OK, let's talk about Marc Lemire

[Maikeru]

Speaking of Marc and Harry,

...is fraught with peril in Canada.
Brian_Esker is a made mad man.

[Gerry T. Neal]

Speaking of Marc and Harry, I found this little incident that happened about 6 years ago -

10-28-2003, 04:57 PM

"Hands off the Internet" Protest a Big Success in Victoria
On Sunday, October 26, a dozen supporters of the Canadian Association for
Free Expression confronted some of Canada's most outspoken censors andwould-be thought police outside a Victoria synagogue. The supporters of freedom on the Internet almost outnumber the audience of 20 who got to hear Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer Richard Warman and Canadian Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre director Leo Adler.


Part way through the protest Dale Kilshaw a prominent local citizen from
an old Victoria family tried to enter the meeting. Challenged by Alan
Dutton, he said he'd heard this was an anti-racist meeting and wished to
hear the views expressed. Harry Abrams, a beefy local operative for the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith said: "**** off Kilshaw, you
asshole. You're one of Doug Christie's ass lickers." Abrams kept salting
his harangue against Mr. Kilshaw with "****" and its derivatives. All this
was said in front of Mr. Kilshaw's lady friend and several other women.

<a href="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=696304&postcount=1"target="_blank"> Source: Marc Lemire, Stormfront</a>

Harry made reference to this incident himself here: http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/v ... c&start=30 (third post from the top, not including "Sponsor", second bold section, 4th paragraph).

His version was "We've had Fromm and his skinhead thugs picket our synagogue."

I pointed out to Harry, the discrepancy between his version and what actually took place here:

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/v ... 22fcf47785 (fifth post from top, not including "Sponsor", quote box and following).

[free_life2]

LOL! Hi, Harry!

He is hooked like a drug addict and jones'ing for a big catch with his bait and smack game. What a sad little man.

[Ogopogo]

The latest from ARC:

"Isn't Lemire's close relationship with Zundel one of the things that the FreeDom folks have denied? And yet Lemire admits his close relationship with Zundel and doesn't dispute Zundel's court testimonial."

[LAR]

The latest from ARC:

"Isn't Lemire's close relationship with Zundel one of the things that the FreeDom folks have denied? And yet Lemire admits his close relationship with Zundel and doesn't dispute Zundel's court testimonial."

Zundel was deported to serve 5 years in prison for having an unpopular opinion. And if that's not enough, they think everyone who knew him should suffer a similar punishment.

[Peter O'Donnell]

I find this line of reasoning to be insulting to the intelligence of anyone familiar with what "unpopular opinions" Zundel holds. If you don't know, visit his website, the Zundelsite. You'll find that he is essentially very nostalgic for the good old days of National Socialism.

I can understand why the government of Germany has (ever since the war ended) taken an aggressive stance against neo-Nazis. They represent a threat to personal liberty in Germany, and I frankly don't understand the sympathy that some of the conservative blogosphere has for this man or these views.

Frankly, I am becoming very disturbed by the gradual dissolving of barriers between these mainstream conservative opinion sites (like FD, SDA, Jay Currie) and the more extreme views of places like Stormfront, where everyone knows what is really going on (unless one wants to twist one's mind into pretzels and abandon all logical analysis, and pretend that racism and white supremacist movements are principled conservatism -- they are not, they are fascist, and what has brought this about is the long-standing blurring of boundaries between "fascist" and "communist" forms of totalitarian thought in our society over the past five years or so.

Fascism is a different animal than communism. It may present us with some of the same challenges to personal liberty, but in my view (often expressed here from day one, not something new as some try to portray it) we need to be anti-communist AND anti-fascist in equal measure. That is part of being a principled conservative too.

As far as I can see, just past some invisible barrier between the conservative mainstream and the far right, there is a sort of slippery slope that eventually leads into neo-Nazi terrain, and when you slide down there, you meet up with the likes of Ernst Zundel. I could be much more detailed and graphic in this analysis, and for reasons that may be fairly obvious, I will refrain.

But I am not going to be silenced about this any more than others are going to be silenced about their beliefs. At least I am calling it as I see it without any contrived and intellectually dishonest prevarications that allow for making common cause with holocaust deniers. Now, there again, a slippery slope exists. One person may dispute one item of history, or wish to present an alternative theory. Another may just flat out call the whole concept of the holocaust a "holo-hoax" and get into some sort of thinly disguised anti-Semitic rewriting of history.

Here's my final thought on this -- we didn't come all this way in the free speech movement to have it hijacked in the final stages by the extremists, and to have ourselves served up to the waiting plotters as Nazi sympathizers. At least, I sure didn't. And this is not a white flag of surrender, it is my freedom of ASSOCIATION -- another freedom we need to preserve.

If people don't like my saying this, boot me out of here, because I've had it with all this footsy under the table with extremists. We have our own reasons to fight for free speech -- open discussion of important public issues, not some so-called holohoax and all the bad things Jews have done in some hoary old book that belongs in a garbage dump somewhere.

As to people who believe these things in Canada, they don't pose the same threat to Canada as the neo-Nazis pose to Germany. So I would just ignore them and they can parade around with each other, waving their flags and scrapping with the equal and opposite losers of the left.

Could I soon be gone from Free Dominion? We'll see -- but I hope everyone who cares about these issues gets into this, and that you don't leave me out there debating this with a few closet soft-core whatever ... don't wish to oversell this either ... but let's keep it on the issues, I know anyone can photoshop a cat's face on my body, so what?

I got it the first time, and I know where it originated too.

[Gerry T. Neal]

John Sack, who died in 2004, was a journalist, of Jewish ancestry and faith, and typical moderate-liberal political views, who was published in Harper's, The New Yorker, Esquire, etc. In the early 90's, he wrote a book entitled An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945. Although this book was not a work of Holocaust revisionism (or "Holocaust Denial") it managed to get him invited to speak to a conference of the Institute For Historical Review (an organization that published a journal, The Journal of Historical Review, that specializes in articles that ask such questions as "Did Six Million really die?" and "Were there gas chambers for executing people at Auschwitz?" etc.) Sack, accepted the invitation, and went with some apprehension, and wrote up his experiences in an article that appeared in the February 2001 issue of Esquire. Stephen Jay Gould and Robert Atwan later selected it to appear in Best American Essays 2002. It is entitled "Daniel In the Deniar's Den" and you can read it here:

http://www.johnsack.com/daniel_in_the_deniers_den_1.htm

What were Sack's conclusions about the people he met there?

All in all, the deniers that day and that weekend seemed the most middling of Middle Americans. Or better: despite their take on the Holocaust, they were affable, open-minded, intelligent, intellectual. Their eyes weren’t fires of unapproachable certitude and their lips weren’t lemon twists of astringent hate. Nazis and neo-Nazis they were certainly not.

Nor were they antisemites. I’m sure many antisemites say the Holocaust didn’t happen (even as they take delight that it really did) but I met none that weekend.

Among the people he did meet, was Ernst Zündel.

In the United States, thank God, we have the First Amendment. But even in that shuttered ballroom in California, the sixth speaker couldn’t say all he wanted to, couldn’t, for example, say the Germans didn’t kill the Jews deliberately. A few hours earlier, he and I had debated this at a waffle breakfast, debated it in audible voices with no qualms of being arrested, indicted or imprisoned by Federal marshals. "But what about Eichmann?" I’d asked him. "He wrote that Hitler ordered the physical destruction of the Jews. He wrote about vergasungslager, gassing camps."

"John. The man was in Israeli captivity."

"Well, what about during the war? Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, said to exterminate all the Jews, without exception."

"He was only quoted as saying that, John."

"And what about Goebbels? He said a barbaric method was being employed against the Jews. And Himmler? He said the SS knew what a hundred, five hundred, one thousand corpses were like."

"John, I don’t know. They might have said it. But," the sixth speaker told me, "it isn’t true that genocide was a German national policy." A few hours later, the speaker didn’t dare repeat this up in the ballroom, for he’s a Canadian citizen and he was carried live on the Internet in Canada and, if he said what he’d said over waffles, he’d have been prosecuted in Canada. Already, he’d been tried twice, as well as hit, beaten, bombed, engulfed by a $400,000 fire, and told, "We’ll cut your testicles off."

The man’s name is Ernst Zündel, he’s round-faced and red-faced like in a Hals, he’s eternally jolly and he was born in Calmbach, Germany. If you saw the recent movie about the Holocaust deniers, Mr. Death, he’s the man in the hard hat who says, "We Germans will not go down in history as genocidal maniacs. We—will—not." He, like every denier, has been called antisemitic, but it’s more honest to say that the Jews who (along with God) oversee the Jewish community are in fact anti-Zündelic, anti-Countessic, anti-Irvingic and, in one word, anti-denieric. The normal constraints of time, temperance, truth do not obstruct some Jewish leaders from their non-stop vituperation of Holocaust deniers. "They’re morally ugly," "They’re morally sick," said Elie Wiesel on the Public Broadcasting Service. They bombard us with disinformation, said Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, on the op-ed page of The New York Times. "Holocaust deniers," said Foxman, spouting disinformation himself, "would have [us] believe there were no concentration camps." Myself, I disagree with the Jewish leaders. Most deniers, most attendees in their slacks and shorts at the palm-filled hotel, were like Zündel: were decent people who, as Germans, had chosen to comfort themselves with the wishful thinking that none of their countrymen in the 1940s were genocidal maniacs.

(underlining added for emphasis)

John Sack may very well have been the last liberal journalist to also be an honest, decent, man.

[Maikeru]

"Isn't Lemire's close relationship with Zundel one of the things that the FreeDom folks have denied? And yet Lemire admits his close relationship with Zundel and doesn't dispute Zundel's court testimonial."

Zundel was deported to serve 5 years in prison for having an unpopular opinion. And if that's not enough, they think everyone who knew him should suffer a similar punishment.

I find this line of reasoning to be insulting to the intelligence of anyone familiar with what "unpopular opinions" Zundel holds. ... ... he is essentially very nostalgic for the good old days of National Socialism.

Add in the 2 years Zundel was incarcerated in Canada while being stripped of Canadian citizenship and deported.
Peter, one would have to go to the Zundelsite to gain an understanding of his views, as they're not going to find them on FreeDominion.

Lar's observation that "they think everyone who knew him should suffer a similar punishment" is on the mark, and beyond that, anyone who doesn't obediently shun everyone who knew him is next on the list to be labelled 'a nazi'.

I can understand why the government of Germany has (ever since the war ended) taken an aggressive stance against neo-Nazis. They represent a threat to personal liberty in Germany, and I frankly don't understand the sympathy that some of the conservative blogosphere has for this man or these views.

I believe you're mistaking the threat to values conservatives hold dear - even-handed Justice - to sympathy for the devil there Peter.

Frankly, I am becoming very disturbed by the gradual dissolving of barriers between these mainstream conservative opinion sites (like FD, SDA, Jay Currie) and the more extreme views of places like Stormfront,...

Come on, be serious.
Anti-Racist Canada is the 'legitimate' go-to site for all the latest 'neo-nazi' gossip & fan mail, and that site sees FreeDominion as an 'arch enemy'.

The 'dissolving barriers' between mainstream conservative and more extremist views don't even exist for way too many Canadians inculcated with soft socialist ideology.

Fascism is a different animal than communism. It may present us with some of the same challenges to personal liberty, but in my view (often expressed here from day one, not something new as some try to portray it) we need to be anti-communist AND anti-fascist in equal measure. That is part of being a principled conservative too.

I believe that FreeDominion encourages one to present their own views, without reliance on seconding the views of others to lend gravity to the weight of their words.

As far as I can see, just past some invisible barrier between the conservative mainstream and the far right, there is a sort of slippery slope that eventually leads into neo-Nazi terrain, and when you slide down there, you meet up with the likes of Ernst Zundel.

Here I have to agree.
Back when Bnai Brith and the CJC were more conservative, who could have imagined they would one day become besotted with Ernst Zundel, and speed toboggan down the bunny slopes of totalitarian justice by decree.
Huge bureaucracies have been established in this land to ensure that folks 'think same' (to correctly paraphrase the Apple soundbite). How 'national socialist' is that ?
Hell, the most 'national socialist' part of Canada is Quebec, where the most extreme deGaullists actually see the rest of Canada as some vast Sudetenland - robbed from them on the Plains of Abraham.

Here's my final thought on this -- we didn't come all this way in the free speech movement to have it hijacked in the final stages by the extremists, and to have ourselves served up to the waiting plotters as Nazi sympathizers. At least, I sure didn't.

You are among the 'FD8', ze vell known 'extremist' element of FreeDominion.
Hell, even quoting you makes me a marked man.
I've posted many things that could be construed as 'sympathetic' to extremists by a blind blogger or Dawg, but not by the sighted or sane.

If people don't like my saying this, boot me out of here, because I've had it with all this footsy under the table with extremists. We have our own reasons to fight for free speech -- open discussion of important public issues, not some so-called holohoax and all the bad things Jews have done in some hoary old book that belongs in a garbage dump somewhere.

You know perfectly well that all and every aspect of Nazi Germany, when up for discussion on FreeDominion, is met with rational analysis - including the Shoah.

FreeDominion members have also had positive, free-ranging and in depth discussion of Israel, as well - historic and recent events have all been up for argument without rancour.

In conclusion, don't worry about being taken wrongly by others - you were and are and will be.
One only has to one's own self be true, to avoid being the pawn of others.

[LAR]

Peter, I really don't know if Zundel is an evil man or not because honestly I've never paid much attention to him. For the sake of this issue however his opinion is as important as yours or mine. And I don't think the government should be persecuting any of us for expressing those opinions.
It's the right to unpopular speech we have to protect. Popular speech doesn't need it.

[Gerry T. Neal]

Peter, for decades now "mainstream" conservatism in Canada and the United States have followed an unfortunate strategy of kowtowing to the Left on questions of race, ethnicity, etc. It is for this reason, that we have lost so many battles (even on non-race related issues). The Left says that if they call someone a "racist", a "Nazi", a "neo-Nazi", a "white supremacist" or a "Holocaust Denier", that we are allowed to defend their freedom of speech, only if we also loudly, frequently, and publicly distance ourselves from that person, and condemn their views and their speech as the utmost evil in the world today. "Mainstream" conservatives, allowed the Left to impose these rules on us, obeyed them, and for this very reason, only now, 3 decades after it began, are we starting to see a ray of light in this battle for our basic freedoms, such as freedom of thought or freedom of speech.

By allowing the Left to set such rules, we have unwittingly granted them the moral authority to label people as they see fit, regardless of whether the label accurately describes these people or not. Words and terms like "racist", "neo-Nazi" and "white supremacist" are not ordinary words and do not function in the way ordinary words function. Here is what I mean:

An ordinary word or term, like "house", "dog", "river", "apple strudel" exists, because real houses, dogs, rivers, and apple strudels exist, and we need terms to denote these things, so that we can communicate information about them to other people and be understood. When I say "house" that word brings up an association in your mind with a concept that is equivalent to the concept of mine, so that I may say of a specific house "That house is red", and you will understand what I intended to convey.

Words like "racist", "neo-Nazi" and "white supremacist" don't do this. There are people out there who hate people of other races, who revere the ideology and political system of Adolf Hitler and would love to see it brought back in our own day, and there are people who join violent organizations dedicated to achieving such goals. Words like "racist", "neo-Nazi" and "white supremacist" are not, however, primarily used to denote such people. Rather, they are used to create mental associations in people's minds, between those people, and whoever the person using the word "racist", "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist" happens to be labeling at any given moment.

Thus, one of the self-appointed anti-racist "watchdogs" labels someone a "racist" or a "neo-Nazi", and people hear this, and they place that person in the mental category in which they place violent skinheads, Klan lynchings, and the Holocaust, even if this person is a law abiding individual, who dresses and acts respectfully and moderately, has no history of violence, and holds views that are recognizably conservative and libertarian on most subjects. This creates an aversion to the latter people, that in the minds of most people, prevents them from seeking out what these people have to say for themselves, and coming to their own conclusions about these people.

Perhaps someone who publishes tracts like "Did Six Million Really Die?" does so because they wish to revive Nazism, establish racial hygiene laws and official Anti-Semitism. Or perhaps they do so because of the reasons John Sack suggested in that article I quoted from and linked to above:

Most deniers, most attendees in their slacks and shorts at the palm-filled hotel, were like Zündel: were decent people who, as Germans, had chosen to comfort themselves with the wishful thinking that none of their countrymen in the 1940s were genocidal maniacs.

Which, in fact, sounds like the most reasonable theory? A) That violent race-haters, in North America, initially modeled their movements after Nazi Germany, but realizing in the post WWII era that that would not fly, "smartened up", put on suits and ties, and disguised their agenda behind a mask of conservatism and libertarianism, and that if these people are not held in check by hate speech laws and the like, they will revive the Reich tomorrow, or B) that people of German ancestry, or with friends of German ancestry, might come up with something like Holocaust revisionism, as a mental defense against the endless German-bashing that has existed since WWII?

[Connie Fournier]

Peter, I really don't know if Zundel is an evil man or not because honestly I've never paid much attention to him. For the sake of this issue however his opinion is as important as yours or mine. And I don't think the government should be persecuting any of us for expressing those opinions.
It's the right to unpopular speech we have to protect. Popular speech doesn't need it.

It's OK, LAR. Peter obviously thinks that if he participates in the dehumanization process against individuals that the censors have destroyed, he might be able to keep them from coming after him for a bit longer.

Feel free to continue to appease the enemy, Peter, and call it "freedom of association" if it makes you feel better.

As for me, people know that I love Israel, and I have made tens of thousands of posts here and not one of them would be considered racist. I will not shut up about injustice to people I disagree with, and I will not refuse to shake the hand of a fellow human being because the ARA/ARC tells me I have to.

When Jesus walked this earth He didn't avoid the people that society had rejected (some, for very good reason), He actively sought them out and treated them with kindness. I'm sure the gossipmongers had a field day when he was hanging out with prositutes and tax collectors, but He cared more about His duty to care for humanbeings than He did about His reputation.

I'm sure you will understand when I say that I prefer to follow the example of Jesus than to do the dance for the ARA in hopes of proetecting myself. And, if you were wise, you would be fighting this dehumanization thing, too, because, as Maikeru said, you are already in their sights, too. If you think that they won't make a pariah out of you and encourage all of the "mainstream" people to dissassociate themselves from you if you burn the right people, you are WRONG.

And, if you EVER accuse me of "making common cause with Nazis", you will soon get a demonstration in "freedom of association", because I won't stand for people lying about me.

[Connie Fournier]

Peter, for decades now "mainstream" conservatism in Canada and the United States have followed an unfortunate strategy of kowtowing to the Left on questions of race, ethnicity, etc. It is for this reason, that we have lost so many battles (even on non-race related issues). The Left says that if they call someone a "racist", a "Nazi", a "neo-Nazi", a "white supremacist" or a "Holocaust Denier", that we are allowed to defend their freedom of speech, only if we also loudly, frequently, and publicly distance ourselves from that person, and condemn their views and their speech as the utmost evil in the world today. "Mainstream" conservatives, allowed the Left to impose these rules on us, obeyed them, and for this very reason, only now, 3 decades after it began, are we starting to see a ray of light in this battle for our basic freedoms, such as freedom of thought or freedom of speech.

Exactly! They also tell us that we must engage in shunning these people (most of whom have been unjustly labeled), isolating them and refusing to grant them the most basic human interaction, or we will be labeled as "sympathizers".

The ARA/ARC had an article after the Ouwendkyk hearing (most likely written by Warman) that focused on the fact that I shook Paul Fromm's hand.

Well, I would shake hands with a murderer or a robber...heck, I even shook hands with Dr. Dawg. The reason is because shaking hands is an acknowledgement of the other person's humanity and their value. I don't think that I am in the position to pass judgement on someone and mete out the punishment of treating them like a subhuman. For some reason, God looks past all of my flaws and considers me a valuable human. The only thing He asks in return is for me to love my neighbours. So, that is what I will do.

If people on our side want to let the other side set the rules, that's fine. But, you'd better be prepared to have those rules used against you if you don't fight them now. If you think that there is some magical line where they will stop and determine that enough people on our side have been destroyed by the fake "Nazi" smear, you haven't learned anything at all from history.

[Gerry T. Neal]

Exactly! They also tell us that we must engage in shunning these people (most of whom have been unjustly labeled), isolating them and refusing to grant them the most basic human interaction, or we will be labeled as "sympathizers".

One of the most disturbing things about the label "Nazi" is that it is used to transfer guilt, from the actual perpetrators of the crimes of the Third Reich, onto people who may not even have been born when those crimes were being committed. By calling so-and-so a "Nazi" or a "neo-Nazi", the person doing the labeling is associating so-and-so with the pogroms, the racial hygiene laws, the concentration camps, the gas chambers, etc. and are basically saying to the general public "treat this person, as if he were guilty of all these things".

That is a very serious matter. It is far more likely to cause real harm to people than the speculations of people like Zündel are to re-start Nazi-era anti-Semitic persecution.

The ARA/ARC had an article after the Ouwendkyk hearing (most likely written by Warman) that focused on the fact that I shook Paul Fromm's hand.

The guilt of the Holocaust appears to be something like cooties. First the actual Nazis had it. Then it was transferred by Left to people like Ernst Zündel and James Keegstra who, for whatever reason, refused to accept the account of the Holocaust most of us accept as historical. Then, it jumped to conservative advocates of individual liberty like Doug Christie and Paul Fromm, who put their reputations on the line to defend the individual rights and liberties of all Canadians by fighting back when the system went after Zündel and Keegstra. Now, the ARC believes that it has transferred to you, by handshake.

[Edward Kennedy]

Just in case the left and their assorted useful idiot fascists have any doubt about me, they can all kiss the bald ass of a fea ridden baboon. I will say what I want, I will associate with anyone they do not approve of, and I will not be deterred by their silly ass intolerant religion of dialetic secular humanism.

If you do not like it, then flock off.

[Edward Kennedy]

Ever wonder, with all the attention that so called supremist leaders and their people are getting from the left, why that is so? Does the left fear them? Is the left afraid these types will be their downfall?

Marc sure is kicking hrc ass, as well as the sorry carcasses of the useful idiots.