The Gentile Declaration of Independence.

[Blunt]

I pledge allegiance to the wind, the moon and the sun but not to a six-pointed star, nor to the small artificial nation for which it stands, with tyranny for the many and a rank, manipulated and selective justice for the few; this one nation under Zog with liberty and independence for some.


When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bondage which has subjugated them to another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident that the Gentile is in all ways equal to any Ashkenazi, who masquerades as a Semitic Jew, while practicing genocide upon actual Semites whose lands they have stolen under the guise of fraudulent, scriptural interpretations and who have also taken control of this, the most powerful Gentile nation on Earth whose coffers and economy they have also systematically looted/QUOTE
Smoking Mirrors

 

[Goshin]

Oh good Lord. :ws

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You know, one might be inclined to point out that the most powerful Gentile nation on Earth-- which is actually the most powerful nation on Earth with no need for any qualifiers-- only became the most powerful nation on Earth because they committed genocide against the native inhabitants of the North American continent and stole their land under the guise of fraudulent scriptural interpretations.

The home from which I am posting this message, my home in my hometown, was stolen from the Cheyenne. We even had the audacity to name the city after them.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This thread is in the "Freedom of Speech" sub-forum. Where is the discussion of the freedom of speech?

 

[Blunt]

I needed to correctly prepare this so as not to fall outside the forum rules
And dont know how to edit the first post

I pledge allegiance to the wind, the moon and the sun but not to a six-pointed star, nor to the small artificial nation for which it stands, with tyranny for the many and a rank, manipulated and selective justice for the few; this one nation under Zog with liberty and independence for some.


When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bondage which has subjugated them to another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to the separation.

This a quote that I read, I think it´s Written in the style of the Declaration of independence, which when IT was published was free speech to some, and Treason to the United Kingdom, would you call this freespeech today? And who decides where the limit is on free speech?
Smoking Mirrors

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This a quote that I read, I think it´s Written in the style of the Declaration of independence, which when IT was published was free speech to some, and Treason to the United Kingdom, would you call this freespeech today? And who decides where the limit is on free speech?
Smoking Mirrors

There is nothing in this document that either incites or implies treason against the United States government. There could possibly be grounds to claim that it is sedition, but the last I was aware sedition was no longer illegal.

The most likely charge against the author of this document about be "hate speech" or something similar-- which is thankfully not yet illegal in the United States.

As far as "free speech" goes, I draw the line at open and specific calls to violence against individuals or groups, deliberate and false incitement to panic, or disorderly conduct in public. People should have every right to express whatever opinion they hold, but I have no objection to the law requiring them to express that opinion in a civilized and orderly fashion.

Of course, I also believe in the concept of "fighting words", that a person shall have every legal right to express an insulting opinion-- but that it should also give the insulted party grounds for the use of force.

 

[Goshin]

This a quote that I read, I think it´s Written in the style of the Declaration of independence, which when IT was published was free speech to some, and Treason to the United Kingdom, would you call this freespeech today? And who decides where the limit is on free speech?
Smoking Mirrors

I have no idea whether you are posting this because you agree with it, or because of some other reason. Some original content, such as what you think of it, would be helpful.

As to your question, I assert that you (or whoever) has the right to say these things under freedom of speech. I also have the right to call them utter nonsense.


G.

 

[talloulou]

Of course, I also believe in the concept of "fighting words", that a person shall have every legal right to express an insulting opinion-- but that it should also give the insulted party grounds for the use of force.

You think one person should be allowed to physically assault another with legal protection on the basis of "fighting words?"

I don't.

I understand and even at times appreciate that someone might have deserved the consequence of a punch in the mouth but I don't think it should have legal protection the way self defense would in an assault case. I figure if it's worth the legal hassle for you to hit someone then go for it but I don't think the law should get in the business of allowing words and speech to justify outright violence. Perhaps it's the mom in me. "Use your words, not your fists."

 

[Goshin]

You think one person should be allowed to physically assault another with legal protection on the basis of "fighting words?"

I don't.

I understand and even at times appreciate that someone might have deserved the consequence of a punch in the mouth but I don't think it should have legal protection the way self defense would in an assault case. I figure if it's worth the legal hassle for you to hit someone then go for it but I don't think the law should get in the business of allowing words and speech to justify outright violence. Perhaps it's the mom in me. "Use your words, not your fists."

Weeeeell....yes and no.

Punching someone in the mouth has never been legal, that I know of. "Fightin' words" used to be a defense against a charge of battery, lessening the penalty perhaps, or possibly convincing a jury to acquit.

Since we've abandoned the principle of "fully informed juries", making sure jurors realize that they have a right to acquit someone even if he's technically guilty, if they believe that justice is properly served by acquittal.... well we've set a lot of common sense aside.

I'm not sure it should be legal to bust someone in the mouth if they richly deserve it, but if they spoke things most "reasonable men" would consider fighting words then they contributed equally to the conflict and maybe the mouth-puncher's charges should be downgraded a notch or two (say misdemenor simple assault or just disorderly conduct.)

Words can hurt far worse than a punch. Without going into gruesome detail, lets say that I once experienced an undeserved verbal harangue that should have been classified as a crime of violence, and a punch in the mouth ought to have been self-defense.

G.

 

[Blunt]

Are you saying if you dont agree with something someone says you feel you have a right to use physical violence against them?
I think if someone tried to hit me then i would be perfectly within my right to use violence to subdue there attack, I believe a knee to the groin and a cupped hand slap to the Ear is a great leveller

 

[Goshin]

I can't speak for Korimyr, who mentioned it initially, but I was talking about the concept of "fighting words" in general.

And yeah, I'd expect most anybody punched in the mouth, even if they deserved it, would likely fight back. Regardless of that, I agree with Korimyr that since we've lost, as a society, the concept of "fighting words" we've also lost a lot of fundamental courtesy.

My thoughts were based more on the notion of personally insulting speech, rather than simply "something you disagree with".

G.