Whites Shouldn’t Be Forced To Live Among Non-Whites
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 07 November 2013 04:30
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:



I’m an individual human being. I am also a White human being. I was
born the same way as all other human beings. No other human beings
have any more rights than I have. As long as I don’t harm others,
no other human beings have the right to tell me how to live, who to
associate with, what to think, what to believe, what I can and cannot
read or do, what I can say or not say. They are not superior in rights
to me. This is what it means to be a free human being. Anything less
than this is not freedom, it is oppression, tyranny and slavery.
It is obscene that we White people have to put up with non-White crime
and social problems. And, even more, it is absurd that all humans are
lumped together as though we are all the same. We are not all the
same. We look different externally, and we have different DNA codes
internally. We are different peoples. The human races are groups
within the human species that have started to branch off and to become
separate species if certain conditions are met. And, this is as it
should be. This is the way of existence. We should not be forced to
blend together, but should be allowed to evolve as we determine is
best for each of us individually and as groups of like individuals.
Blending all human races together will not improve the species, it
will force it down to the lowest common denominator.
Racial integration is a failure. Racial diversity is a failure.
Multiculturalism is a failure. These only bring non-White crime,
social problems and miscegenation to once safe and, yes, pure White
communities. And, Whites are not only victimized physically by these
failed social experiments, but we are also victimized by being made to
pay for services and benefits for people unlike us. To be racially
sensitive and not “racist” we Whites are expected to just accept
being made into second class citizens and give up college seats and
job opportunities and promotions to less qualified non-Whites. We are
expected to bend over backwards to understand and be sensitive to the
needs of people unlike us. This is stupid. We Whites shouldn’t
waste one second of our time or burn one calorie in such efforts.
There is no profit in this for us. Non-Whites are not our kind. They
are not our people. We owe them nothing, other than leaving them
alone to their own separate destinies.

As it is now, we Whites must pay for the welfare and medical care and
housing and much more for non-Whites and we must hire more police and
pay for them to keep non-Whites from attacking and murdering us since
we have been forced to accept them into our communities. The ant and
the grasshopper fable comes to mind, but tenfold, as we, the
industrious White ants have been forced to accept the non-White
grasshoppers into our ant communities as equals. The result is
harmful to us. Even if some groups of non-Whites aren’t a direct
problem, they are still not our kind and don’t belong in our
Whites should only have to put up with the crime and social problems
of our own people. We, as White individuals, have a natural right,
just by having been born, to be as we are born to be, and to pursue
happiness as we define it, and to choose to mix or not mix with any
other humans as we alone decide is in our best interest, and to be the
free human beings that nature has made us to be. And, this right that
we have as White individuals extends to those who are most like
us–other Whites. Yes, we Whites are different from other kinds of
humans as they are different from us. There is not a one size fits all
human being.
The laws that we Whites have written over the years are based on the
innate outward manifestations and expressions of the White genetic
code that makes us the people that we are. They pretty much work for
us, as a separate people living among our own kind, but they fail to
work in racially blended societies. We Whites, for example, can
expect certain levels of violent crime from our own people and our
laws are written to protect us from these crimes of our own kind.
However, the crime levels of some other types of humans–Blacks and
Browns, in particular– are naturally far higher from our own
levels, and our laws do not protect us fully from these higher levels
of violent crime brought into our White communities by non-Whites.
The laws that most of us Whites naturally obey, but which the
non-Whites don’t, often work to actually put us in more danger.
Our laws, our constitution, our mores and ways were designed for us,
by us and they’re about us–and they do not always fit with other
peoples. Why? Because, they are different from the ground on up, and
trying to force them to be like us oppresses both them and us and it
stunts our own development and robs us of our human sovereignty and
right to be as we want to be and of the right to pursue happiness as
we choose and the right to be around those we want to be around and
not be around those we don’t want to be around
Now, even many of the weakest seed Whites in society acknowledge that
we humans come in different flavors. After all, even they have eyes
to see, so they’re pretty much forced to admit differences. So far,
so good. Then, common sense falls apart, because many of them then
try to deny that there are internal differences also. And, as they do
that, some among them also try to deny the significance of the
external differences and they foolishly try to deny that violent crime
levels and social dysfunction levels are color coded. Some of these
weak seed Whites suffer from cognitive dissonance and jump through
hoops trying to reconcile the high Black violent crime rate with their
false belief that Blacks are the same as Whites except for different
paint jobs. One can almost imagine some of the weak seed Whites
having smoke coming from their ears as they say “Will not compute,
will not compute,” as they try to reconcile the facts of the real
world with their ingrained false views, as though they’re robots in
a cheap science fiction movie.
Let’s be very clear about this. Non-Whites are not Whites. They
look different because they are different. They have different
internal codes than Whites just as they have different external
appearances. This is true no matter what some dimwitted weak seed
politicians and elites try to tell us and force on us.
We Whites are a White people inside and outside and we have a God (or
nature, if you prefer) given right to our freedom as the sovereign
individuals that we are. We are no one’s slaves. No human or group
of humans have the right to keep us from being ourselves and living
our lives as we want among our own kind. We are living, breathing
human beings with every right to be as we were born to be and with
every right to associate with or not associate with others as we alone
choose. No one has a right to herd us together with other types of
humans if we don’t want to be so herded or so lumped. They are not
our kind, and intelligent, conscious Whites are aware of this fact.
We have the right to be free from non-White violent crime, non-White
social problems and free from non-Whites altogether. Let them have
their ways, and we’ll have ours. Don’t try to lump us together
under some artificial national label. The most authentic label that
we have is the one we were born with: White people. We are our genes
and our genes are us.
No one has the right to have us sacrifice our safety, our pursuit of
happiness and our very existence in order to please people unlike us.
We do not have to please them at all. We also do not have to support
them, or take a back seat so they can have the front seat, or give up
our dreams of college and better jobs because they are admitted or
promoted based on their dark skin color. We do not need to sacrifice
ourselves, our children, our jobs our future, at all. We have a right
to be and to be more and we need to assert these rights in every way
big and small or we’re going to continue to be victimized and picked
off one by one.
Non-Whites are not our responsibility. We owe them absolutely nothing.
Again, they are not our kind. They are a burden to us. We do not
have to carry such a burden. We have enough burdens of our own to
We Whites have a right to self-identification, self-determination,
self-destiny and a whole lot of other positive “self”
We can’t continue trying to fit non-Whites into a White society.
They don’t fit into ours and we don’t fit into theirs. We know
who we are and many of us want to stay with our own kind.
We have a right to be White, to think White, to stay White, to evolve
White. And, we don’t need anyone’s permission to be as we were
born to be.

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp342.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqguueqgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
The McCorkill Case -- Trying to Limit the Evidence to Facts, Not Rants and Name Calli
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 07 November 2013 04:28
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

The McCorkill Case -- Trying to Limit the Evidence to Facts, Not Rants
and Name Calling
St. John, New Brunswick. November 5, 2013. Court room 13 may have
turned out to be a lucky number for those seeking to prevent the
hijacking of a bequest to a controversial group. Judge William T.
Grant reserved judgment today for ten days in regards to a motion by
Andy Lodge, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression
(CAFE), to strike large portions of five affidavits filed on behalf of
Isabelle McCorkell and three interveners seeking to revoke a large
bequest by former chemistry professor Robert McCorkill to the West
Virginia based National Alliance. The extraordinary application to
overturn the bequest was instigated by the Southern Poverty Law Centre
(SPLC) of Montgomery, Alabama, a notorious anti-free speech group that
specializes in fierce attacks on those it denounces as “haters.”

CAFE wants to see the case heard on the basis of facts and primarily
law and the sanctity of a man's will. The other side seems to want to
turn the proceedings into a witch-hunt against a politically unpopular
group, with plenty of name calling and extravagant claims and
exaggerations. Typical of this approach is paragraph 4 under a section
entitled "Facts" in the brief presented on behalf of Isabelle
McCorkell: "The National Alliance is a long-standing neo-Nazi group in
the United States. … Through its hate propaganda, the National
Alliance promotes a political programme ...including genocide, ethnic
cleansing, and the use of hate-motivated violence and terror to
achieve its aims." On the contrary, the National Alliance never
promoted violence or terror. As to "hate propaganda" the NA was never
charged, much less convicted, under Canada's notorious "hate law"
(Sec. 319 of the Criminal, Code) and there are no such "anti-hate"
laws in the U.S.

After a three and a half hour hearing, Judge Grant ruled: “We cannot
proceed with the application next week. I will give you my decision”
on the motion to strike portions of the affidavits “next week on
November 13.”

The Court of Queen’s Bench judge added: “I’ll hear any
submissions you might have on the deponents. There are some unusual
features to this case. There may be valid reasons to consider
cross-examination of deponents in a case like this.”

CAFE Director Paul Fromm with John Hughes, lawyer for the McCorkill
and CAFE lawyer Andy Lodge

CAFE's lawyer Andy lodge is seeking to strike large portions of the
complainants' affidavits because they do not comply with the rules.
Most of the evidence is being submitted by affidavits (sworn
statements). Marc Antoine-Chiasson, lawyer for Isabelle McCorkell
[yes, different spelling from her brother's name] decided to proceed
by means of an application to the court, rather than a full blown
trial with discoveries. Mr. Lodge explained: "There are very strict
rules for affidavits in application cases because the application can
be the end of the issue. An affidavit is assumed to be true. There are
many paragraphs in the five affidavits that don't comply with the

"Rule 390.01 sub 5" became a refrain as Mr. Lodge dissected some
thirty paragraphs in five affidavits. The rule states: "An affidavit
for use on an application shall be confined to the facts within the
personal knowledge of the deponent; but the affidavit may contain
statements as to the information and belief of the deponent with
respect to facts which are not contentious, if the source of his
information and his belief therein are specified in the affidavit."

Indeed, in the case Bouctouche Micmac First Nation v New Brunswick
(Minister of the Environment), Mr. Justice Rideout of the New
Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench Trial Division ruled, quoting a
judgement by Mr. Justice Vancise of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal:
"The rule is quite clear in limiting affidavit evidence to such 'facts
as the witness is able of his own knowledge to prove."

In defence of the Potok affidavit, Mr. Chiasson ( Miss McCorkell's
lawyer) "seems to say facts asserted by the deponents are not
contentious. We disagree. And in Miss Fawcett's brief (on behalf of
the intervener the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith), I see no
case law where hearsay evidence is permitted in an application

CAFE objected to the inclusion of several of B'nai Brith's Annual
Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents on many grounds. One, was that none of
the Audits even mentioned the National Alliance or its brief long-ago
activities in Canada. Mr. Lodge added: "The Audits are mainly third
party complaints. How can we analyze the motive of a fourth party,
usually unnamed being complained against? These are not expert
reports, these are not scientific reports. They are hearsay from
people not even quoted but summarized."

One of his main targets was an affidavit from Mark Potok of the
Southern Poverty Law Centre. Much of it seemed more a rant and name
calling than a statement of facts. Mr. Lodge challenged most of the
affidavit as being opinion, argument or hearsay. For instance,
paragraph 5 of Mr. Potok's first affidavit charges that the National
Alliance "is the most important Neo-Nazi group in America." That, Mr.
Lodge, noted was an opinion, not a fact. Potok had patted himself on
the back as being an "expert" on the National Alliance. That, too, is
an opinion, not a fact.

Dominique Fontaine, representing Isabelle McCorkell, said: "CAFE
doesn't like Mr. Potok's evidence and is adopting a shotgun approach.
We are seeking significant costs as this motion is not necessary and
should have been brought as part of the application."

"You can't put a bunch of hearsay and opinions into your affidavit,"
CAFE lawyer Andy Lodge shot back. "These are irregular affidavits.
This is a fair motion and I take great offence at the accusation that
it is not. We are the ones entitled to substantial costs. We have gone
to tremendous expense to try to keep these affidavits focused on facts
in keeping with Rule 30.01 (5)."
In outlining Miss McCorkel's demand that the bequest be nullified, Ms
Fontaine made it clear that the objections are based on the National
Alliance's political beliefs, saying: "We shall argue that this gift
is contrary to public policy. The Court must know the National
Alliance's ideology, what it has published, how it is perceived by the
public and its influence on the public."

In arguing against striking out portions of the B'nai Brith brief,
including attachments of several of the League's Annual Audit of
Anti-Semitic Incidents, League lawyer Catherine Fawcett insisted: "The
Audits show the impact of the hate speech on the Jewish community.
This is not your typical application. The evidence is going to be a
little different. We don't know about Mr. McCorkill but we do know of
the impact of hate crimes on the Canadian Jewish community. ... B'nai
Brith will also argue that no person can do something to injure the
public. What is the effect when people put certain ideologies on the
Internet? What injury could be done to the public, if this gift goes
through? The Audits are the experience this minority group has
experienced at the hands of hate groups. If you are putting money into
the hands of this type of group, what is the potential effect on

In fact, most of the incidents -- graffiti and literature for the most
part -- reported in the Audits are the work of individuals, not
groups. There is scant evidence most of them are motivated by material
on the Internet. Few of the over 1,200 "incidents" reported annually
result in criminal charges, much less convictions, and, thus, cannot
be considered "crimes", let alone "hate crimes.” Furthermore, the
gift is to a group in the U.S. which is no longer active in Canada
and, thus, the "potential effect on Canada" would be exactly zero!
Please Help CAFE Defend Free Speech from Those Who Would Submit
Beneficiaries to Some Politically Correct Litmus Test

Robert McCorkill died in 2004 and left a substantial collection of
ancient coins and artifacts to the White Nationalist National
Alliance. The ant-free speech U.S. partisan group called the Southern
Poverty Law Centre has vowed to kibosh the bequest. Joining the
hitherto silent -- for nine years! -- sister (who, though claiming
straitened circumstances is represented by a pricey Moncton law firm)
is the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights
of B'nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, all
seeking to overturn the will.

CAFE has joined the fray to support the Estate and the principles of
free speech and private property. "Subjecting beneficiaries to a
politically correct litmus test is a frightening assault on freedom of
speech and the right of a person to bequeath his property to whom he
pleases. It is a shocking step down the road the state tyranny and the
triumph of restrictive cultural Marxism," warns CAFE Director Paul
Fromm, who nonetheless welcomed the adjournment.

"They latest delay, gives CAFE a few more weeks to raise the money
needed to fund our intervention in this crucial case," he added.

Time is of the essence. The case goes to Court November 13. . WE NEED
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ's autumn programme,
including the intervention in the McCorkill legacy case.
__ Please renew my subscription for 2014 to the Free Speech Monitor
lease charge

Expiry date: __________

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp342.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqguuewgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
A Hundred People join the March of Pride at European American Heritage Festival
Written by Paul Fromm
Sunday, 03 November 2013 06:44
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

A Hundred People join the March of Pride at European American Heritage

PULASKI, Tennessee. October 26, 2013. With a parade of more than 30
European flags fluttering and led off my several dozen enthusiastic
youths and children, a hundred folk formed the March of Pride to
celebrate their European American heritage for the 28th year in a row,
starting from the historic courthouse square in Pulaski, Tennessee.
The parade, with a Pulaski police escort, wound its way along eight
blocks through downtown Pulaski.

In her welcoming remarks at the festival, Rachel Pendergraft noted the
"many children in attendance. Many White Nationalist events," she
mourned, "have no role for children. Children and family are the
foremost focus." And, she added, "this is not just a fight for the
family, but it must be a fight with the family."

In an impassioned greeting to the celebrants before the March of
Pride, organizer Pastor Thomas Robb told the crowd: "Like you, I am a
child of Europe. My forefathers hunted in the Black Forest; they
farmed in the Ukraine; they fished in the North Sea. My ancestors were
Vikings who invaded England and my ancestors were English who defended
their land."

In what many observers said was one of the long-time White activists
best speeches, Pastor Robb added: "I was an archer at the Battle of
Hastings. I was on the ship with William the Conqueror." Applause
greeted his next comment: "I was with Charles Martel when he repelled
the Moslems from France."

"My ancestors," he added, "marched with Julius Caesar across the
Rubicon. My ancestors were at Runnymede demanding that King John sign
the Magna Carta."

His voice rising, he proclaimed: "I am a child of a thousand fathers
and mothers. I am descended from kings and noblemen and peasants."

The pastor painted the picture of a Negro and a White man 500 years
ago looking out over the vast Atlantic. The Negro looked and retreated
back into the forest. Our ancestors went back into the forest and cut
down trees to make boats to sail out and conquer distant lands," he

"The enemies of Our Race and homeland are swarming upon us," the
Harrison Arkansas pastor warned. "Why are Blacks and Asians and
Mexicans encouraged to have racial pride, but if Whites express pride
in their European heritage, they are viciously attacked."

The reason, he explained, "that they don't want you to have pride in
your race is that we are a race of conquerors. Wherever we have raised
our banners, the lands have become ours! Other races submitted." The
fact is, he emphasized, "the very moment you become proud of who you
are, you become conquerors" and they hate that! "You were born to be
strong and rule and conquer."

"Even those who disagree with me know I am right," he added. "they
avoid certain areas of St. Louis, Kansas City or Atlanta. All those
areas have a certain colour," and they know it, he said.

"There's a war against your children and against your blood," he
warned. "Diversity is a code word for White genocide," he added.

"Those who stand against us may slander us, they may take our
livelihoods, they may take our freedom and even our lives, but we will
never bow," he concluded.

The European American Heritage Festival featured arts and crafts
booths, patriotic tee-shirts and literature, music by the dynamic
country duo, Heritage Connection, and a delicious lunch of hot dogs,
chili and home-made pumpkin pies provided by Muriel Robb, on a brisk
Tennessee October day. Sponsors included The Nationalist Times, the
Christian Revival Center, the American Free Press, the Canadian
Association for Free Expression, the Political Cesspool radio show of
James Edwards, Dr.Tom Sunic of the American Freedom Party. The
festival attracted many young couples with children and visitors from
many surrounding states.



Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp275.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqguuebgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next > End >>
Page 30 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog