We can add Finland to the list

Posted by Al Ross on January 13, 2007, 11:55 PM | #

I really dont know why the Finns are flapping about ‘anti-Semitism’. They stood bravely against the Judaic forces of Communism and inflicted some humiliation upon Bronstein’s Red Army.

Posted by karlmagnus on January 14, 2007, 10:35 AM | #

Incitement to violence is illegal regardless of who the incitement’s against. Without seeing the letter in the original Finnish one can’t tell whether the court’s decision was reasonable, but since it was only a moderate fine it may well have been.

Posted by JB on January 14, 2007, 12:19 PM | #

A regional court found the editors guilty of inciting racial hatred. The editor of Uusimaa was fined $1,300 on Monday, and the editor of Kansan Uutiset was fined $500. Mr. Takkumaki also was fined $740.

I disagree with you Svi it’s not related to holocaust revisionism (contemporary heresy) because according the NYSun the authors of the letter say “that the Holocaust was acceptable” which presumably means they believe the Holocaust did happen.

Posted by Retew on January 14, 2007, 01:48 PM | #

This won’t be popular here but I support the prosecution of the editors for publishing this letter, not for its questioning of the Holocaust (if it did) but for its comments about violence against Jews being acceptable, whether past or present.

Incitement to violence (which these comments amount to, if the article is correct) is wrong IMO, no matter whom it’s against. Instead of prosecuting the letter writer, the paper should simply have refused to print the offending sections of the letter, or sent it back to the writer for revision.

I’ve taken a lot of stick on Stormfront for saying free speech should have limits, but this is one of them IMO.

Posted by a Finn on January 14, 2007, 02:03 PM | #

The original text part that was in trial is as follows: “... Despite being a human beast, one would have hoped, that time and gas would have been plentiful enough for him to reach the final solution, to make this chosen people to go to its blissful end ...”

Writer: Usko Takkumäki, Kansan Uuutiset -newspaper, 26.7.2006.

Kansan Uutiset is a communist newspaper, and Takkumäki’s writing was a useless communist/socialist rant. Still these cases are a threat to freedom of speech in Finland, because they can be used as a precedent to ever stringent stifling, and should be resisted on these grounds.

In Finland we have vigorous young intellectual opposition to the liberal/socialist/communist/green leftovers from sixties and seventies, who currently steer much of the political discussion and hold many important positions. They will be toppled from power in the future, but how much damage they manage to cause before that remains to be seen.

Anyways, interesting site you have here.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 14, 2007, 03:15 PM | #

I disagree with you Svi it’s not related to holocaust revisionism (contemporary heresy) because according the NYSun the authors of the letter say “that the Holocaust was acceptable” which presumably means they believe the Holocaust did happen.

You have a point, but it’s in the ballpark.

This won’t be popular here but I support the prosecution of the editors for publishing this letter, not for its questioning of the Holocaust (if it did) but for its comments about violence against Jews being acceptable, whether past or present.

Your underlying point seems to be that violence against non-Arab Semites is never justifiable.  Is that so?

Incitement to violence (which these comments amount to, if the article is correct) is wrong IMO, no matter whom it’s against. Instead of prosecuting the letter writer, the paper should simply have refused to print the offending sections of the letter, or sent it back to the writer for revision.

Lot’s of things are wrong.  Should we criminalize all of them?

Posted by James Bowery on January 14, 2007, 06:00 PM | #

Incitement to violence (which these comments amount to, if the article is correct) is wrong IMO, no matter whom it’s against.

Incitement to violence is not only allowable but morally righteous when violence is necessary.

The only question is, “When is violence necessary?”

Posted by VanSpeyk on January 14, 2007, 06:23 PM | #

Maybe it is useful to distinguist between two different parties; the state and the individual. I, too, believe it is unwise for individuals to use their free speech to incite violence against other individuals currently residing in the country. However, it is a differnt matter altogether when a man calls upon the government to use appropriate force, such as the call to change the demography of the nation back to the way it was, which would presumably involve some violence. My reason for this distinction is that I think the former can easily lead to riots, which are never really good, while the latter form is truly free speech in the sense that it is about public policy.

On the other hand, I must admit that I wouldn’t look to bad on a (major) race riot now occuring because it will wake up and shock public opinion (and, one hopes, elite opinion). But in an ideal society riots should not occur.

Posted by James Bowery on January 14, 2007, 08:02 PM | #

If a woman is being chased down and is screaming for help, I consider it ridiculously immoral to claim that her using her individual free speech to incite violence against the rapist to be immoral.

This isn’t a mere “hole” in your argument.

Posted by a Finn on January 14, 2007, 08:41 PM | #

Some background from Finland: Here the communist and socialist circles are literally magnets to many people, who are mentally unstable or ill. Rantings like Takkumäki’s are fairly common amongst them, and they have no effect on normal people. Nobody will go to the streets and attack jews because of their writings. Communist and socialist problem would greatly attenuate if appropriate psychological drugs would be dealt among them. It would be better and more effective way to deal with them than to make their idiotic and crazy rantings freedom of speech issues. If all their rantings are taken seriously and prosecuted, it would put pressure on normal sensible political talk also. Finnish nationalists have been in trials to protect their freedom of speech and they have won their cases.

I know several communists and socialists, I have observed them tens of years and gathered enough information, so I know what they are in Finland.

These things does not exclude that some socialists and communists are intelligent in their IQ’s, of course.

Posted by karlmagnus on January 14, 2007, 11:38 PM | #

I think I prefer the state to administer modest fines against incitement to violence rather than administer drugs to change people’s behaviour. The latter is a truly chilling idea. I don’t think free speech is an absolute; indeed I approve of 1790s style sedition laws (oh, if only we had a 1790s government enforcing them!)

I draw the distinction between criminalizing holocaust denial and putting Irving in jail, which is clearly wrong and typcial of the EU bureaucracy and this case, where the moderate punishment appears to be justified though one can’t be sure.,

Posted by James Bowery on January 15, 2007, 01:53 AM | #

I would agree that free speech isn’t an absolute if the regime allowed you to “vote with your feet” taking your SUBSISTENCE TERROTORY WITH YOU.

Indeed, any regime that does _not_ recognize such self-determination is tyrannical and should be destroyed.

Yes.  I just “advocated violence”.

The only alternative is existential Malthusian conflict.

Posted by JB on January 15, 2007, 02:08 AM | #

a Finn:

The original text part that was in trial is as follows: “… Despite being a human beast, one would have hoped, that time and gas would have been plentiful enough for him to reach the final solution, to make this chosen people to go to its blissful end ...”

is that quote supposed to be some incitement to violence ?

anyway, he only got a fine of a few hundreds of dollars. in Canada it would have been thousands and perhaps a few months in prison

Posted by JB on January 15, 2007, 02:11 AM | #

hey Finn is your spoken english good enough to be interviewed by MR’s radio host ? I’d like to know more about Finland, the politics, the people, the immigrants, the media, the schools.

Posted by Retew on January 15, 2007, 05:32 AM | #

Svyatoslav_Igorevich wrote;

QUOTE

Your underlying point seems to be that violence against non-Arab Semites
is never justifiable. Is that so?

=============================================

It wasn’t specifically about Jews (let’s call them by their proper name); I’m opposed to all forms of violence.

However, I believe you should be allowed to call for any form of due political process in order to deal with people who are causing a problem or behaving badly.

Let’s take an example; Tony Blair, who I think has been mendacious in getting us into a war in Iraq. I believe he should be impeached and, if found guilty, sentenced to prison, but I don’t support his being beaten up though I can understand people wanting to take a pop at him (I’ve felt like it myself sometimes).

Same with the Jews. If you think they’re undermining America, by all means call for them to be deported to Israel, but don’t beat them up.

Your second point about “lots of things being wrong, should we criminalise them all?” is a good one, and I don’t really know the answer to it. I think for things to be criminalised there’s got to be some presumption of collective abhorrence of the thing being outlawed, not just personal opinion, and advocacy of violence qualifies for this.

I had to siuffer Elvis Presl;ey’s “The Wonder of YOu”

Posted by Retew on January 15, 2007, 12:49 PM | #

Forget that last line in my post above.

Posted by retewey brutey on January 15, 2007, 04:12 PM | #

“I’m opposed to all forms of violence….Same with the Jews. If you think they’re undermining America, by all means call for them to be deported to Israel, but don’t beat them up.”

I see. Forcible deportation (do you think they’d go voluntarily?) is not violence.  Very good.

I do wonder why Svigor even bothers debating such specimens.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 15, 2007, 04:36 PM | #

is that quote supposed to be some incitement to violence?

Indeed, someone should point out to me how stating that non-Arab Semites deserved what they got is incitement to violence…I’m a little slow sometimes.

Retew:

It wasn’t specifically about Jews (let’s call them by their proper name); I’m opposed to all forms of violence.

That still doesn’t answer the question:

Is violence ever justified?

P.S., is “gentile” our proper name?  How about “non-Hispanic white”?

Same with the Jews. If you think they’re undermining America, by all means call for them to be deported to Israel, but don’t beat them up.

(That’s an interesting twist - a subtle ad hom?  I have never called for deportation of or assault against non-Arab Semites, or anyone else for that matter.  I recognize the possibility of honest ambiguity here)

The issue is whether or not we should be criminalizing the suggestion that we do.  I say no, absolutely not.

Your second point about “lots of things being wrong, should we criminalise them all?” is a good one, and I don’t really know the answer to it. I think for things to be criminalised there’s got to be some presumption of collective abhorrence of the thing being outlawed, not just personal opinion, and advocacy of violence qualifies for this.

So, no need for actual harm done - just offend the powerful and you’re in the dock?  Whatever the teevee can persuade enough nimrods to get behind as “abhorrent” becomes thought-crime?

Jawohl!

I do wonder why Svigor even bothers debating such specimens.

Haha, try Stormfront.  Retew is a gentleman and a scholar.  As long as a person can comport with a modicum of civility and good faith, and in a manner consistent with a secondary education, I try to respond.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 15, 2007, 05:25 PM | #

I have never called for deportation of or assault against non-Arab Semites, or anyone else for that matter.

Correction: I’ve never called for deportation of anyone outside Europe; I have called for repatriation of all non-European peoples from Europe (and still do).

Posted by Retew on January 15, 2007, 07:38 PM | #

Retewy brutey wrote;

QUOTE

I see. Forcible deportation (do you think they’d go voluntarily?) is not violence. Very good.

====================

Not in the normal sense of the word, no. By violence, I mean physical assault against the person, such as a blow, gunshot, knifing etc. That’s what I think most people would mean by violence if you used the word.

Posted by Retew on January 15, 2007, 07:52 PM | #

1 / That still doesn’t answer the question:

Is violence ever justified?

Yes, in self-defence or to protect those you love. I don’t mind “gentile” btw, it’s “gentle” with an “I” in it.

But there is an old saying that violence begets violence - almost bnever does the person struck turn round ands say “You know, I deserved that.”

They usually become even more hardened in their attitude that you’re their enemy and deserve whatever they’re doing to you to provoke you

2 / So, no need for actual harm done - just offend the powerful and you’re in the dock?  Whatever the teevee can persuade enough nimrods to get behind as “abhorrent” becomes thought-crime?

Jawohl!

There’s a difference between necessary and sufficient condition. Necessary is collective abhorrence, sufficient is proof of harm done, and “offending the powerful” wouldn’t qualify (there’s probably more to this, I’ve got a discussion of it in some books somewhere).

Best,

Retew .

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 15, 2007, 11:31 PM | #

So, violence is justified in self-defense; I suppose what constitutes self-defense is in the eye of the beholder.  Ben Tillman’s posted an excellent quote on the question of methods several times, at least once at my behest (I thought it was from Ludovici’s The Jews, and the Jews in England, but I can’t find it within).  In a nutshell, it rhetorically asks why economic and cultural warfare is inherently morally superior to physical warfare.  I.e., why is it more acceptable for a rich, cohesive, intelligent group to buy or boondoggle a less intelligent, less rich, less cohesive group into extinction than it is for the latter to bludgeon the former to the same end?

Posted by storm brute on January 16, 2007, 06:20 AM | #

“That’s what I think most people would mean by violence if you used the word.”

“Most people” would be well suited as casting extras in the movie “Idiocracy” - and they wouldn’t even have to act.  If by “violence” you mean “direct, physical violence against the person”, then just say so.  I assume then that you and “most people” would not characterize vandalism/arson, etc. as “violence.”

“I.e., why is it more acceptable for a rich, cohesive, intelligent group to buy or boondoggle a less intelligent, less rich, less cohesive group into extinction than it is for the latter to bludgeon the former to the same end?”

Because the former group makes the rules, and the latter group includes “scholars” who don’t understand the full spectrum of “violence.”

“Haha, try Stormfront.”

Better question: why do you waste your time with Stormfront - where the average IQ would be barely surpassing that of a lemur?  Nothing of use is going to come from there, or from the established “movement” as a whole.

“Retew is a gentleman and a scholar.”

“Gentleman” I don’t know, but if that is what passes for a “scholar”, it shows how far the west has fallen.

Posted by Retew on January 16, 2007, 09:58 AM | #

So where exactly do you think “something of use” is going to come from, storm brute or whatever name you’re going to post under next time? According to you, “most people” would be casting extras on the movie “Idiocracy,” the average IQ on Stormfront would be barely distinguishable from that of a lemur, and the west has “fallen” so far that I can be called a “scholar.”

Seems that your “white nation” would be a very small place, the rest of us, white or not, being deigned unfit for even the most menial tasks there. I think I’ll pass.

Posted by scholarly brute on January 16, 2007, 10:23 AM | #

“So where exactly do you think “something of use” is going to come from, storm brute or whatever name you’re going to post under next time?”

First, “scholar”, if you’ve noticed “brute” is included at all times in posts, so don’t make believe there is any confusion there.

Second, “something of use” may come from individuals such as Frank Salter or Kevin MacDonald, from some of the serious nationalists in Europe, perhaps from fellows like Taylor or O’Meara, or even from some of the more thoughful people at MR.  I do not think “something of use” is going to come from sites where people posting as “supernazi8814wordsultraHitler” or the like put up barely literate comments on subjects they little or nothing about.

No surprise you are most comfortable dealing with that level of argument.

“According to you, “most people” would be casting extras on the movie “Idiocracy,” the average IQ on Stormfront would be barely distinguishable from that of a lemur, and the west has “fallen” so far that I can be called a “scholar.”

All true.

“Seems that your “white nation” would be a very small place, the rest of us, white or not, being deigned unfit for even the most menial tasks there.”

Well, people of your intellectual level would be useful for “menial tasks”; someone has to do them.

“I think I’ll pass.”

No one wants you, specifically.

Posted by ben tillman on January 16, 2007, 03:36 PM | #

“By violence, I mean physical assault against the person, such as a blow, gunshot, knifing etc.”

So, by “assault” you mean “battery”?  And an “assault” is not violent?

Posted by ben tillman on January 16, 2007, 03:44 PM | #

“Ben Tillman’s posted an excellent quote on the question of methods several times, at least once at my behest….”

The quote is from Goldwin Smith, and it appears in MacDonald’s Culture of Critique:

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/quote.html

A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jews might so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the falling Empire they were the great slave-traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force? Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mould the modern world.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 16, 2007, 05:07 PM | #

I post at SF for various reasons, but I suppose the foremost is that it’s the only place I can regularly “debate” anti-humanists with free reign.  I’d love to find a venue with lots of eyeballs, free speech, and a smarter opposition.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 16, 2007, 05:09 PM | #

Thanks Ben, there’s a nice “and fuck you, btw” tone to the quote that my paraphrasal didn’t impart.

Because the former group makes the rules, and the latter group includes “scholars” who don’t understand the full spectrum of “violence.”

Efficacy isn’t morality.

Posted by Retew on January 16, 2007, 05:43 PM | #

Scholarly brute wrote;

1 / Second, “something of use” may come from individuals such as Frank Salter or Kevin MacDonald, from some of the serious nationalists in Europe, perhaps from fellows like Taylor or O’Meara, or even from some of the more thoughtful people at MR.

How about John “Birdman” Bryant? He’s impressed me in the past;

http://www.thebirdman.org

2 / I do not think “something of use” is going to come from sites where people posting as “supernazi8814wordsultraHitler” or the like put up barely literate comments on subjects they know little or nothing about.

There are some very clever and knowledgeable people who post on Stormfront; don’t be too quick to write them all off just because some of them apparently aren’t too bright. I’ve mentioned some of the better ones in a different thread.

Posted by Retew on January 16, 2007, 06:03 PM | #

Ben Tillman wrote;

QUOTE

So, by “assault” you mean “battery”?  And an “assault” is not violent?
============================================

Let me check my dictionary (Concise Oxford, 1976)

Assault = make violent or hostile attack upon.

So yes, an assault is violent.

Battery = infliction of blows, or of any menacing touch to clothes or person

So, assault and battery covers it.

Posted by Retew on January 17, 2007, 02:43 AM | #

Because the former group makes the rules, and the latter group includes “scholars” who don’t understand the full spectrum of “violence.”

I would use the word “coercion” to cover those situations where someone is forced by threat of, say, lawsuits to do something they don’t want to do.

But really we’re just arguing over semantics here. The real question is, is it OK to beat people up in pursuit of your political goals? Birdman Bryant covered this very well, I thought, in an exchange with a WN on his website and his answer is “no”.

Though I don’t share Birdman’s worldview, I think this is well worth reading;

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Fight/Fight-ThinkingAboutViolence.html

Posted by bird brute on January 17, 2007, 06:46 AM | #

“How about John “Birdman” Bryant? He’s impressed me in the past”

I’m sure he has:
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Index-SPBird.html

“The real question is, is it OK to beat people up in pursuit of your political goals?”

Since you say that the answer should be “no”, shouldn’t you then be debating the “anti-racists” and “anti-fascists” and “anarchists” who routinely use violence to pursue their political goals (and who get away with it because, their pretensions aside, they are really conformists serving the interests of the establishment)?

“There are some very clever and knowledgeable people who post on Stormfront…”

Have fun debating both of them.

Posted by Rnl on January 18, 2007, 01:31 AM | #

brute wrote:

I do not think “something of use” is going to come from sites where people posting as “supernazi8814wordsultraHitler” or the like put up barely literate comments on subjects they little or nothing about.

Stormfront is a good site, even if a few posters there choose nyms like supernazi8814. They are a minority. Most of the contributors to SF are just normal people concerned about their nation’s future.

You don’t need Salter to grasp that allowing the Mexican invasion to continue is a very bad idea. All you need is a willingness to think without the obstruction of “racism.” Whatever supernazi8814’s deficiencies, he has at least overcome that obstacle. That makes him more enlightened than most Whites.