WV Archive

White Voice Archive 2 15 17 19 20 21 22 23 27 29 30 31 32

Sunday 28 April 2019

Redirected news and views

Will visitors please note that all new items are now loaded onto the Blog of the White Voice Association - whitevoice14.blogspot.com
This Blog will remain live bnecause there are a lot of article son it but will not be updated.

Sunday 20 January 2019

Leeds BM and Heritage and Destiny sellers in Leeds Yellow vest protest 19th January 2019

This kicked off yetserday, I didnt get to hear about it until today. I would have gone down for a fuller report. Nazi Salute! That should keep the Left away from the Yellow Vest Movement

The Transgendered versus The Preacher

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal
Free speech and the rights to express one's religious beliefs were very much on trial during a five day hearing (December 11-17) before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.  Ronan Oger, a transgendered advocate and activist and a vice-president of the provincial New Democratic Party, had laid a complaint against Bill Whatcott for distribution of 1,500 copies of a leaflet during the May, 2017 provincial election. Mr. Whatcott's leaflet called into question Oger's fitness for public office, on the basis of his sexual confusion. Relying on the Bible's account that God created two sexes, Mr. Whatcott argued that if Oger couldn't get his sexuality right, should be really be entrusted with making decisions on such matters as the provincial budget.

The original one-person tribunal, just before the proceedings opened expanded to three, consisted of Devyn Cousineau, an outspoken social justice warrior and donor to LGBT causes. The defence tried unsuccessfully to have her recuse herself for a "reasonable apprehension of bias." In preliminary proceedings, the Tribunal rejected all the defence character and expert witnesses. The final defence witness-to-be was Dr. Willi Gutowski, a medical doctor and psychiatrist with over 30 years of clinical experience treating patients in Chilliwack and the U.S. He had frequently been called as an expert witness before U.S. courts. He had treated transgendered people in the past. He said, during testimony seeking to qualify him, that he "has a particular interest in dissociative disorders." No one can make you hate, he said: You will yourself to have the thoughts that lead to the emotions of love or hate. "Love and hate are both a choice of the will." His expertise would have been crucial as Oger's lesbian lawyer had contended that Mr. Whatcott's pamphlet was likely to expose the transgendered candidate to hatred or contempt. The panel decided to reject Dr. Gutowski concluding: "The burden has not been met as to his qualification on this topic." Thus, the defence had but one witness -- Bill Whatcott.
The defence was not allowed to challenge the nature of transgenderism. Is it mistaken and immoral, as Bill Whatcott argues on biblical grounds? Is it a state of delusion -- in short, mental illness -- as many psychiatrists and scientists contend? Humans are born with one of two and only two chromosomal combinations: two "X Chromosomes" -- female; and X and a Y Chromosome -- male. Apparently, if you're born a man but identify as a woman, or vice versa, then you are whatever you feel you are or want to be. Thus, a hulking, hairy man with a penis who identifies as a woman should be able to prance into the girls' washroom and ogle 13-year old girls.

The panel made their prejudice crystal clear. On at least eight separate occasions, Devyn Cousineau  who seemed to be keeping careful count, interrupted Defence lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi for "misgendering" Oger by referring to him as "he", instead of she.
CAFE has been an active intervenor in this long and costly case. In its oral submissions, December 14, Director Paul Fromm argued that Oger had not been the victim of discrimination. No candidate is entitled to anyone's vote. A voter may discriminate in his or her choice by voting for or against a candidate for ANY reason -- sexual identity, policies, history. Not all "discrimination" or advocacy of discrimination  is banned under human rights laws, only discrimination in the provision of certain goods and services. Mr. Fromm protested the discriminatory rules imposed upon the Defence side.  Oger had complained that Mr. Whatcott's leaflet intimidated him and prevented him from being his authentic self. Mr. Fromm said forcing the defence to refer to Oger as "she" or more awkwardly as "the complainant said in the complainant's complaint" violated the Defence's ability to be their authentic selves. "Mr. Whatcott questions Oger self-identification on religious grounds; I and others question his identity on scientific, psychiatric or common sense grounds. We should not be compelled to say what we don't believe or end up speaking in stilted 1984 Newspeak. If I wake up and believe I am Napoleon, no one is under any obligation to call me 'Emperor,'" he said.
CAFE argued Mr. Whatcott's leaflet was not about "hate". Oger had testified that he had felt fearful. Mr. Fromm pointed out that his alleged fear had not prevented him from continuing as the NDP candidate in Vancouver-False Creek, from holding rallies and running again, in 2018 for school trustee. Mr. Whatcott's leaflet did not advocate "hate" much less violence, but urged voters to tell NDP canvassers they would not be voting for that party.
The following are portions of Dr. Lugosi's masterful summation on behalf of Bill Whatcott:
2              Canadian history records significant litigation brought by Jehovah Witnesses whose civil rights were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. This pioneering jurisprudence left a legacy that ensures that personal freedom of Witnesses to go door to door to distribute literature today remains a beacon of religious liberty and personal freedom.
3              Christians like Whatcott take seriously the biblical command to go forth and evangelize the world. His flyers preach the gospel of the Christian Holy Bible. His flyer is anchored in biblical verses that provide the foundation of his political message.
4              What Oger seeks is the branding of Christian preaching in a flyer as hate propaganda. Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code is to be utilized as a tool to silence and punish political enemies, who if powerful enough, would repeal s. 7 and the addition of gender identity and expression as a protected ground.
5              If this Tribunal adopts Oger’s contention that faith is a private matter, and must be kept in the closet and out of the public square, this will set the stage for the creation of a new kind of crime, rooted in human rights legislation. The new crime is publicly manifesting religious belief.
6              Oger contends that even if the flyer does not promote violence or the threat of violence, it ought to be interpreted as hate literature, which inspires violence by others, harming not just Oger but anyone who is transgender or a family member. What Oger describes is a human rights crime that has no victim.
7              The movie Minority Report described a society wherein an individual could be tried and convicted of the crime of murder, when no murder has been committed. I suggest that Oger views Whatcott as a continuously barking dog that is a nuisance, an irritation that spoils Oger’s political and legal agenda by refusing to let go of his bone. The bark is the flyer, the dog is less than human, and the bone is the Bible.
8              Oger, who did not personally receive the flyer, is on a mission to stamp out all opposition in a crusade that amounts to Christophobia. Nothing less that the erasure of Whatcott will satisfy Oger.
9              Oger invites the panel to speculate that the flyer will incite evil. Oger implores the panel to harshly punish Whatcott as a preventative measure, to destroy him financially and to permanently muzzle this troublesome meddling dog that will not let go. No evidence of causation is offered. Subjective belief of Oger that amounts to conclusory statements is urged to be sufficient.
10           Even accepting genuine fear in Oger was generated, the evidence does not disclose any reasonable basis for that fear. See Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town) 2017 ONCA 668, para. 46. “A person’s subjective feelings of disquiet, unease, and even fear, are not in themselves capable of ousting expression categorically from the protection of s. 2(b).[Charter]” para. 49. “… courts must be vigilant in determining whether the evidence supports the characterization, and in not inadvertently expanding the category of what constitutes violence or threats of violence.” Para. 50. “Courts should not be quick to conclude that a person’s actions are violent without clear evidence. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Bracken’s protest was violent or a threat of violence, and the finding that it was constitutes a palpable and overriding error.”
11           Was the flyer tantamount to a “dog whistle” directed to transgender people, as alleged by Oger? The Ontario Divisional Court in Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City), [2018] O. J. No. 5105 stated at para 60 that, “…the removal of political speech as a result of alleged subtle, hidden messages in visual imagery demands that robust explanations be given and demands that the CHP have an opportunity to participate in that inquiry. Absent such explanations, any individual could stifle otherwise valid political speech by citing subliminal messages without having to justify that position… no two witnesses saw the same hidden message or even agreed as to what the image was showing.”
12           These two illustrations from the evidence of Oger amply demonstrate that Oger’s evidence amounts to conclusions derived from Oger’s personal biased intolerant perspective. Stating conclusions about a subtle “dog whistle” message and an incitement to hate and violence and without any rational evidentiary basis, and are of no value to the Tribunal. Accepting this evidence would amount to an error in law. See: Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast BC Transportation Authority, 2018 BCCA 440 at para. 50, 54, 60.
13           The “likely to expose” may be patently unworkable. There is no definition of the “reasonable person.” A hypothetical panel of three qualified lawyers, all with Asian origins from countries where Christianity is respected and gender identity is not legally protected or recognized, might find that Whatcott’s flyer to be eminently reasonable, easily finding that the test of “likely to expose” is not even remotely met.
22           The core value of freedom of expression is a search for the truth, and is at its highest protection in the context of public participation in an election campaign in a free and democratic society. While Whatcott may represent only a tiny minority viewpoint in contemporary Canadian society, the constitutional Charter values of liberty (s. 7); conscience and religion (s. 2a); thought, belief, opinion, expression and freedom of the press (s. 2b); right to vote (s. 3); not to be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12); equality and equal protection (s.15); and multicultural heritage (s. 27) all apply to protect Whatcott’s rights. [The Tribunal reserved judgement.]

New art Ive been producing....gotta keep busy

Sunday 25 November 2018

The sabotage of Prof. Robert Faurisson’s Shepperton meeting: informants exposed

The sabotage of Prof. Robert Faurisson’s Shepperton meeting: informants exposed

Blow, blow thou winter wind.
Thou art not so unkind
As man’s ingratitude
(Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act II, Sc. 7)
It was to be the final high-point of the year: the world-renowned expert, heroic and exact exponent of Historical Revisionism had decided in his ninetieth year to return to his place of birth in order to give his final speech: to sum up before a gathering of friends and supporters his lifetime’s endeavours in the intellectual adventure of the Twentieth Century (now running overdue). Professor Robert Faurisson, born to a Scottish mother and a French father in the outer London suburb of Shepperton, Middlesex in the year 1929, returned there on 20 October to address guests at a pleasant local hostelry; he spoke, as ever, clearly and with focus for an hour and twenty minutes, without notes and holding his audience spell-bound; fluent in both his mother’s language and his father’s, he moved effortlessly from one to the other to make certain points clearer. Our privilege to be there at this historic occasion; every man and woman carefully vetted: friends amongst friends.
And then came the sabotage: a left-wing hate-group had been informed of our meeting and found the venue: midway through, the group contacted the hotel’s management and threatened that a violent mob would come and wreck the meeting (plus harm staff and guests) unless the management pre-empted and closed the meeting down themselves. The management promptly obeyed the “order”, summoning the chairman to the desk and telling him to put an end to the conference at once. When he refused they resorted to “tough” tactics: repeatedly they set off the fire alarms, turned the lights off, brought a loud-speaker “ghetto-blaster” into the conference room and did their very worst by means of this cacophony to wreck the proceedings. Fortunately the Professor had completed what he had to say to us. He died of a heart attack immediately on returning to his French home a day later.
The question is: who sabotaged the meeting and why?
Was the meeting sabotaged from within “the movement”, defining “the movement” very broadly? And again what could the motive be for such a destructive act and deliberate betrayal of a hero, a man approaching the end of his life having returned to the place of his birth to be amongst friends and admirers to give his final talk to the world – the meeting was filmed.
There are names that are going to be recorded here; there have to be.
It is a fact that the singing satirist, Alison Chabloz, was not invited to the Shepperton meeting. Why not? Because Ms. Chabloz had taken it upon herself to condemn repeatedly the organiser of the Shepperton meeting, Peter Rushton, as “an enemy agent and liar.” This shameful abuse of a good man had no justification or foundation in fact; which fact has been repeatedly explained in detail to Ms. Chabloz. Hence she was excluded from the guest list for Professor Faurisson’s final meeting as an unwelcome entity.
Peter Rushton had served as Ms. Chabloz’s Defence witness at her trial at the Westminster Magistrates’ court, but had refused to go along with her campaign of abuse against Lady Michèle Renouf, a dedicated supporter of the right to free historical and scientific research, whom Ms. Chabloz has repeatedly maligned and defamed for the past year. The moment he dissociated himself from Ms. Chabloz’s endeavours to spread lies about Lady Renouf, Mr Rushton himself became the target of the Chabloz lie machine. On her blog (10th May 2018) Ms. Chabloz had retorted (or threatened?) “it’s as if my detractors want me to sell my story to the enemy”.
Just a week before the Shepperton gathering, Ms. Chabloz sent a series of emails to Prof. Faurisson attempting to pressure him into intervening to allow her presence there. Ms. Chabloz’s tone was so insistent and outrageous that following her email of 16th October the Professor refused to reply any further to her messages. On arriving in Shepperton three days later he complained about being exhausted by Ms. Chabloz’s relentless behaviour.
A second name must also be mentioned here: Sophie Johnson. Sophie Johnson is the name of the middle-aged Hungarian woman who at first regularly attended the hearings of Ms. Chabloz’s case at the Westminster Magistrates’ court. Sophie Johnson claims to be a close friend of Ms. Chabloz:  “I am squarely on the side of the unrivalled queen of English revisionism, the brilliant, richly talented, charming Alison Chabloz”. Some weeks before the Shepperton meeting, “Sophie Johnson” (described by Ms. Chabloz as a valued friend) left comments on the Danish web-site, NS Viking, seriously demeaning Professor Robert Faurisson as senile – “an old fool” who had “authorised a vicious attack on Alison Chabloz”. This is another vile lie: the Professor never attacked Ms. Chabloz verbally or in writing; on the contrary he always had kind and encouraging words for her until eventually becoming exasperated – and even then he only complained about her conduct privately.  On the day of the Shepperton meeting, a ‘Sophie’ is registered on the twitter account of the left-wing hate-group, ‘Hope not Hate’ as contacting them with information relating to the Shepperton conference.
Questions: Was it Sophie Johnson, or somebody in the name of Sophie Johnson who betrayed our Shepperton event? And why in all this time, has Ms. Chabloz never condemned this sabotage of Prof. Faurisson’s final appearance? And why has Ms. Chabloz never rebuked and corrected “Sophie Johnson” (if that be the correct name) for insulting the greatest Revisionist hero of our time, as “an old fool”? And why did Ms. Chabloz not dissociate herself at the time from a person having made such a disgusting comment?
Finally one has to say: by the balance of probabilities it is the person calling herself “Sophie Johnson” who sabotaged our meeting and betrayed it to the enemy; and did so to please the individual, whom Sophie Johnson describes as the “unrivalled queen of English revisionism, the brilliant, richly talented, charming Alison Chabloz”. By the balance of probabilities, one is forced to the conclusion that Alison Chabloz, motivated by spite, arranged for the meeting from which she was excluded to be sabotaged.
By this disgraceful act, Ms. Chabloz damns herself as a traitor and saboteur. We are aware of the fact that several good nationalists have passed information to Ms. Chabloz which she has later misused – indeed we know precisely who informed her and when about the Shepperton event, enabling her sabotage – but we have no doubt that these folk were simply acting naively and in good faith. However from this point on, those who collaborate with Ms. Chabloz will be regarded as giving aid to an enemy informant.
The above statement is issued by Richard Edmonds, Lady Renouf, and Peter Rushton, with the approval of Guillaume Nichols

Thursday 22 November 2018

The Call Of The Old God's - Yuletide

The Call Of The Old Gods
Whilst most readers of this Blog will be again celebrating Christmas once again, my guess is that a small minority will be like me and be celebrating the Feast of Yule.
As a non-Christian (albeit an Atheist), I do feel that the celebration of Yule is a far more fitting festival for our folk than the imported religion of the Middle East which has usurped Yule (and Easter) and turned them into Christian festivals.
What was, or rather is the Feast of Yule?
Well firstly it is not celebrated on the 25th December but on the 21st December, the Winter Solciste (Samhain), when it marks the shortest day. The Sun is at its lowest ebb but is to be reborn and rekindled as from the 22nd December the days start to lengthen again.
Yule or Yuletide ("Yule time") was and is a festival observed by the historical Germanic peoples. Scholars have connected the celebration to the Wild Hunt, the god Odin, and the pagan Anglo-Saxon Mōdraniht.
For todays Heathens and Pagans, Yule along with Midsummer in the 21st of June is one of the two great festivals celebrated by our Ancestors before the coming of the invading Middle Eastern religion of Christianity.
Across the whole of Scandinavia and down to the the Rus Folk of what is now Byelirussia; and across to Iceland, Greenland and for a brief period, Vinland in North America, our Ancestors paid homage to the Old Gods and the rebirth of the Life Force of 'Sol Invictus ' - the unconcquered Sun.
Yule is the modern English representation of the Old English words ġéol or ġéohol and ġéola or ġéoli, with the former indicating the 12-day festival of "Yule" (later: "Christmastide") and the latter indicating the month of "Yule", whereby ǽrra ġéola referred to the period before the Yule festival (December) and æftera ġéola referred to the period after Yule (January). Both words are thought to be derived from Common Germanic

In the book  "The Pagan Family" by Ceisiwr Serith the author, a practising Pagan has this to say:
"At Samhain we honour, celebrate and welcome the descent into, and return of, the dark - the beginning of the New Year, acknowledging that all beginnings emerge from darkness.At the Winter Solstice we reach the depth of that darkness with the longest night of the year. Darkness has reached its peak.
"Now we start to wonder: will this continue? Will the Earth grow darker and colder as the Sun disappears into the south until only darkness is left? But at Yule a wonderful thing happens. The Sun stops its decline and for a few days it rises in about the same place. This is the crucial time, the cusp between events. The Sun stands still, and everyone waits for the turning.
In our heads we know the light will return. But in the darkness of Winter, can we be sure? do our hearts believe what our heads tell us? Will the light keep its promises? We all have moments of darkness, when we don't know how much deeper we will go before the light starts to return (or even if it will). The world has moments too; it understands us, and lives as we do.
The Sun does start north again and the light comes back. In the world, in our lives, the light comes back. This is indeed something worth celebrating, and it has been celebrated throughout the Northern Hemisphere in remarkably similar ways."
Samhain was the Celtic name for Yule and in most respects apart from the names of the Old Gods was essentially the same festival.

Paganism/Heathenism is on the rise against across our Western lands - our Ancestral Lands.
Sadly, the New Age lefties have split the Pagan Faith Movement into two very distinctive camps.
As one would expect, the New Agers let anyone of any background or Race into their ranks and claim it is a religion for all, which it is clearly not.
A central division within the Heathen movement concerns the issue of race. Some groups adopt a "universalist" perspective which holds that the religion is open to all, irrespective of ethnic or racial identity. Conversely, others adopt a racialist attitude—often termed "folkish" within the community—by viewing Heathenry as an ethnic or racial religion with inherent links to a Germanic racethat should hence be reserved explicitly for people of Northern European descent, or "White people" in general. Some folkish Heathens further combine the religion with explicitly racial, White Nationalist  perspectives. . Although the term Heathenry is used widely to describe the religion as a whole, many groups prefer different forms of designation, influenced by their regional focus and their ideological preferences. Heathens focusing on Scandinavian sources sometimes use Ásatrú, Vanatrú, or Forn Sed; practitioners focusing on Anglo-Saxon traditions use Fyrnsidu or Theodism; those emphasising German traditions use Irminism; and those Heathens who espouse folkish and White Nationalist  perspectives tend to favor the terms Odinism, Wotanism, Wodenism, or Odalism

The worst excesses of the deluded Heathens - we'll go along with the term 'Universalist will be exhibiting themselves at Stonehenge once again this Solstice and making a mockery of what is without any shade of doubt an integral part of the Faith of Our Forefathers.
Only the Folkish form of Paganism truly understands that it is a belief in The Blood, and that Blood is of our Ancestors be they Norse, Rus, Anglo-Saxon or Germanic. 

An essential book produced by the Woden's Folk Kindred is 'The Heathen Way' available from either Amazon or direct from the Woden's Folk website at £12.50
It is full of the lore of our Folk of the past and of we their Children.
You will find lots more books if you do some digging and there is also a substantial library of Folkish Pagan literature too, in the best tradions of Beowulf.

I'll end this with a short (ish) poem by Susan Cooper encapsulating the whole feeling of Yuletide: - 

Welcome Yule...
“So the shortest day came, and the year died,
And everywhere down the centuries of the snow-white world
Came people singing, dancing,
To drive the dark away.
They lighted candles in the winter trees;
…They hung their homes with evergreen;
They burned beseeching fires all night long
To keep the year alive,
And when the new year’s sunshine blazed awake
They shouted, reveling.
Through all the frosty ages you can hear them
Echoing behind us – Listen!!
All the long echoes sing the same delight,
This shortest day,
As promise wakens in the sleeping land:
They carol, fest, give thanks,
And dearly love their friends,
And hope for peace.
And so do we, here, now,
This year and every year.
Welcome Yule!!”
– Susan Cooper, 

Happy and Festive Yule!
Eddy Morrison 
(This article is scheduled to appear in the next issue of White Voive No,22 - out 1st Deve,ber 2018)