Talk:Ron Gostick

Untitled

His obituary in the Globe and Mail says July 18 - July 16, and his entry here says July 22 -July 20. Which is correct? DS 02:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

-July 18, 1918-July 16 is the correct birth and death dates--68.146.186.180 21:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Skullnboner

The last edit (from 68.146.186.180) appears to remove useful information, add no useful information and change the article to no longer be from an NPOV (using terms like "Canadian patriot" etc). I've reverted it, and modified the original paragraph in case there is any controversy over whether Mr. Gostick was actually a white supremacist. barto 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

--I don't know what you consider "useful" information Barto, but someone here can't even get the birthdate and death date correct. I am posting here as someone who has known Mr. Gostick for over 30 years. Mr. Gostick was NOT a "White Supremacist"--that I can assure you of; though people who did NOT like his stand for "freedom of speech, research" etc., particularly when it interfered with their plans to stifle just such things were apt to distort and call him any name they desired by way of smearing. I have never heard even the bad press call him a "white Supremacist"---extreme rightwing, hatemonger, anti-semite and other bogeymen names--yes. These would again be stupid name calling without any legitmate application in their use.

So how is "White Supremacist" NPOV and "Canadian patriot" NOT?! I think it's a matter of false perspective. BTW--there is a link to David Lethbrigde, who was nothing but a Jewish-Marxist "Professor", who misled a gang of youths in disrupting meetings of lawfully abiding citizens using their right to free speech--mooning an assembly of mature people is being a "professor" worthy of even the slightest consideration here!!!

The link to anti-semitic, which I find to be an absurd page in the first place is just another smear tactic (used by left-to-right so-called) to quell the right to question and discuss anything that has to do with things "Jewish", Zionist, Israeli by labelling people as if they were the devil themselves. I personally know of many Jews who stood by his stance on freedom of speech and any published articles on the exploits of Zionism and it's New World Order machinations.

I will correct the dates for his birth and death among other re-edits.--Skull 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Skull

Changing the article from being vaguely not NPOV (which I tried to correct) to even more NPOV doesn't help. Wikipedia is not a political debate forum. barto 15:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • BTW--the Ron Gostick's whole life was "political". There is no escaping the political bias of editors, if as you say wiki is not a political debate forum. For someone like David Lethbridge, being both Jewish of the zionist variety and a Marxist, any reference to or by him is "politically" motivated. I have Barrett's book also and it too is distorted politcised propoganda, as well as being innacurrate. Wiki's article on Paul Fromm is also atrocious political propoganda with no intention of being factual and truthful in either the facts or the presention of his overall perspective.

Wiki is being used as a "political-debate" forum ALL the time, wether it likes it or not. Why do you think this article on Ron Gostick or Paul Fromm is on wiki--because they or their supporters wanted it?!! The latter probably doesn't even know the article on him exists here, or he can't be bothered to waste time correcting the record. Do you see what I mean? This is happening all over Wiki.--Skull 05:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made major changes to the page, removing material that changed between edits which I couldn't find sources for. I also removed much of the hostile language in the page. Whatever your political views, it would be helpful to find sources and make NPOV contributions to this page. --barto 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well Barto--most of your links are to internal wiki pages (except for the one to the notorious David Lethbridge). Some of your links go nowhere. I left you an external link to the Australian League of Rights where can find any number of archives that you want on Ron Gostick, Patrick Walsh etc. Instead, you prefer links to heavily prejudiced, distorted articles within wiki itself--undoubtedly edited by people with the same agenda of merely demonising the overall character and objectives of Ron Gostick, the League of Rights etc. You want accurate information--go to the horses mouth--not just it's enemies or mind-fogged tools. Otherwise, you show your bias against truthful NPOV in favour of distorted slants becomes apparent. ACCURACY please! It took me 2 edits to get the correct birth and death date to stay.--Skull 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • • If you feel other pages on Wikipedia are factually incorrect or biased, please edit those pages or discuss in their respective talk pages. No matter how bias an internal page is, I don't consider linking to it to be a problem as this is Wikipedia - if there is a genuine issue, you can fix it or help get it fixed! Getting back to THIS article, thank you again for correcting the dates of birth and death. Unfortunately sources of information on Ron Gostick on the internet seem to be from the far left or far right, with no mainstream, authoritative sources (eg the NYT). However there does appear to be some journal articles on him which I will review when I have time. --barto 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

David Lethbridge's article in the "People's Voice" has nothing to do with Ron Gostick or the bethune institute. There was already a reference to his institute's (and presumably his as I'm guessing they are one and the same) anti-capitalist views.

Also if you are going to edit a page, please make sure your links/refs/etc work - this is the second time I've had to fix Wiki code in this article. --barto 03:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Well you are the wiki expert! You could have fixed them. However, why do you insist on including anything by David Lethbridge or other "extreme-left wing" types in the article? David Lethbridge, The People's Voice and the Bethune Institute are the same thing. This should be made clear in the article if you are going to quote the man who fronts these "organisations" as a Communist (rather than the euphemistic term of "progressive"). Describe who David Lethbridge is that he should be so quoted and regarded as credible.--Skull 05:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW--the whole University of New England calls the Australian League of Rights an "extreme right wing" organisation!! How is this an endorsement of that allegation to be regarded as noteworthy and accurate? Show where the League in it's own materials endorses the "extreme right wing", whatever that appears to mean to you or anyone else. See if you can find some positive links that shows Ron Gostick or the Leagues of Rights stand opposed to both the so-called Left, the Right and the "Center"--in other words for "limited gov't' and democratic freedoms vs. totalitarianism of any kind.--Skull 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you got rid of links to pages from (what are generally considered) far left and far right groups, you'd have to get rid of 90% of the article!

• • • So be it. Let us be rid of the article altogether. You haven't used one link of any substance other than from the "left" and especially David Lethbridge. Are you afraid of the word communist, because that is what he is? "Activist" is no description of the person being quoted with an extreme bias and political agenda diametrically opposed to the person's he derides under phoney titles of claims "to combat fascism"--ascribing to others what HE actually is.--Skull 11:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the information from the UNE... if users want to know about the australian league of rights they can click the wiki link and find out for themselves. Same goes for David Lethbridge.

• • • Gee! You suppose anyone, including David Lethbridge and the likes can create articles and do editings at Wiki? Any link internally to Wiki will be like this article because some "activists" have a lot of time on their hands to playfully slime and do selective glowing peices on their favorite subject--maybe even themselves...hmmm!--Skull 11:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Information from the UNE is reputable because it's an accredited university, and should be attributed. Information from an organisation about itself should be provided in that context, eg "the Australian League of Rights describes itself as blah blah blah".--barto 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • I know how Universities work. They are an institution not a person and any small group of spokesmen can claim anything they want in the name of the University....from any political or religious persuasion they may come from, depending on who is in control. There is nothing scientific about such statements, nor are they obliged to be concerned with "due process" as in a court of law, where both sides can have their say for public consumption.--Skull 11:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put a more relevent link featuring David Lethbridge in the references --barto 07:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Your new link is more of the same darkly laughable humor from an insignificant "con-artist" with a credible following hardly large enough to fit in a drunk tank!--Skull 11:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Skull, if you want to make a wiki where universities and newspapers are not authoritative sources and anything an organisation you like says about themselves and its sympathizers is taken at face value, go ahead. Mediawiki, the software that powers Wikipedia, is freely available and many people use it.

In the mean time I think the current Ron Gostick article on Wikipedia is a pretty good effort on the part of several people including myself and yourself. --barto 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

---

David Lethbridge, Director [1] David Lethbridge, a Communist Party candidate, frequently dissembled against others on free speech issues. dis·sem·ble (dĭ-sĕm'bəl) v., -bled, -bling, -bles. v.tr. To disguise or conceal behind a false appearance. See synonyms at disguise. To make a false show of; feign. v.intr. To disguise or conceal one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance. A Liar is a Liar...to dissemble is to deceive and conceal real motives...which was to suppress the free speech of others under the guise of racist accusations and other nonsense. This is what Red Fascist agitators do to forward their tyranous aims. David Lethbridge is an uncredible source and as is Dimitroff, a brother ideologue in Red Fascism. One problem solved..remove Lethbridge...next..--Skull 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lectures from the far right on dissimulation and free speech is rich indeed. Anyway, I added Lethbridge's party affiliation if that helps. Gostick was a provocative figure, and I don't think the reaction to his provocations is avoidable, which in this case comes more from the far left than anywhere, and is the basis of Gostick's notability. Bobanny 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Split Proposal

I am proposing that this article should be split, or more accurately that the redirect should be removed, so that there is a separate Ron Gostick article and a separate Canadian League of Rights article.--JHumphries (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Have now split by removing redirect--JHumphries (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Gostick allegedly published "far right" and "antisemitic" material

This is a smear, not an encyclopedia entry. What in fact is supposed to be meant by the term "far right"?

Why would you just automatically smear someone or something as "anti-semitic"?

Have you read any or all of their publications? Or are you just pandering to the real hate-mongers?

Here's one of Pat Walsh's books, actually it's a pamphlet. it's online, 36 pages. You can read it for FREE on your lunch hour, then POST a real review here to explain whether or not it's "antisemitic" and/or "far right" (and define "antisemitic" and define "far right"), and give REASONS citing the contents of the book itself:

http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447aeee1319bc59

REASONS! Not BLIND SMEAR.

Speaking for myself, I have read SEVERAL of the League's books, better called pamphlets, by PAT WALSH and ERIC D. BUTLER, introductions by Ron Gostick, and there is nothing "anti-semitic" in them.

That particular item (above) has a very interesting back page setting out the principles to which Members of their League adhere.

Perhaps you'd consider creating a separate Wikipedia page on the Canadian League of Rights, and QUOTE the entire closing section and back page of that pamphlet from 1982. These men are all dead now, this is their voice speaking, this is how they viewed their League and their objectives. Perhaps instead of smearing them and putting "views" in their mouths which are not there in print, you could refer to exactly what they DID say, including about themselves and their objectives.

I'm not going to wait for you to do it, here it is, I'm copying directly from the back of their own publication, last page, back cover (page 36) from the book linked above:

"The objectives of the League

The Canadian League of Rights is a free association or movement of Canadians dedicated to the preservation of freedom and justice in Canada, and the defence of our Christian heritage. Members of the League pledge themselves to further the following aims and objectives:

   To promote loyalty to God, Family and Country.
   To defend our constitutional monarchy and Christian heritage.
   To work for the restoration of more responsible parliamentary government, and to oppose government-by-regulation.
   To encourage personal responsibility and individual initiative as essential to the preservation and expansion of personal freedom.
   To oppose monopoly, centralized power and bureaucracy in government and in every sphere of national life.
   To uphold national sovereignty and the ties of the Commonwealth, and to expose all forces operating against them.
   To strive for a genuine association of free and sovereign nations, co-operating for the wellbeing of all peoples.
   To oppose and expose every form of totalitarianism — be it ‘Nazism’ ‘Communism’ or any other’ism.’

MEMBERS of the Canadian League of Rights:—

• REJECT the materialistic concept that the individual can do nothing, that he is but flotsam drifting on the sea of history; • BELIEVE that the individual does count; and further • BELIEVE that the individual, calling upon God’s grace and guidance, can be more than a helpless victim of environment; that the individual, working in association with others of faith and courage — the dedicated minority — can help to shape and mould history, and make a constructive contribution to the future of this country.

CONCERNING GOVERNMENT: “It is not the legitimate role of government to do for people what they can and should do for themselves. The prime role of government should be to maintain law and order and the general conditions which encourage the exercise of personal initiative and responsibility by [word covered by bar code] in looking after their own welfare.

– Ron Gostick. National Director of the C.L.R."

Sounds like the kind of people I'd like to have for neighbours. Decent, law-abiding, God-loving, hard-working ordinary people who like their life and want to keep it that way.

These men just happen to be Christians opposed to atheistic Marxism and Jewish-founded materialistic, anti-family, anti-national communism, in particular in their own country founded for them by their Christian ancestors to be the permanent safeguard of their own FREEDOM, rights and culture. Marxism is organized slavery to the state which they do not wish as the future of their own people and children. Their attitude is almost Pioneer in character; the self-reliant character that built the west, including Canada. Nobody who built this country, including my grandparents and great-grandparents on both sides, had "welfare" waiting for them when they arrived. They had hard work waiting for them, and that's what they came for, not socialist Marxist state control and handouts.

These men are in particular opposed to having the public government of the country hijacked from the inside by spies, infiltrators and foreign powers determined to destroy their government, their country, their race, rights and culture.

Presumably you would defend the right of Jews to their race, country and culture -- as well as their right to defend it; but for non-Jews to have the same rights is perhaps "anti-semitic" in your view? Because it just doesn't "agree" with the views of Jews about what all non-Jews should be, think and do?

There isn't a rude word or a racist word in I'd say five pamphlets of theirs that I've read.

WHAT HAVE YOU WRITERS OF THIS GOSTICK PAGE READ FROM THE CANADIAN LEAGUE OF RIGHTS THAT IS "ANTI-SEMITIC", AND PLEASE PROVIDE THE EXTRACTS in support of your allegations of "anti-semitism" and explain what you mean by "far right".

Thank you.

P.S. Here's another one for you, it's online:

http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179074d7854a29cc

The Real Communist Menace by Eric D. Butler, a colleague of Gostick, Pat Walsh and the League, and highly recommended by them. Perhaps you could read the article and see if there is anything in it that is "far right" or "antisemitic" (but first provide definitions, thank you).

It's OCR'd over here:

http://nosnowinmoscow.com/eric-d-butler/the-real-communist-menace/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.82.126 (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

24.114.87.85 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ron Gostick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623045022/http://bnaibrith.ca:80/press0/pr-961211-35.htm to http://www.bnaibrith.ca/press0/pr-961211-35.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)