The first issue is this idea that speech and ideas can lead to violence. That is a major and very serious problem, because obviously, any idea can be said to “lead to violence.”
When it comes to violence, you have to hold responsible individuals who perpetrate violence.
The Daily Stormer is actively against violence, speaking out against all types of violence, and yet every time a white person commits violence, as we thought happened earlier this week (it turned out it was a Moslem), everyone at the Daily Stormer winces, thinking we’re going to get attacked over it.
There is some possible speech that could be specifically intended to incite violence, i.e., “go get this person – now!” However, that type of speech is already illegal in every country, and always has been.
What the “hate speech and disinformation” regime does is claim that holding certain views and promoting certain views will lead to encouraging people to commit violence in support of those views. This position is completely non-feasible in a free society. And that is exactly the point – promotion of theories regarding “hate speech and disinformation” is intended to reduce freedom.
The second issue is that the reason they attack certain political and social views as “violent speech” is that these ideas are true, or at least contain some truth that the system is against.
That’s why the most obviously heinous speech, such as that of Antifa, or of Moslems or Jews, is not considered “hate speech and disinformation,” whilst much more mild right-wing speech is targeted. (Note: Antifa and Moslems and Jews should be allowed to speak – unlike Daily Caller and Breitbart, the Daily Stormer does not support canceling speech that we don’t like in any context. It is simply a matter of fact that if you were going around looking for the speech most likely to be considered extreme, it would be on the left and in left-aligned religious committees.)
The biggest threat of a terrorist attack in Finland is currently posed by individuals or small groups that support either “far-right” or Islamic fundamentalist ideology, the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service Supo has warned in its recent 2020 Yearbook report.
While gauging the overall threat as remaining “elevated” at level 2 on a four-point scale (which has been the case since the stabbing attack in Turku in August 2017), Supo warned that the activities of “far-right groups” in particular are becoming increasingly worrying.
Supo emphasised that the dangers posed by right-wing extremism had intensified in Finland and that it has continued to identify “far-right operators with the capacity and motivation to carry out a terrorist attack”.
“We are talking about people or small groups who try to hide their activities and who don’t necessarily have any connections to larger organisations apart from international right-wing extremist network environments“, Supo’s Head of Analysis Pekka Hiltunen told newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet.
The only possible way to hunt down individuals not associated with groups and stop them from committing violence through a “pre-crime” system is mass surveillance. Free societies have typically been against this, on principle.
According to Supo, these groups mushroomed in the mid-2010s, but their growth levelled off somewhat in recent years.
“The far-right counter-terrorism targets identified by Supo are typically linked to the extreme right-wing international online environment“, Supo Director Antti Pelttari said in a press release, citing evidence of concrete preparations for an attack. Supo’s Head of Analysis Pekka Hiltunen explained that this includes acquiring equipment suitable for an attack.
Among other things, the police suspected an anti-immigration group called Nationalist Alliance of preparing to commit a violent crime last year. Still, the authorities decided not to pursue the case due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
How many immigrants committed actual violent crimes while you were busy spying on these people?
“If you look at right-wing extremism on a general level in the Western world, it is usually about immigration and immigration policy”, Hiltunen emphasised, stressing the role of anti-Islamism, anti-Semitism, and general hostility to immigration as the pillars of extremist ideology.
Supo additionally noted that the “Great Replacement” theory, which claims the white European population is being demographically and culturally replaced with non-European people through mass migration, has been increasingly cited in right-wing circles.
It’s only a conspiracy theory when people who aren’t Jews talk about it
“This conspiracy-theory frame of reference is based on the idea of an existential threat that migration and multiculturalism pose to the Western white population”, Supo wrote.
Do you see how the narrative moves in a serpentine way from ideas to the threat of violence, and then zeros in on specific ideas that they want excised from society at large?
The way to stop political violence, as always, is more speech.
We are very well aware that there have been incidents of right-wing violence (though they obviously have never even begun to compare in scale to leftist or Islamic violence). However, it must be noted that virtually all of these incidents of right-wing violence happened after the mass censorship regime took hold in the West.
The reason people turn to violence is that they do not feel they are being heard. At this point in America, the tech companies are working to silence tens of millions of people.
We said at the time of the election controversy that if the left wanted to make people believe that the 2020 US presidential election was legitimate, all they would have to do is allow people to freely talk about it. Instead, they shut down all speech regarding it, and then started threatening to sue people. They did mass arrests of protesters, most of whom were peaceful.
Other Western governments are handling the issue in the same way, and it is clear that this agenda is not intended to reduce violence.
In fact, the system appears to be trying to provoke people into committing acts of violence as a way to justify further cracking down on speech.