Shutdown a Nazi Website

Fuck their freedom of speech. I've thought about it, and that's what I've come to. They'd do the same if they could. They kill SHARPs on their doorsteps in view of their families. They take ARA members out into the desert and execute them. They drive around looking for unsuspecting gays and minorities to bash. They're killing people. They're killing US...and we're discussing their freedom of speech?! Fuck that.

 

That.

 

To those that doubt the correlation between the State and White Supremacy and support free speech for hate speech....this:


White Supremacist Turned FBI Snitch Turner Sentenced for E-Threats
Posted in Neo-Nazi by Robert Steinback on December 22, 2010


The sentence wasn’t as harsh as he feared, but neo-Nazi blogger and shock-jock radio host Hal Turner will spend 25 months in prison worrying about white racists he believes will be eager to snuff him for having been an FBI informant.

Turner, 48, whose vicious rhetoric was much admired among white supremacists until his FBI connections were revealed three years ago, was convicted Aug. 13 of using his blog to threaten three federal judges. U.S. District Judge Donald E. Walter sentenced Turner to 33 months in prison Tuesday despite the defendant’s impassioned protestations of his innocence. Turner faced a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. The eight months Turner has already spent in custody will count toward his sentence.

The FBI used Turner to gain information about white supremacists from 2003 through 2007, when the agency decided it was too difficult to manage his volatile rhetoric and ended the relationship. According to the northern New Jersey newspaper The Record, Turner sent an E-mail from prison days before he was sentenced, saying that he expected the “Max Sentence.”

“Frankly,” he wrote, “any sentence they give me other than probation is gonna be a Death Sentence.” He said members of Aryan Brotherhood and Aryan Nations, as well as neo-Nazis and skinheads would target him “because of the work I did against their interests. And if it isn’t one of those groups that kill me, it will be one of the Minority groups who get told I’m some evil racist whatever,” according to The Record.

Turner has maintained that the FBI had issued him a virtual carte blanche to broadcast the things he did – something the agency denies. He called the charges against him “a lie” and accused virtually every person and institution involved in his conviction of corruption and “treachery.” He said his trial could be remembered as “the first Bolshevik show trial” in the United States, according to The Record.

Turner built his reputation as perhaps the most scalding of ultra-right-wing racists in media after starting up his radio show nearly a decade ago. He ranted about such things as a “Portable Nigger Lyncher” machine and slimed those he hated as “savage Negro beasts,” “bull-dyke lesbians,” “faggots” and worse. Turner also relished issuing explicit calls for death for specific reviled targets, even setting up a website called http://www(dot)killtheenemy(dot)com At one point, he boasted that he could inspire “a whole slew of potential Timothy McVeighs. I don’t make bombs,” he added, “I make bombers.”

In June 2006, Turner, outraged by a ruling of a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a ban on handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., wrote in his blog, “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges must die. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty.” The next day, Turner updated the post to include the names, work addresses, phone numbers and photographs of the three judges, along with a map of their courthouse.

At trial, Turner argued that his rhetoric was merely political hyperbole of the sort that he claimed his FBI handlers had encouraged to entice potentially violent racists to respond to him and, in the process, identify themselves to the Bureau. In two earlier trials, in December 2009 and March 2010, jurors deadlocked, apparently confounded by testimony that left it unclear if Turner was acting at the behest of authorities and whether or how real his threats were.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/12/2 ... r=HW122310

 

So firestarter turner is afraid of his own creations - too bad for him, playing with fire under big brothers "watchful" eyes and now getting burned... somehow I really like this consequent way of mother nature to get rid of players like him, only the prelude (7 years!!!) needs some serious adjustment...

 

this whole mad story reminds me very much of the scandal in germany some years ago, when the social-democratic secretary of the intern, otto schily (ex-sds member, ex-raf-lawyer, ex-top-10-green-party member)
had to admit in public, that the fascist "scene" in germany was so densly infliltrated with snitches from the Office for the Protection of the Federal Constitution [domestic intelligence agency], that his ministry and the police knew about each and every crime the fascists committed or ever had only planned.
asked for the motive of the inactivity of his public office concerning the crimes that actually happened he answered:
"we still have to deal with the problem of revealing our agents at court because of their possible involvement in crimes committed by rightwing militants." WOW!
some time läter the ultra-nationalist/fascist DVU became very strong in the eastern part of germany, seriously gaining ground against the established political parties. calls for a ban of the NPD became louder, especially from the conservatives, after the NPD began to cooperate with the DVU and used their well developed structures to support the elected DVU-members.
the plan almost came into action, law suits were prepared at the highest court - but repulsed swiftly, because:
the information the multitude of snitches gave to the authorities about the NPD wasn't legally aquired...
so it's still legal in germany to commit crimes against minority people and leftwingers under of the snitch protection of the BND - but not to use the information about these crimes aquired by the BND to persecute or ban the criminals or their criminal organisations!

 

Johann Georg Elser (* 4. Januar 1903 in Hermaringen, Württemberg; † 9. April 1945 im KZ Dachau) was no Anarchist at all, member of the german communist militants and/or kind of a leftwing christian - but he was the only german proletarian who undertook an attempt on adolf h.'s life at the Münchener Bürgerbräukeller on november 8th 1939, the "victim" left the place only a few minutes too early to travel back to berlin.

thinking about what would have happen in history if adolf h. would have stood just a little bit longer that evening... i think i'm the worst anarchist of all! \m/

edit: I forgot to mention: Georg Elser used a DIY-bomb he had hidden in months of secret work near the place where "the victim" made his infernal speeches every year on the 8th of november.

 

You got it the other way around, guy. At least as far as the US is concerned. Nazism is not part of the state. It's not even that big of a threat. Crucify me, but neo-nazism in the US isn't much more than a cult. A powerful cult? No doubt, cults usually are. But america is way too integrated for something that could only happen in a majority white country, like russia or germany. Seriously nazis are merely a pawn in the grand scheme of the machine. Exaggeration and promotion of phantom menaces is the top priority for the machine. Who do you think is the first to call someone a racist or turn something into a race issue? Who do you think still talks about the KKK as if they were actually still a threat? Who do you think invented "white guilt"?

 

I would not count on it, sludgefuck, maybe it's not that obvious - but the european fascists can only dream of the possibilities their northeamerican kameraden have, radio stations, web-presence, money, weapons and the tolerance that allows them to assemble in militia-like groups - everything the "liberal states" in europe would quench in an instant, and I guess not out of a feeling of "white guilt" or lessons learned from history - but because they - and especially the conservatives - have to competete with the fascists.
That's the first danger, summarized in an (in)famous quote from the most legendary asshole of the bavarian christian-social (!) party, franz josef strauss (rest in hell!): "We won't allow them to pass us on the right wing."
So europe gets ahead full at speed: ultraconservatives rule in the netherlands and elsewhere, democrats preaching islamophobia and the dangers of invasion by the birth canal, so it's enforced immigration laws and the war in the middle east too - you don't need "national socialists" to do the job, so it's snitches and the occasional arrest, maybe a party ban for them. But not too much, just enough to keep them handy in case of danger 2:
A crisis.
I agree with you, nutzis are only pawns in the general game, kinda last minute brake to pull out capitalism and evade everything else as an alternative. cadre organisations with a number of thugs you can count on, a few loud speakers - and of we go into german history 1928 - 1945. The end was predicable, social-democratic campaign posters warned 1932: "vote for hitler is voting for war"... but communism was evaded, lots of money earned and the bourgeois ready to saddle up again.
I doubt that the u.s. will ever turn into a state like germany 1933-1945, too much nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen bound for walhall - but using the well developed network of american fascists as a tool to keep the social movement down by assassinations of prominent leaders and terror on the streets?
Lil's example with otto schily still gives me the shits, this guy is a perfect turnskin - social democrat and the chief of an important part of the fascist scene in germoney - and somehow I don't really wanna know why... but I guess it will make me a bad anarchist too.

 

Bullshit! I defy you to explain Nazism not being part of the state to Mexican Americans and Native Americans living in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and specially in Arizona.....what the fuck are you talking about?

 

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/12/2 ... r=HW122310


FAIR Pushing Utah to Take Expensive Anti-Immigrant Plunge
Posted in Anti-Immigrant by Leah Nelson on December 21, 2010


The Salt Lake Tribune on Sunday published a lengthy investigative report on the origins of the immigration bill proposed by Utah State Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R-Orem). Chief among the story’s findings is that Michael Hethmon, general counsel to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), played a major role in crafting the bill.

IRLI is the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nativist extremist hate group with a penchant for hiring officials who are active in white supremacist organizations and write for anti-immigrant hate sites. FAIR characterizes itself as just another conservative-leaning organization seeking to tighten enforcement of immigration law, but it is the flagship of a network of organizations created by John Tanton, the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement who has produced an abundance of white nationalist commentary. The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated FAIR as a hate group.

FAIR’s involvement in drafting Utah’s law is no surprise. Arizona’s infamous SB 1070, now mired in litigation, was written by newly elected Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has served as FAIR’s senior counsel. Kobach is one of the attorneys defending the Arizona law in federal court.

And for at least the past six years, FAIR denizens have been hopping from state to state, “helping” localities craft ordinances aimed at barring undocumented immigrants from living and working within their limits. Together or separately, Hethmon, Kobach, and their colleagues at FAIR have created local enforcement ordinances for at least six jurisdictions besides Arizona.

Every one of those jurisdictions has been sued. Every one hired Hethmon or Kobach to defend it. Because of the lawsuits, none of the jurisdictions have been able to enforce their ordinances as originally written. And defending the lawsuits has proven expensive.

Hazleton, Pa., the first town to adopt an IRLI ordinance, racked up $2.4 million in legal fees by the time the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled its ordinance unconstitutional. Despite rescinding its ordinance, Riverside, N.J., owes $82,000 in legal fees. The costs to Farmers Branch, Texas, may exceed $5 million by January, yet the town still plans to appeal the district court’s decision to permanently enjoin its ordinance. Fremont, Neb., is only at the beginning of its legal travails, but has already raised taxes to cover an expected $750,000 in legal fees for fiscal year 2010-11 alone. Valley Park, Mo., was permitted to keep a fragment of its ordinance intact, but paid $240,000 in legal fees for the privilege. Virginia’s Prince William County is still implementing a modified version of its ordinance, which costs millions of dollars per year to enforce and has severely damaged the community’s economy.

Arizona’s legal fees have already surpassed $1 million, and that battle is only just beginning. Moreover, an analysis by the Center for American Progress suggests that the state stands to lose a staggering 4,236 jobs and $752.4 million in business and tax revenue.

All this may explain why Sandstrom was on the defensive even before he’d officially introduced his bill. In August, he declared that he had been consulting with lawyers in Washington to make sure the bill is “absolutely impossible to be litigated against.”

Sandstrom’s confidence doesn’t jibe with IRLI’s track record or with Hethmon’s recent statement about the laws he and his colleagues have been toying with. “Sink or swim, these new laws are forcing Congress to confront the need for enforcement-based reform,” he wrote in a 2010 op-ed for CNN. More important is that they “provoke sustainable immigration reform.”

In other words, Hethmon isn’t terribly upset if the laws he drafts get bogged down in litigation. What matters, he claims, is that they encourage immigration reform of some kind.

There are signs the sailing won’t be smooth for Sandstrom, however. In November, a powerful bipartisan opposition group including civil and religious authorities announced the creation of the “Utah Compact.” The five-point alternative to Sandstrom’s bill stresses that immigration is a federal issue that should be dealt with by the federal government and that immigrants play an important role as workers and taxpayers in Utah’s economy. It also stresses a “humane” approach to immigration reform that takes family ties and social well-being into account. The compact has been endorsed by Utah’s attorney general, two former governors, the highly influential Mormon Church, the Salt Lake County Council, and the Sutherland Institute, a conservative public policy organization.

The signatories’ resolve and the Salt Lake Tribune’s thorough examination of racist leanings of the organization behind Sandstrom’s bill may well make Utah’s state lawmakers think twice before they sign their state up for a whole lot of expensive legal trouble.

 

xenophobia =/= nazism. I don't argue that all these politicians are racist as fuck, but they're far from wanting to create a third reich. Racism does not ALWAYS imply nazism. Of course the judicial system is fucked up towards minorities, this is fact. But remember you can't dismiss all the legislations passed that promote racial equality/favoritism either. Where did those come from? Who made them? The way I see it, the machine is much more interested in deepening socioeconomic divides than racial ones. They're trying to get rid of all the mexicans because they will soon be the majority population and that is going to change the power structure, not because of some crackpot genetic idealism. Not only that but they're an easy scapegoat for the country's real problems. If the state had it their way, they would have EVERYONE poor, with a couple of heads at the top. Not saying they all wouldn't be white, but they don't have any real racial superiority agenda.

What i'm trying to say is that the only color they really care about is green. If you're a minority no doubt they won't let you get far in life, but if you're white and poor they don't give a fuck about you either.

 

I'm not going to argue semantics with you Sludge, I mean white supremacy in Government not xenophobia.

 

I don't see any semantics, just logic. I see that some officials are tied to neo-nazi groups, but it is not reflective of the whole.

 

Who said anything about the fucking whole? And if you make statements such as:

then your logic is flawed, because in parts of the U.S. it is a part of the State. Semantics.

 

If you want to go about it that way, wouldn't that mean that you're the one arguing semantics as it is not a reflection of the state, but a reflection of the pawns involved? By that same logic wouldn't it mean being PC is also part of the state as there are pawns involved who are PC, who want equality, etc? So which is it, where do you draw the distinction of something being part of it or not?

 

I see what you're driving at, and you're right to an extent I am arguing semantics. But ungov is saying that those who rule behind the scenes are nazis, and the desired outcome of their power is a nazi state and I highly disagree with that

 

I think what Ungov is trying to say, though I don't want to put words in his mouth is: always be vigilant, always be pro-active as opposed to re-active, never take things for granted or we may end up just as bad as Russia is today where the State is coddling the Nazi's and even encouraging them. Allowing for hatespeech to come under freedom of speech is like allowing cancer cells to live in the body because after all they are cells too. I think many of us on this site (myself included) allow our passions to blind us sometimes and we become entrenched in our arguments and refuse to see that we have become entrenched, so thank you for taking a step back and reflecting Sludge.