascinating but neglected corner of history.

A Wholesale Business

The Barbary Coast, which extends from Morocco through modern Libya, was home to a thriving man-catching industry from about 1500 to 1800. The great slaving capitals were Salé in Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli, and for most of this period European navies were too weak to put up more than token resistance. (where was christianity??!!turning the other cheek? praying for their enemy? colluding with muslims and jews?)"

To a Sane White World,

KB

[Alex Linder]

Political Prisoner Terry Tremaine Won’t Spend Christmas in Prison

REGINA. November 26, 2012. Political prisoner Terry Tremaine will not be spending this Christmas in prison and his tormenter for the past seven years, Richard Warman, will not be getting a fat roll of cash in his Christmas stocking, as per a court ordered judgement, to cover his expenses, in this matter, for seeking serious punishment for Mr. Tremaine.

In a telephone conference today with Mr. Tremaine’s lawyer Douglas Christie, Federal Court of Appeals Judge Denis Pelletier granted Mr. Christie’s motion for a stay of sentence and for an appeal against the sentence. Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer Daniel Poulin had been seeking a writ of committal to immediately send Mr. Tremaine to prison.

In a November 7 sentencing decision Federal Court Judge Sean Harrington ordered Mr. Tremaine to prison for a month beginning 15 days after service of his decision. He ordered a further six months in prison should Mr. Tremaine not remove a large number of postings from his website that displeased chronic complainant Warman. Further, this penniless man, who lost his employment as a university lecturer due to a complaint by Mr. Warman, was ordered to pay the Commission’s costs and Mr. Warman’s disbursements for the sentencing hearing.

Mr.Tremaine, when interviewed by CAFÉ, was elated that Judge Pelletier ruled the appeal will be de novo. That is, issues not raised at the original contempt of court case or at the appeal can be raised as well as issues not dealt with specifically at either hearing. Among many key issues outstanding is the nature of communication. When Mr. Tremaine posted on his own website in the U.S., which enjoys the 1stAmendment that guarantees free speech, was this not private storage of data? Only when someone, say a person like Richard Warman looking to be offended, scoured the Internet, made many choices, came to Mr. Tremaine’s website and selected something that offended him and then brought it back to Canada, did communication occur.

[Alex Linder]

[as discussed on debate #2 at Radio Free Mississippi]

Catalonia

Wikipedia (Links)

Catalonia

Balearic Islands

Wikipedia (Links)

Balearic_Islands

[Alex Linder]

Inconvenient History Winter 2012, Vol. 4, No. 4


On June 28, 1914, a member of the Serbian terror group, the Black Hand shot and killed Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in the streets of Sarajevo beginning a period of 30 years of war throughout Europe.

Kaiser Wilhelm II(left) and Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria(right) in a car, 1912. The military airship "Parseval" is on the left, and the Zeppelin on the right. Bundesarchiv, Bild 136-B0435 / Tellgmann, Oscar / CC-BY-SA [Public domain or CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons.

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/a...er_4/index.php

[Alex Linder]

[from Paul Fromm]

Anti-terrorism experts say lone white supremacists are the biggest threat in Canada
Canada's foremost free speech attorney Douglas H. Christie has, for more than 20 years, identified the pattern used by Canada's repressive establishment:L "Demonize, isolate, criminalize." Usually with the compliance and connivance of a leftist, impressionable and profoundly ignorant press, the police or groups bent on railroading a freethinker starts the name calling --"white supremacist", "racist", "anti-Semite", "extremist." People seldom examine the substance of the name calling, Just what is a White supremacist? Those of us who oppose the Third World invasion don't seek to impose White or European values on China or Haiti or India. We simply don't want to be overwhelmed.

However, the demonization and name calling are effective,especially as the mantra tends to be repeated. As the media defamation heats up, real friends tend to withdraw, potential friends and supporters hold back. After all, do they want the same treatment - the name calling, the defamation? Now, the victim is demonized and isolated. The final step is the laying of criminal charges or the suggestion that the dissident is somehow a criminal.

"When Const. Curtis Rind pulled over a man without a valid driver’s licence during a routine traffic stop, he didn’t expect the man to start arguing that it was his god-given right to use the road. But the man was part of an emerging group of domestic terrorists that police have been notified to be on the look out for because of their anti-government beliefs.They’re called “freeman” or “sovereign citizens,” and basically believe the law doesn’t apply to them, and they shouldn’t have to pay taxes, Rind said. Rind, an officer in southwest division, first learned about freeman citizens a few years ago through notices and information bulletins circulating throughout the police service. In the last six months, Rind said freeman citizens have increased their presence in the city and now seem to be all over the place." (Edmonton Sun, November 7, 2012)

This Const. Rind is a dangerous ignoramus. He was outraged that some mere citizen, who pays his exorbitant salary, actually believes he has "rights" and that driving isn't some state-given "privilege." They may be dissenters, they may be oddballs, but they are not terrorists, if "terrorist" means using extreme violence to further their political goals.
Ever since 9/11, many police and even rent-a-cops and airport security types have begun acting like Rambos on steroids, snarling, throwing their weight around and seeking to intimidate any mere citizen who doesn't act like a submissive sheep/

It gets worse. The Sun report continued: "Anti-terrorism expert John Bain said police should be keeping a close eye on. Speaking at an anti-terrorism workshop Wednesday, Bain explained the different types of terrorists that range from “freedom fighters” such as Osama bin Laden and eco-terrorists such as Wiebo Ludwig, to religious and other extremist groups like white supremacists.At this time, it’s the white supremacist groups that Bain believes poses the biggest threat to Canadian safety."

So "White supremacists" are the biggest danger to Canada's security. In the past 30 years, how many people have been killed by White Nationalists in Canada? To my knowledge, NONE.. "Terrorism" is almost entirely the result of poorly screened immigration. Sikh radicals blew up the Air India plane whose flight originated in Vancouver. Over 300 people died. They killed several Sikh "moderates" in their own community, including journalist Inderjit Singh Hayer. A radical Moslem immigrant Ahmed Ressam from Montreal was caught on his way to Los Angeles to blow up LAX in 2000. His name was Ressam. There are many radical Moslems in Canada. AN MP told me some years ago he knew that upper scale Moslems in a local mosque were cheering as the planes hit the World Trade Centre. But this "expert" informs the foolish and the impressionable that it is "White supremacists" and freemen who are the real terrorists!

Outrageous!

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION



By Pamela Roth ,Edmonton Sun

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

John Bain conducts an anti-terrorism seminar as part of a four-day Advanced Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design course offered to the public by the Edmonton Police Service at the Kingsway AMA branch in Edmonton, Alberta, on November 7, 2012.

IAN KUCERAK/EDMONTON SUN/QMI AGENCY

When Const. Curtis Rind pulled over a man without a valid driver’s licence during a routine traffic stop, he didn’t expect the man to start arguing that it was his god-given right to use the road.

But the man was part of an emerging group of domestic terrorists that police have been notified to be on the look out for because of their anti-government beliefs.

They’re called “freeman” or “sovereign citizens,” and basically believe the law doesn’t apply to them, and they shouldn’t have to pay taxes, Rind said.

Rind, an officer in southwest division, first learned about freeman citizens a few years ago through notices and information bulletins circulating throughout the police service. In the last six months, Rind said freeman citizens have increased their presence in the city and now seem to be all over the place.

“When you engage with these individuals in conversation, they quickly make it known who they are and what they’re about. They try to explain that we’re breaching their rights,” said Rind, noting some of them have scripted notes they’ve practiced and explain to officers that they’re impeding their freedom to move freely throughout the country. Some even spout common law from the 1800s.

“It can be a little off-putting as a police officer because almost 98% of the people we deal with understand why they’ve been stopped and are usually apologetic and easy to deal with. These guys go 180 degrees in the opposite direction.”

It’s extremists such as this that international anti-terrorism expert John Bain said police should be keeping a close eye on.

Speaking at an anti-terrorism workshop Wednesday, Bain explained the different types of terrorists that range from “freedom fighters” such as Osama bin Laden and eco-terrorists such as Wiebo Ludwig, to religious and other extremist groups like white supremacists.

At this time, it’s the white supremacist groups that Bain believes poses the biggest threat to Canadian safety.

“You have Islamic extremists and religious extremists — you have a whole mixture in this country, but I think one of the things that has not come on the top yet are white supremacists. They are dangerous to society and they always will be,” said Bain, noting people that are “lone wolves” are more dangerous than an extremist group.

“You can follow an extremist group. You can’t follow a lone wolf because you never know what they are going to do. They are acting individually on their own ideology.”

Canada has been no stranger to domestic and international terrorist attacks that have hit close to home.

In January 1965, a left-wing radical group bombed three American war planes being retrofitted at an Edmonton airport. Security guard Threnton James Richardson was bound, gagged and shot with a rifle when the perpetrator entered the airport. Two F-84 jets were destroyed and a third was heavily damaged by the bombing. An unemployed German immigrant, Harry Waldeman Freidrich, was arrested by police and charged with Richardson’s murder.

Between October 2008 and July 2009, six natural gas pipelines owned by Encana were bombed near Dawson Creek, B.C. after letters were sent to local newspapers opposing the gas industry.

And during the 1960s and ’70s, groups opposing the Cuban government began targeting Cuban property in Montreal and Ottawa with bombs and a bazooka.

Bain said Canada is vulnerable to terrorism for a number of reasons.

Open sources on the Internet show there are lots of people living in Canada with ties to terrorist organizations, said Bain, but they aren’t the ones carrying out the bombings. Instead, they are the computer scientists, engineers and doctors that are doing all the leg work and planning for the attacks.

The four-day workshop, entitled Advanced Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), is offered to the public by the Edmonton Police Service.

[email protected]

[Alex Linder]

It's time for this crap to be removed. Your Clan guy is over the top and ignorant. I'm a southerner born and raised and a hunter on all levels. "Haters" need to go elsewhere and stop soiling what decent people choose to watch. I happen to know some people that are close to this family and they're very decent and good people. We should be proud this show/family-have brought God and Christ back into family focus. No time for losers with too much time their hands.

I believe he's referring to Clan Boo Boo. Oh, a hunter on all levels, are you? Have you taken down the mighty albino polar bear? Unless there's one's head on your cabin wall, you've no claim to the title.

[Alex Linder]

[from Paul Fromm]

A Brief Analysis of Criminal Code 319(2)(3)

RYLEY, Alberta, Canada, November 15, 2012, by Reni Sentana-Ries

All of the comments on Canada’s hate law 319(2) are my personal opinions on this sordid matter and should not be taken as legal advice.

And now for the bomb shell on this stinking issue: REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAJORITY JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA HAVE DECREED FROM THEIR HIGH AND EXALTED POSITIONS AS GODS OF SUPPOSED JUSTICE, CRIMINAL CODE 319(2) IS NOT ONLY CONTRAVENING THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IN ITSELF IS A CONTRADICTORY GARBLED PIECE OF WRIT DEVOID OF LOGIC, WORSE THAN WHAT GRADE 4 STUDENTS CAN COME UP WITH! And here is why:

Subsection (2) says: Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group is guilty of...

BUT...

Subsection (3a) says: No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

Do you notice the departure from fundamental British Common Law built on the presumption of innocence, where the burden of proof must rest with the prosecution? Why then do we find a sudden reversal of that principle by the writers of this particular law, where it is now the task of the defendant to prove that he or she is innocent?

The Supreme Court should have long ago discovered this irregularity in the law and struck it down for that reason alone. But alas, it was imposed on the people for a political purpose, and that purpose is to effectively conceal information of subversive nature which some individuals or groups have involved themselves in, and the bearers of such news they believe should be silenced. Controlled official news outlets will never tell you that, for if they did, their managers and reporters would all be instantly fired for telling the truth.

If the “burden of proof” were on the prosecution to prove that the “communicated statements” are lies, then they simply could not do so on truthful information, and instantly lose their case.

And so we find that Canada’s justice system has abandoned the Common Law principle and reversed it to make it impossible for the accused to prove his of her statements truthful. Even if it were possible, the judge could simply say: “I don’t believe you.” Then what? The case is lost for the defendant and the guillotine of a conviction is coming down.

NEXT...

A conviction under this law is forbidden where the statements cover a religious subject.

3(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

I am in agreement with this statement.

NEXT...

Qualifier (c) has in all convictions of people under this law been ignored by judges as well as jurors. No one may be convicted if...

3(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or...

All persons ever charged under Criminal Code 319(2) have in all cases believed their public statements to be true. Defenders of free speech do not go public with information they know not to be true. They are also not interested in publishing slander which falls into a different category of law, where the issue of “hate” is not a central focus of the case. It is therefore my opinion that IT IS THEORETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER THIS SECTION OF CANADA’S LAW, UNLESS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OCCURS WHERE SUBSECTION 3(c) IS BEING IGNORED BY JUDGES, OR JURORS, OR BOTH!

AND A LAW WHERE IN THEORY NO CONVICTION IS EVER POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, IS THEREFORE IN ITSELF ULTRA VIRES, NULL AND VOID, AND THEREFORE ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Clause 3(c) of Criminal Code 319 makes every conviction a blatant miscarriage of justice.

Friends, we can read. This section needs no lawyer or judge to explain to us what it means. We can see it for ourselves: NO HONEST JUDGE CAN CONVICT THE ACCUSED OF “WILFULLY PROMOTING HATRED” ON STATEMENTS THE ACCUSED BELIEVED TO BE TRUE! AND NO JUDGE HAS EVER ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHETHER HE OR SHE BELIEVED IN HIS OR HER OWN STATEMENTS, FOR IF HE EVER DID, THE JUDGE, UPON HEARING THE REPLY IN THE POSITIVE, WOULD BE COMPELLED TO RULE THE ACCUSED ACQUITTED!

But is such simple procedure actually happening? No, because all cases in this phoney arena are politically driven and decided upon - not of what is true or untrue - but on what is politically correct and what is not. CC 319(2) destroys lives, is unconstitutional, contentious, ultra vires in its internal contradiction, used as witch hunt tool to silence speakers of truth, and was designed primarily for sheltering people involved in underhanded activity to spare them public exposure.

Anyone ever accused of breaking this law raises issues in... “statements (which) were relevant to any subject of public interest, (and) the discussion of which was for the public benefit,” believed them to be true; then where is the offence? It simply does not exist, and any conviction is a miscarriage of justice - even under the law the way it stands now!

How can a law be valid when a conviction is impossible to achieve the way it was written in the first place? Only where judges and jurors are dishonest can the accused be convicted, a situation which then by its own gravity slides into a miscarriage of justice for every case.

Besides all that - what is hate? Hate is a human emotion belonging to everyone for everyone is capable of it. If "hate" may no longer become expressed in speech or in words, then how in heavens name can we even begin to fix the problems this world is in today? The battle connnected to "hate" is a battle between good and evil; and we permit no one to prevent us from participating in it with words - whether spoken or written - to assure ourselves that good will always remain victorious over evil.

Unless the attitude among politicians, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and jurors change, and all involved in the “administration of justice” recognise the flaws in this legislation, I personally hold no hope of a successful conclusion for the gentleman currently being harassed in British Columbia by the same perverse law of C.C. 319(2) as my trust in the integrity of judges has been destroyed a long time ago.

[Alex Linder]

[Paul Fromm]

Terry Tremaine: Canada's Least Wanted Political Prisoner

REGINA. Canada's latest political prisoner, former university lecturer and Internet blogger Terry Tremaine presented himself both to the Regina Police and the courts to turn himself in pursuant to a November 7 sentence handed down by Federal Judge Sean Harrington.

Mr. Tremaine was to begin a one month sentence, 15 days after being served notice of his sentence. On his lawyer Doug Christie's instructions, Mr. Tremaine tried to surrender himself to begin his sentence today.

So, despite the vitriol poured on him by Judge Harrington, Mr. Tremaine is the ultimate law-abiding citizen, except that he believes in freedom of speech. He turned himself in but none of the servants of the Beast knew anything about him or wanted him!

At the police station, Mr. Tremaine recounts, "the officer on the desk checked his data base and the RCMP data base for warrants. There were none." The officer suggested that the warrant would not be issued until tomorrow and it might take a week or more to execute.

Mr. Tremaine was not unhappy about another night of freedom.

"Then I went to the provincial court and talked to the desk clerk and sheriff deputies. They too searched for a warrant with my name on it," he explains. Here things were grimmer. "Although I had turned myself in and they had no record of me," says soon-to-be political prisoner Terry Tremaine, "I was put in detention. The processing took longer than their search for a warrant." After about 20 minutes, Mr. Tremaine was released.

Tyrannies can often be comical in a bizarre way. Mr. Tremaine was given a receipt for his property while he was detained. "The date on the receipt," he reports, "is October 29, 2012 -- nine days before sentence was even passed!"

Pursuant to the judge's thought-gagging order, Mr. Tremaine has removed a number of postings from his website and written to STORMFRONT.ORG, where he posted as "mathdoktor99" and asked them to remove certain posts that upset Canada's thought police.

Mr. Tremaine expresses cautious optimism that he may not have to be in jail over Christmas. His lawyer Douglas Christie is filing notice of appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. "My lawyer will argue a bail application in Federal Court next Wednesday," Mr. Tremaine told CAFE tonight.

Mr. Tremaine is outraged at being sent to jail. The system is vindictive and treats a thought dissident far more harshly than a thug. "If you're convicted of drunk driving, you don't do time until after your third or fourth conviction," says the writer and webmaster who has never been convicted of any crime in Canada. He notes that, as in most totalitarian states, the thought criminals are treated worst of all.

Judge Harrington admitted the tyrannical anti-free speech bias of the Canadian judicial system when he warned Terry Tremaine in his sentence: "He must remember that freedom has its price."

[Alex Linder]

[Paul Fromm]

The Marc Lemire Internet Free Speech Case -- Part 2

Mediation in the Lemire Case: The Federal Court gets it all wrong

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/10/...ral-court.html

In the recent bizarre ruling of the Federal Court in the Marc Lemire case – where a Justice of the Federal Court upheld the completely discredited Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act – The Justice also further claimed that the Tribunal’s clear and decisive ruling was incorrect with respect to mediation. Since the ruling, Richard Warman has taken to one of the websites he posts on to claim he was ‘extremely pleased’ with the courts finding that “repeated efforts were made by the Commission and Richard Warman to engage Marc Lemire in mediation or negotiation but these were always refused by Lemire because he would not accept a cease and desist order as part of any settlement. (para 60)”

Senior adjudicator Athanasios Hadjis of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal looked at the mediation quite extensively in the Lemire case, and found that: “Mr. Lemire repeatedly asked formally through his legal counsel for an opportunity to mediate or conciliate a settlement to the complaint, to no avail…” [para 284] and further that “As I have pointed out several times in this decision, Mr. Lemire had not only “amended” his conduct by removing the impugned material, but sought conciliation and mediation as soon as he learned of the complaint against him. The process understood by the Supreme Court was not what Mr. Lemire experienced.” [para 289]

The Federal Court said that: “In this instance, the Member accepted Mr. Lemire’s contention that the complainant and the Commission declined to mediate or conciliate a settlement to the complaint. This is not borne out by the record of the Tribunal proceedings. Repeated efforts were made to engage Mr. Lemire in mediating or negotiating a settlement of the complaint. However, they were conditional on Lemire’s acceptance of a cease and desist order, which he refused to accept.” [para 60]

But who is correct, the Federal Court who reviewed the matter [in a ONE DAY hearing], or the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal who reviewed the Lemire case for close to four years, across close to 30 days of evidence and hearings?

Here is just one of the many documents I have on the mediation issue. I have plenty more, but these documents really underline how the entire process worked against me. It was a punitive process which in itself was the real punishment of the entire hearing.

On September 20, 2005, when the Marc Lemire case was referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a hearing, one of the very first letters the Tribunal sent was to request mediation of the case. The Tribunal stated: “Before planning the actual inquiry, the Tribunal is offering mediation, on consent of all parties, in an attempt to achieve a settle of this matter. If the parties are of the view that mediation would be of assistance, the Tribunal Chairperson will designate a member of the Canadian human Rights Tribunal to meet with the parties to help in negotiations to resolve the complaints. As Counsel for the respondent [Marc Lemire] in these proceedings, our Mediation Procedures are enclosed for your review, to assist you in making this decision.”

A mere three days later, Marc Lemire’s lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka – immediately responded by saying “Mr. Lemire agrees to mediation in the above-noted complaints by Mr. Warman in English. I propose that the mediation take place in the cities of Bellville, Kingston and Toronto, listed in order of preference.”

Unlike the questionable ruling by the Federal Court, or any other claims, there was NO “precondition” of anything. Marc Lemire agreed to mediation before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, immediately and unreserved. The quote above is the entire letter from Marc Lemire’s courageous lawyer, Barbara Kulaszaka. There was no precondition, or any refusal to accept a “cease and desist” order.

And who turned down the mediation before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?

On September 30, 2005, Gregory Smith, Registrar of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal sent us a letter, wherein he stated: “In response to our letter dated September 20, 2005, inquiring whether the parties were interested in having the above-noted case mediation, I am now writing to confirm that mediation has been declined by the Complainant [Richard Warman]. Therefore, this case will now proceed to hearing.”

Here is the entire letter, in case you think I might have left something out. Just click on each image to enlarge it:

The Federal Court was totally wrong. I did not put preconditions on the mediation, and for those that wish to praise the Federal Court for this incorrect ruling, should really review the documents posted in this email, and think again about who turned down mediation from day one.

Can you say … “Maximum Disruption”?

-Marc Lemire

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://www.StopSection13.com

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

Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and rid Canada of this disgusting though control legislation? My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's racket. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such fanatical censors. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit when we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case.

You can contact me here:

Marc Lemire
762 Upper James St
Suite 384
Hamilton, Ontario
L9C 3A2

Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.freedomsite.org | http://www.StopSection13.com
Twitter: @marc_lemire

[Alex Linder]

Subject: Southron Make Believe vs. Reality
To: Alex Linder <[email protected]>

Interesting stuff written by a guy who not only wanted to abolish slavery but to send them home, too, from his book published in 1860.

The reviews I found before finding the full text tended to preface his work by qualifying his character as "racist", etc., so I knew he couldn't be too bad, and kept looking.

From what I have so far gathered, he basically ascribes the failure of the South to the deleterious effects of slavery on the foundation of southern economy overall, of a precious few 'oligarchs' profitting from slavery at the expense of rest of the (white) population, while the Northern capitalists (say what you will about child labor and such) grew leaps and bounds, rendering the South dependent, at least for those in any position to be able to acquire anything of value or necessity in the first place.

A few excerpts, starting with what I see as a proper attitude to carry when surmounting a daunting task such as that facing WN today.

"Our repugnance to the institution of slavery, springs from no one-sided idea, or sickly sentimentality. We have not been hasty in making up our mind on the subject; we have jumped at no conclusions; we have acted with perfect calmness and deliberation; we have carefully considered, and examined the reasons for and against the institution, and have also taken into account the propable consequences of our decision. The more we investigate the matter, the deeper becomes the conviction that we are right; and with this to impel and sustain us, we pursue our labor with love, with hope, and with constantly renewing vigor.

That we shall encounter opposition we consider as certain; perhaps we may even be subjected to insult and violence. From the conceited and cruel oligarchy of the South, we could look for nothing less. But we shall shrink from no responsibility, and do nothing unbecoming a man; we know how to repel indignity, and if assaulted, shall not fail to make the blow recoil upon the aggressor's head. The road we have to travel may be a rough one, but no impediment shall cause us to falter in our course. The line of our duty is clearly defined, and it is our intention to follow it faithfully, or die in the attempt."

Impudent southron ignorance blind to the North's productivity:

"Agriculture, it is well known, is the sole boast of the South; and, strange to say, many pro-slavery Southerners, who, in our latitude, pass for intelligent men, are so puffed up with the idea of our importance in this respect, that they speak of the North as a sterile region, unfit for cultivation, and quite dependent on the South for the necessaries of life! Such rampant ignorance ought to be knocked in the head! We can prove that the North produces greater quantities of bread-stuffs than the South! Figures shall show the facts. Properly, the South has nothing left to boast of; the North has surpassed her in everything, and is going farther and farther ahead of her every day."

Non-slaveholders kept ignorant, told happy stories, factual reality kept from them:

"Non-slaveholders are not only kept in ignorance of what is transpiring at the North, but they are continually misinformed of what is going on even in the South. Never were the poorer classes of a people, and those classes so largely in the majority, and all inhabiting the same country, so basely duped, so adroitly swindled, or so damnably outraged.

It is expected that the stupid and sequacious masses, the white victims of slavery, will believe, and, as a general thing, they do believe, whatever the slaveholders tell them; and thus it is that they are cajoled into the notion that they are the freest, happiest and most intelligent people in the world..."

Sounds familiar, no?!

OH, just one more, and quite illuminating, a quote from a C.C. Clay:

""I can show you, with sorrow, in the older portions of Alabama, and in my native county of Madison, the sad memorials of the artless and exhausting culture of cotton. Our small planters, after taking the cream off their lands, unable to restore them by rest, manures, or otherwise, are going further West and South, in search of other virgin lands, which they may and will despoil and impoverish in like manner. Our wealtheir planters, with greater means and no more skill, are buying out their poorer neighbors, extending their plantations, and adding to their slave force. The wealthy few, who are able to live on smaller profits, and to give their blasted fields some rest, are thus pushing off the many who are merely independent. Of the $20,000,000 annually realized from the sales of the cotton crop of Alabama, nearly all not expended in supporting the producers, is re-invested in land and negroes. Thus the white population has decreased and the slave increased almost pari passu in several counties of our State. In 1825, Madison county cast about 3,000 votes; now, she cannot cast exceeding 2,300. In traversing that county, one will discover numerous farm-houses, once the abode of industrious and intelligent freemen, now occupied by slaves, or tenantless, deserted and dilapidated; he will observe fields, once fertile, now unfenced, abandoned, and covered with those evil harbingers, fox-tail and broomsedge; he will see the moss growing on the mouldering walls of once thrifty villages, and will find 'one only master grasps the whole domain,' that once furnished happy homes for a dozen white families. Indeed, a country in its infancy, where fifty years ago scarce a forest tree had been felled by the axe of the pioneer, is already exhibiting the painful signs of senility and decay, apparent in Virginia and the Carolinas."

The South - fucked up then as now. All belief in happy stories aside.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/helper/helper.html

KB

[Alex Linder]

Rounder got it mostly right, except he got it all wrong.

"Yankees voted nigger - Southerners voted white" should read "Mostly urban liberal voters voting in jew democracy voted for nigger - mostly rural kwanservative voters voting in jew democracy voted for white-skin sell-out".

Either way, no glory day.

KB

[Alex Linder]

Re: the election

Hey, not sure if you heard, but... northerners are yankees who vote for liberals. I know, I know, it's a mind-bender, so I can only tell you how a sharp southerner can tell. You ready?

Get this - you can tell that northerners are yankees who vote for liberals because... Massachusetts, a northern state, full of nothing but yankees (I'm presuming jews and niggers are yankees too?), "voted for Obama". Obama won in all Massachusetts counties, therefore the north is liberal, dumb and oppressing the south!

And here I thought all along that even in the urban areas, some people not only vote for the right-wing whore for the jews presented to them as a front-runner by the jews, but some may even (gasp) abstain from playing silly fucking voting games. I even thought that rural folk tended to be staunchly republican in the north, like the south is apparently republican and white-skin voting to the core.

Man, was I ever wrong about jewish democracy! It is the real and true arbiter of a man's loyalty to his kind, and the bottom line as far as
regional differences are concerned!

It's so good to know that I can assert my racial loyalty by voting in a jewish democracy for the white-skinned anti-White whore for the jews.

To think I considered it a false choice as well as a trap of sorts all this while..

KB

[Alex Linder]

Amazing!! Surely the photographer (Larassa Kabel) must be a Jew? Totally captures thumbing the black nose at the white house. I just discovered Sarah Palin objected to the 2011 "Holiday Card" on grounds that it was not Christmasy. I note that this card, even less Christmasy, is called a "Christmas" card.

GL

Story Behind 2012 White House Holiday Card



Larassa Kabel never expected to be chosen when she submitted her painting to be considered for the White House holiday card this September.

The Des Moines, Iowa, artist said “it was a very surreal moment,” when she got the call from the White House secretary’s office while cooking pizza for her family one night, hearing that first lady Michelle Obama had chosen her piece.

The White House released the 2012 Christmas card, painted by Kabel, this morning.

“I had very, very, very low expectations about it in the first place,” Kabel told ABC News. She said her husband kept asking her afterwards, “Did I dream that you’re going to do this?” “No, I had the same dream,” she would reply. “I’m pretty sure this is true.”

It has been a big year for the two-time Obama supporter. Kabel’s husband’s band opened for Bruce Springsteen at President Obama’s rally in Des Moines, his last rally before election night. At that point, the couple knew her painting had been selected, but had to keep that secret.

The black-and-white illustration features the Obama family Portuguese water dog. It shows a jaunty Bo, knee-deep in snow in front of a blurred White House.

Kabel’s own canine companion, Beans – a Boston Terrier/Pug mix – follows her to the studio each day and sits by her side while she earns her livelihood painting, drawing and printing. “It’s not like we’re sitting here chatting or anything,” Kabel said. “But when I don’t bring him to the studio I constantly am peeking over my shoulder to look where he would normally be. When he’s not there I feel his absence.”

The dog in the portrait is sporting a scarf, something Kabel says was an addition she made to the photo the White House sent out for her as part of the competition.
“They asked us to do an interpretation of the photo, and I did need to change a couple of things,” Kabel said. “Black animals are difficult to represent and have them read as three-dimensional.”

To make the snow look realistic, Kabel used a tool most people have inside their bathrooms: a toothbrush. “It splatters so it looks like snow,” Kabel said.

The White House won’t be paying Kabel for her portrait of Bo (“I’m living on glory,” she said when asked about compensation), but she and her husband will attend the White House holiday party on Dec. 18.

She sees meeting the president and Mrs. Obama as a highlight of the trip, but she is also excited to do something many White House guests are familiar with: celebrity watch.
“I’ve never seen anyone famous, so I’m like, who will be at the party?” Kabel said. “I’m looking for anybody.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-holiday-card/

[Alex Linder]

Rabid Racist Columnist Must Go!

by Rev. Austin Miles

WALNUT CREEK, California 11/12/12) Leonard PittsJr., the extremely angry black man who constantly fumes about angry white men, headlined his column today: "Party of Angry White Men Has Lots of Damage to Fix." **

His column, not including the headline, uses the term 'white men" 5 times in his maniacal ravings...two times in one sentence and in the closing paragraph of his diatribe. Five times in one story!

By constant race references, Pitts is deliberately dividing people instead of efforts to bring people together which is where real strength begins and develops.


Leanord Pitts Jr.

Pitts, who displays his prejudicial perception of "racist white men" goes on to stomp the GOPs "unrelenting and deeply personal disrespect toward the nation's first African-American president," and on and on and on, including the accusation of "white male extremism." How's that again?

Obama is disrespected over his failed policies, appeasing and embolden our enemies, displaying his hatred of America, bowing to foreign leaders including Islamic Rulers, wrecking the economy and declaring war on God and the church with overall lack of competence. Those are the reasons, not his race.

First of all, it was the white people who voted Obama into office. It was the WHITE people who sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives to end slavery--and they were Republicans led by Republican President Abraham Lincoln. Does Mr. Pitts also include President Lincoln as an "angry white man extremist who hates blacks?"

His tirades include outrageous statements like this: "For years, the party has won elections by inventing enemies for angry white men to fear. But at this point, the GOP has no bigger enemy than itself." Why was race identification needed? It wasn't.

With the world so tense today, the last thing we need is a syndicated columnist who agitates races to distrust and be suspicious of each other, to turn on each other and keep everyone in turmoil. Indeed, that should be outlawed the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater since this creates the very hatred Pitts complains about. This rabble-rouser should not be on the scene.

For the good of America, newspapers must cancel his columns. Perhaps letters to the editor (including a copy of this story) will help. Leonard Pitts Jr. is a racist of the worst kind. He must go.

** Pitts Opt-Ed is entitled "GOP's biggest problem is itself" on ContraCostaTimes.com When the original story broke with the offensive content and headline, a national furor erupted. The papers immediately changed the headlilne even though the story remained the same.

http://blogs.christianpost.com/the-c...must-go-13053/

[zoomcopter]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

His column, not including the headline, uses the term 'white men" 5 times in his maniacal ravings...two times in one sentence and in the closing paragraph of his diatribe. Five times in one story!

I'm surprised he didn't use the term "pustular netherworld" he coined awhile back.

[Tintin]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Rabid Racist Columnist Must Go!

by Rev. Austin Miles

WALNUT CREEK, California 11/12/12) Leonard PittsJr., the extremely angry black man who constantly fumes about angry white men, headlined his column today: "Party of Angry White Men Has Lots of Damage to Fix." **

Leonard 'the nigger' Pitts

Leonard_Pitts

For those that don't know, the nigger 'journalist' Pitts, is the nigger that wrote an article with regards to the the kid napping and multi-day rape, sodomy, torture, murder and dismemberment of Channon Christian & Chris Newsom Memorial in which he wrote: "I have four words for them and any other white Americans who feel themselves similarly victimized. Cry me a river." Wonder if the nigger had a different perspective in the Trayvon Martin incident?

Many people believe that the nigger mass murder of White people, Colin Ferguson, was just a crazy nigger, a unique case. But just read the things the nigger Pitts writes and what the nigger Ferguson said. Do you really think there is any different between these two niggers in their hatred for White? If affirmative action ended to tomorrow certainly the mediocre 'journalist' Pitts would be out of a job by the end of the day and on his way to buy a gun to kill Whites just like Ferguson.

[Alex Linder]

What do you call someone who constructs a facade of credibility in the interest of passing bad advice (like confining efforts to working within the system that is hostile to us), not to mention defaming individuals who have proven influential and effective in exposing enemy, anti-White activity?

I call that a "Hadding" or a "Giles".

What do you call someone who skips the facade of credibility charade, and focuses on the latter?

I call that a "Pauly".

If they're not being paid by the enemy they should be.

KB

[Hadding]

What do you call someone who constructs a facade of credibility in the interest of passing bad advice (like confining efforts to working within the system that is hostile to us), not to mention defaming individuals who have proven influential and effective in exposing enemy, anti-White activity?

I call that a "Hadding" or a "Giles".

What do you call someone who skips the facade of credibility charade, and focuses on the latter?

I call that a "Pauly".

If they're not being paid by the enemy they should be.

KB

Realistically, probably all of us who are not recklessly self-destructive are "working within the system," if that means engaging in lawful activities such as the greatly underutilized freedom of speech. My primary models in that regard are Ernst Zündel and William Pierce.

Someone may point out that Dr. Pierce wrote a novel about a revolution, but the revolution in that novel took place only after basic freedoms had been destroyed. There is likely to be very little popular sympathy for such unlawful activity so long as the traditionally lawful forms of advocacy are still open. We still have freedom of speech. If we can't accomplish anything with that then going illegal gratuitously is unlikely to produce better results.

It seems to me that the advocates of unlawful activity generally want somebody else to do it. The fans of such advocates are mostly just indulging an escapist fantasy of violence, not seriously intending anything, although they may derive some satisfaction from imagining the spectacular deeds that they might commit someday.

If we survey the history of unlawful activity on behalf of the White racial cause, the main result of it seems to have been to take highly motivated White racialists out of circulation, whether dead or in prison.

I am eager to read the exposition of my history of "defaming individuals who have proven influential and effective in exposing enemy, anti-White activity." That should be very revealing -- about the person who writes it.

By the way, if "KB" happens to be Kerry Bolton: I didn't attack you personally. All I did was pick on your lame conservative rhetoric. Beginning an essay by dumping on Hitler, and pretending that it's somehow surprising that Communist Jews chased out of Germany turned out to be "intolerant of views that do not accord with their central dogma," is hardly a vigorous exercise of free speech. Anybody who exhibits that much trepidation in merely writing an essay seems very unlikely to cross any momentous legal boundaries. So, whom do you think you could possibly be fooling by alluding to not "working within the system"?

[Alex Linder]

Alex,

(When the system is opposed to White survival, any organized efforts by Whites to regain self-determination will be treated as "illegal", no?

Anyways, here are my thoughts on HS's highly conflationary response.)

So, anybody who seeks constructive, non-violent means to further White interests by working outside the system is “realistically” and “probably” “recklessly self-destructive”?

Were the founding fathers “recklessly self-destructive” by working outside the system to formulate a working strategy to throw-off the jew-banker backed Crown? Were they “recklessly self-destructive” by creating a framework for a more representative form of government (now representative of the international jewish menace) to replace the one they were under?

Whether working “in the system” or outside the system, constructively, towards creating a foundation for furthering White interests, the system will interfere, up to and including approaching “legal” activity as “illegal”. Or, short of that, the system hostile to White survival will just frame, set-up, and yes, resort to violence. Ignoring this is reckless and destructive.

And as far as “expositions”, anybody can see which individuals, influential and effective in exposing enemy, anti-White activity, HS has been defaming (ditto Giles and Pauly). Naturally, HS would like to also defame those who see it clearly (as do Giles and Pauly).

What about a system vehemently opposed to White survival and self-determination does HS & co. not want people to grasp? Granted, the best we can do is work with what we have. But, should we confine those efforts to the system dead-set against us? Should we just ignore the recklessly destructive means the system is willing to go to in order to prevent an organized semblance of a pro-White movement even forming?

KB

Just look at Greece, where the government turns a blind eye toward anarchists routinely, violently attacking Golden Dawn. Hadding is naive about people and politics generally.