OK, let's talk about Marc Lemire

[Maikeru]

BTW have any of you had a look at ARC lately?
Just askin'

FreeDominion has a <a href=http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=119195>special place</a> for the kiddies at ARC, Harry.
Their comments don't really belong in serious adult discussions such as this thread, any more than campers should be privy to camp counsellor discussions.

[LAR]

Sound of crickets chirping.

I'm just waiting for confirmation of something before I reply.

Thank you.
BTW have any of you had a look at ARC lately?

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/

Just askin'

It's full of posts by you and Connie. They're probably doing one of those guily by association things.

[LAR]

Sound of crickets chirping.

I'm just waiting for confirmation of something before I reply.

Thank you.
BTW have any of you had a look at ARC lately?

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/

Just askin'

It's full of posts by you and Connie. They're probably doing one of those guily by association things.

D'oh! guilt by association, GUILT by association

[Gerry T. Neal]

Thank you.
BTW have any of you had a look at ARC lately?

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/

Just askin'

Thank you for drawing our attention to ARC's latest Harry.

Now, to answer it.

In his post entitled "An Examination of Marc Lemire: Part I". nos200 writes:

We won't use the term "Nazi" or even "racist" because the two words are loaded and tend to be used inappropriately. In general, we refer to people as being Nazis or neo-Nazis if they adhere to the tenents of National Socialism.

That would be admirable if that were indeed nos200's standard procedure. It is not. nos200's MO is to throw terms like "Nazi", "neo-Nazi", "fascist" and "racist" at people he doesn't like in a very liberal manner.

When nos200 says:

Be sure that to accuse someone of racism is a very serious charge and not one we take lightly. And, as we've said, it's a loaded term that tends to stifle discussion.

one just has to shake one's head in amazement. Stifling discussion is what ARC and nos200 are all about.

Since, topic of the discussion is what Mr. Lemire himself thinks and believes, I will skip ahead to where nos200 asks:

Well, how about the content of Mr. Lemire's posts? A short while after he posts a picture of a Lemire post on "white flight".

What is so bigoted about what Mr. Lemire wrote there? Is anything he said untrue? Mr. Lemire points out that liberals contradict with their lifestyle, the message they preach about racial diversity and tolerance. I can see how that would upset a liberal, but hat does not make Mr. Lemire a bigot.

Nor is his remark about the inappropriateness of referring to non-whites in areas where whites are a minority as "minorities' particulary bigoted. Has truth all of a sudden become bigoted?

Then we have Lemire telling someone where they can buy David Duke's books. So what? Someone asked where they could get the books and Lemire knew the answer and told them. Now nos200 may point out that answer is disingenous because Mr. Lemire's answer was that they could obtain the book through his own website. I have read David Duke's My Awakening. I obtained it from Chapters years ago (I don't think you can get it there now but you could then). I didn't agree with everything in Duke's book but it was hardly the hateful diatribe nos200 makes it out to be.

The next post by Lemire is about a national political party to represent "our beliefs". During the last federal election one of the candidates in my riding was Lyle Morrisseau representing the First Peoples National Party of Canada. Does nos200 object to the existence of such a party? Does he regard such a party as bigoted, racist, and a threat?

If the answer is "no" then he has no case against Mr. Lemire either.

The next excerpt from Stormfront has Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire talking about Zionism. Paul's post has two paragraphs, in which he criticizes the Harper government for allowing itself to be too influenced by Jewish lobby groups and in which he says that Canada needs to issue an ultimatum to Israel that they stop using our passports in black ops or we will break off diplomatic relations. Lemire's response is to point out that Ralph Nader is not a Zionist. Big deal. Paul's demand that we tell Israel to stop putting Canadian citizens lives in danger by using our passports in that manner or we will break off diplomatic relations, is hardly unreasonable, nor is Marc Lemire's response. nos200's friend Dr. Dawg has said a lot worse about Israel than this (no, I don't think Dr. Dawg, whose politics I despise, is a bigot either).

The post nos200 describes as "Assumptions that ethnic minorities are inherently corrupt, incompetent, and criminal". No such assumption is apparant. Marc Lemire is talking about non-whites that were given jobs on the police force because of their race, not about non-whites in general.

I might continue this analysis at a latter time. I think however, I have made my point.

[TomFoolery]

Sounds a lot like the way religious freaks pursue their "holier than thou act", when they should be introspecting about their own biases and propensity to paint other people as if they have no redeeming qualities.

[Gerry T. Neal]

Incidentally, in the interests of full disclosure, I will point out that an essay I wrote myself can be found on Stormfront. Not being a member of Stormfront, I didn't post it there myself. I occasionally write essays that are privately available to my friends, who have my permission to distribute them as they wish. This one, entitled "Our Traditonal Liberties and the State" was posted to Stormfront by Paul Fromm.

[Edward Kennedy]

Sound of crickets chirping.

I'm just waiting for confirmation of something before I reply.

Thank you.
BTW have any of you had a look at ARC lately?

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/

Just askin'

It does not matter who and what Marc Lemire is, what matters is that he is fighting the bigotry of the left. Being associated with the ara or the hrc would be much worse even then the most right wing organization in existence.

One wonders why ara and other moronic orgs do not focus on real problems in society like nambla. Yeah I know, groups that lobby for legalized sex with children are fine, but groups opposing the insanity and fascism of hrc's are mean and wicked, evil and nasty.

Typical.

[Edward Kennedy]

Incidentally, in the interests of full disclosure, I will point out that an essay I wrote myself can be found on Stormfront. Not being a member of Stormfront, I didn't post it there myself. I occasionally write essays that are privately available to my friends, who have my permission to distribute them as they wish. This one, entitled "Our Traditonal Liberties and the State" was posted to Stormfront by Paul Fromm.

You are just adding to the evidence that on right sites, there is much more truth than on lsites like ara and in hrc' s and even msm.

I would like to thank ara for exposing me to the fact that truth exists on sites they term hateful. Maybe that is their problem, they hate the truth.

[Maikeru]

Incidentally, in the interests of full disclosure, I will point out that an essay I wrote myself can be found on Stormfront.

The horror !
Next, you'll be revealed by ARC as having posted somewhere far more pernicious than Stormfront - FreeDominion, grrrr...

[Peter O'Donnell]

I think we need to turn this whole debate around and ask why the ARC is so focused on Marc Lemire's past associations and conduct. It smells of desperation, from people who realize that the legal opinion of Section 13 is rapidly changing to their disadvantage, so the only chance they really have left is to deflect attention away from the many bad acts of the CHRC (the focus of the current parliamentary inquiry) and to try to turn it towards any sort of baggage they can dredge up for Marc Lemire.

My point is simple -- it is in any case a red herring, whatever they uncover or fail to uncover, the legal challenge has gone past that point now and we as a community (free speechers) are under no obligation to engage in this argument at all. This is a mug's game where the terms are continuously being redefined, as in "he was a member of this and so that proves ..." or "he knew X when X was Y ..." -- all facts or allegations that essentially have no bearing on whether Section 13 is bad law or not.

I think we should just wave goodbye and wish them good luck in defending their discredited Section 13 and the culture of speech suppression that it represents.

Smearing people for "incorrect" associations is parts of that culture. We should expect nothing better.

[Maikeru]

I think we need to turn this whole debate around and ask why the ARC is so focused on Marc Lemire's past associations and conduct.

I submit, Mr. President, that 'Sparky' aka Harry Abrams, is unable to make a lot of leeway on FreeDominion, and so wants to drum up some hits at ARC.
You'll notice that 'FreeDominion' is invariably included in the 'labels' attached to NOS200 postings, to ensure that the links listed there spread the smear:
# cross Boundaries
# Artists Against Racism
# Big City Liberal Strikes Back
# Canada News Desk
# Canadian Race Relations Foundation
# Dawg's Blawg
# Eye On Hate
# Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre)
# Lady Liberty's Lamp
# MootStormfront
# Mostly Water
# Nazi Watch Toronto
# Nizkor Project
# Northern Alberta Alliance on Race Relations
# One Peoples Project
# Racism. Stop It!
# Resist!ca
# Southern Poverty Law Center: Intelligence Report
# Stop Racism
# Stop Racism/March 21 Committee
# Toronto S.H.A.R.P.
# Turn It Down
# Warren Kinsella

I think we should just wave goodbye and wish them good luck in defending their discredited Section 13 and the culture of speech suppression that it represents.

That's no longer an option Peter, the battle has been joined.
Section 13 (how very apt) and the Provincial counterparts came about when good folks allowed the 'professional thinkers' to reshape society by compulsion.

The 'slippery slope' of totalitarianism began a very long time ago, when folks were shagging their brains out due the miracle of 'the Pill', and the generation which remembers Canadian society before 'normalization' has left a legacy of reliance on hind teat to the few offspring that managed to escape the chop.

Now is the time Rudyard Kipling, grrrr, meant when he wrote:

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

[Mark Fournier]

There is no reason to believe that there is more than one poster at the ARA/ARC site. All we have is Harry Abrams' self-serving word that there are posters other than him there. As we are about to see, Harry Abrams' word isn't worth a plugged nickel.

I've done my due diligence and confirmed my facts, Harry. I'm looking forward to hitting the submit button on my next post.

Standby, folks. I'll have my next post up in about an hour.

(I'll bet you already know where I'm going in my next post, don't you, Harry? LOL...Sucks to be you. )

[Gerry T. Neal]

I'd like to go back and address something I skipped over in my previous analysis of ARC's case against Lemire.

Unlike street thugs like the Aryan Guard in Calgary, you won't find the high-profile and "respectable" members of the "White Nationalist" movement uttering racial epithets. Instead of shaved heads, bomber jackets and sheets, they'll wear suits and ties. Cross burnings? No, conferences will suffice (sort of like the David Duke homecoming that Mr. Lemire was involved in). And the use of euphemisms abound. "White Power" cries instead become "White Pride" (note the picture of the Aryan Guard members). "White Supremacy" instead is labled, "White Nationalism" or "WN". Controlled media, international bankers and Zionists are, of course, Jews.

So we can assure you that you will not hear David Duke refer to a Black man as a ****** or Don Black write that a Jewish woman is a ****, at least not in public. And we can almost guarantee that our readers will not find anything similar uttered by Mr. Lemire in public or online under his own name. He's too smart for that.

Alright. So "White Pride" is a euphemism for "White Power" is it?

What then, is ARC's take on "Native Pride". I see that on caps all over Winnipeg. Is that a euphemism for "Native Power"? Is this company a dangerous Native Supremacist organization: (http://ajrocha.tripod.com/home.html)?

If one racial group is allowed to show pride in their identity without being accused of being "supremacists" trying to dominate others and take away their rights and violently abuse them, why are whites not allowed to do so? Why must "white pride" be a euphemism for something worse?

Note that part of the ARC's case against Mr. Lemire is to post a letter he wrote to the editor of Imprint, the student newspaper at the University of Waterloo, objecting to its labelling of Heritage Front pamphlets as "hate literature". They then post the literature in question. Presumably they are thinking that we are not going to read much beyond the title. Does the posting of "White and Proud" not, in fact, justify Mr. Lemire's claims that this is not "hate literature"?

I quote:

We do not begrudge any man - of any race - the right to take pride in the accomplishments of his own race. But in the headlong rush to mollify and placate the various minorities, we must not allow ourselves to forget whose accomplishments have brought civilization to the point at which we stand today.

How is that hateful? How is that bigoted?

The second piece of HF literature is nothing but a collection of statistics about crime and race. If the statistics are accurate there is nothing wrong with collecting and publishing them.

ARC maintains that "White Nationalism" or "WN" is a euphemism for "White Supremacy". This is not in fact the case. The term "White Nationalism" was adopted from "Black Nationalism" and was coined to refer to a movement, the function of which would be to speak out for white people and their interests in the age of multiculturalism. The idea was that since every other racial group is allowed to have organizations and publications speaking out for their special interests in a society where the ideology of egalitarianism had become dominant white people should be allowed to have such organizations and publications too. Some people who identify themselves as "White Nationalists" or "WN" revere the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler. Others (such as Jared Taylor) are more likely to be conservatives or libertarians in their overall political view. It is an umbrella label, a "big tent" for pro-white activists.

What the ARC appears to be saying is that anyone who identifies as a white person, speaks positively about white people, with pride in who they are and what their people have accomplished, and stands up for their rights and their interests must be filled with hate and violence towards other people and that if they speak and act in a respectful fashion this just means they are "too smart" to show their real face in public.

That is a far more hateful sentiment than any Mr. Lemire can be shown to have ever expressed.

[Gerry T. Neal]

There is no reason to believe that there is more than one poster at the ARA/ARC site. All we have is Harry Abrams' self-serving word that there are posters other than him there. As we are about to see, Harry Abrams' word isn't worth a plugged nickel.

I've done my due diligence and confirmed my facts, Harry. I'm looking forward to hitting the submit button on my next post.

Standby, folks. I'll have my next post up in about an hour.

(I'll bet you already know where I'm going in my next post, don't you, Harry? LOL...Sucks to be you. )

Oooh, this ought to be interesting.

[Mark Fournier]

Harry, Harry, Harry...You've been hanging around the CHRC for much too long and you've picked up some very nasty habits.

But before the real fun begins, I'd like to quickly address your inane assertion that someone using a plural possessive pronoun is evidence that they are the president of something. That has to be one of the silliest points I've seen anyone try to raise as evidence, or as supporting evidence, of anything, particularly as evidence of something as potentially damaging as you have tried to use it for here. If I say I love our country it does not mean that I own Canada or that I think I'm the prime minister of Canada or that anyone else would think I was the prime minister of Canada.

I also found it amusing (as did others who have already pointed it out) that the document you used to “prove” Marc Lemire was the head of the Heritage Front from 2001 to 2005 actually reveals that there was no head of the organization during that time period. Yet somehow I expect you will continue to spread the same lie even though you clearly know it is a lie.

But this is just the comic relief stuff, you have some big and serious problems here, Harry.

... the simple fact is we have learned
from our past and moved on to a more progressive organizational
structure. The Heritage Front now is based on a committee of various
people who oversee different duties within the HF. There is no one
leader, but rather it is a democratic process where each person gets a
vote.

Beyond satisfying the gap in presidency for the period, it also answers why Gerry Lincoln's nose was out of joint in the article posted by our ARC buddies.

However, in light of that information, another question arises.

There is an error in Maikeru's post above and you are directly (and I believe knowingly) responsible for that error. There is no reason to believe Maikeru is yet aware that he has made a mistake but I'll bet you can spot where he has it wrong, can't you, Harry?

I'm aware that this discussion has taken place on a public internet discussion forum. This is not a real court of law where there would be immediate repercussions for what you've done here. Neither is it a CHRC hearing where you can lie and fiddle with evidence with impunity if you are the complainant. But don't you think tampering with evidence, even just in an internet forum, is more than a little bit scummy? The optics are really bad for you with this one, Harry.

Below is an accurate reproduction of the opening of the post you have cited earlier on this thread as it appeared on Stormfront in 2002:

---------------
The HERITAGE FRONT
------------------

P.O. Box 564, Station "R", Toronto, Ontario, M4G 4E1
Website: http://www.heritagefront.com
E-Mail: heritagefront@freedomsite.org
Heritage Hotline: (416) 693-2298



A Decade of Defiance

The Heritage Front in the new Millennium


Since our founding in the fall of 1989, the Heritage Front has been one
of the most written about, talked about and even hated groups in Canada.
Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the HF. Countless
hours of radio and television time has been devoted to reporting on us.
Numerous government agencies have tried to silence us. Terrorist groups,
criminals and unstable individuals have even targeted us.

Now here is your reproduction of the same text as you posted it on Free Dominion.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=38867

-----------------
The HERITAGE FRONT
------------------

P.O. Box 564, Station "R", Toronto, Ontario, M4G 4E1
Website: http://www.heritagefront.com
E-Mail: heritagefront@freedomsite.org
Heritage Hotline: (416) 693-2298



A Decade of Defiance

The Heritage Front in the new Millennium

by Marc Lemire

Since our founding in the fall of 1989, the Heritage Front has been one
of the most written about, talked about and even hated groups in Canada.
Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the HF. Countless
hours of radio and television time has been devoted to reporting on us.
Numerous government agencies have tried to silence us. Terrorist groups,
criminals and unstable individuals have even targeted us.

Compare the two closely, Harry. Can you spot the discrepancy that led directly to Maikeru's error in his post? I missed it myself the first time through so I didn't begin to suspect you had falsified the document until I scrolled to the bottom and saw this reference to the article in question:

Reprinted from UpFront: FRONTLINE - Issue #20

The devil is in the details, Harry. You should have deleted this line when you were falsifying the beginning of the article. I might have entirely missed your tampering had you been smart enough to make the deletion of the actual source of the article. But I did notice. And then I noticed that, although Marc Lemire doesn't have much writing to draw from, the writing style of the real author of the article did not seem like Marc Lemire's writing style.

I knew I had you then, Harry, but I waited to confirm my suspicions. I emailed the link to Marc Lemire and straight out asked him if he had written it. I'll bet you aren't the least bit surprised that he had no problem admitting that he had reposted the article, but he flatly denied he had authored it.

So who has more credibility? Marc Lemire or Harry Abrams?

Well, Marc Lemire has spent the past six years under the thought police's microscope at the Ministry of Love and no one has caught him in a lie yet. You, on the other hand Harry, are a known liar and now you have clearly shown that you will falsify a document to support your lies.

It isn't like this is the first time you've consciously and knowingly attributed words to somebody that you knew weren't his for the purpose of damaging the reputation of your target. You did the same thing on another thread here at Free Dominion when you put up some text prefaced with, "Arthur Topham says:" even though there is no way you could deny that you knew Arthur Topham hadn't said the words you attributed to him because you knew the identity of the real author of those words before you posted them.

Marc Lemire's CHRC case is over, Harry. The constitutionality of the process he went through is being appealed but the facts of the case are settled. Why are you spending so much time spreading lies and and taking the foolish risk of falsifying a document to continue the smear of Marc Lemire? Malice?

Or is this something you have been doing on behalf of the B'nai Brith? Do they know what you are doiing here? Do they know that you have lied and defamed Arthur Topham in this forum? The same Arthur Topham who you and B'nai Brith are harassing with a CHRC complaint? Do they know you have falsified a document in an attempt to publicly smear Marc Lemire even though his case is over?

Maybe you aren't here at the behest of the B'nai Brith but it wouldn't surprise me if you were. After all, the B'nai Brith, with their false identification of Lemire in a picture that they had up on their Nizkor website kind of indicates that they would completely approve of what you have been doing.

But now we come to the sad part, Harry.

It is with real regret, and against my wishes (and probably against the wishes of at least some FDers), that I must ban you, Harry. I have genuinely enjoyed your time here but I'm sure you'll understand why so many of my advisors are ready to strangle me for letting you stay this long. I think some of them are on the verge of resorting to physical pain if I don't listen to them so I am finally going to take their advice.

It has really been a fun game we've played, Harry, and I know that banning you at this time makes me look like the kind of jerk who wins a couple of big pots at the poker table and then gets up and leaves without giving anyone a chance to win their money back, but my aversion to physical pain compels me to do so.

You came here to cross-examine us for the benefit of your “friend and colleague” Richard Warman. While you were here you just couldn't resist expanding your mission to smearing some of your political opponents with lies and evidence tampering, but your base reason for being here was always clear. Of course we knew all this and the risk to us was that we might slip up and say something Richard Warman could later use against us. I'm just a small town rube and not an expert at the thought crimes racket like you are, but I think we came through it intact. I may learn later that I'm wrong, but at this point I think we did OK.

The trade off for us was we would give you a soapbox and enough rope to ensure you didn't make it to the ground when you fell off. I tend to think you have lost out on this exchange, Harry. You have given everyone a clear demonstration of how at least one B'nai Brith employee handles himself. You have lied, you have defamed, and you have falsified a document to further your ends. You have also demonstrated clearly how far the CHRC and its users and camp followers will go to smear a fellow Canadian in order to further your political agenda.

Part of the reason I have to ban you, Harry, goes beyond the reasons the people who have been advising me have already given to me. I also have to worry that you could get me into legal trouble of another kind. The world people like you and Richard Warman have been trying to build would hold me responsible for allowing you to defame people on a website I help to operate. I could be sued for allowing you to put a falsified document on Free Dominion. I can't take that risk, Harry.

I don't trust you.

It's been fun, Harry. We are sure to meet again further along in the game. I look forward to it.