As anyone who follows my blog will have seen, I've made a couple of lengthy posts recently denouncing Finnish online racists. An anonymous gentleman (I only assume he's a man, but I got the impression. Certainly his/her opinions are independent of his/her gender.) with the handle "alumiinitaivas" commented on these posts, which I welcome. However, he became increasingly hostile as the conversation went on, and ended with these lines:
Given your very authoritative tone of voice ("The biggest problem is that it's pure bunk," "basic tenet of human biology," "It isn't based on anything," "this is all pure nonsense," "is totally untrue," "based on no research," "no credible scientific claim," "completely false" etc etc. ad nauseam) one would think you to be either i) at least at a conversational level of knowledge on modern genetics and intelligence research, or ii) completely clueless about both.
Of course, we both know which one fits, but it's the lecturer in me trying to educate the huddled masses. However, I seem to be the wrong sort of a lecturer for this situation and therefore I must bid my adieu after these lines as we seem to have somewhat different level of knowledge about the issue(s) at hand.
As he has bid his adieu, obviously he won't be back to comment on this post. I would be content to leave them as well, but I take it seriously when someone accuses me of being "clueless" about something I write about in this blog.
This certainly isn't the first time an anonymous person on the Internet has told me I don't know anything, and I've always been equally impressed by the argument. Mr. alumiinitaivas was even kind enough to give me some useful pointers:
Now may I suggest you that the next lesson might be in how not to degenerate into straw man attacks when arguing. Checking for other argumentation fallacies (ad hominem and wishful thinking especially) might be worthwhile, as well.
I'm very well aware of what a strawman attack is, or for that matter an ad hominem argument. Let's recap. From Wikipedia:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position
I think that's a fine definition. Here's an excerpt from what Mr. alumiinitaivas said to me, in a comment to my post on Mikko Ellilä:
And to clarify my position, I believe that behavior, culture and hereditary predispositions are, on a macro scale, linked to each other through complicated feedback mechanisms, most of which are today poorly understood. However, to denounce totally the effects of any one component would be unwise, unscientific and rash at this point, and saying that hereditary differences do not matter is definitely a hyperbole.
My boldface. I challenge anyone to find the section in my post where I claim heredity doesn't exist or matter. I tried myself, several times; I couldn't find it. In my opinion, that would make this a straw man argument. Duly noted; I'm glad I took his advice!
More Wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
...
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false
If I had used an ad hominem argument against either Ellilä or Halla-aho, this would have taken the form of me claiming that they're racists; therefore what they say is wrong. I looked through both posts, and couldn't find any. I can, however, provide this example:
Well, I gather you get paid by the number of words in your line of work, and not by accuracy? You know, getting what is measured and so forth.
Helpfully provided by Mr. alumiinitaivas. He's referring to my stated profession as a journalist; one might, if pressed, be tempted to reduce the substance of this argument to: A is a journalist, therefore A's claim is false. It's either that or just an unprovoked personal attack.
I'm glad he brought up this whole kettle of fish that is logical fallacies, because it's turned out to be very instructive to revisit them. This isn't really my point, however. I'm so thoroughly used to people calling me names on the Internet and accusing me of fallacies that I didn't really even pay any attention to this stuff before I decided to take it up. The real reason I'm writing this is because Mr. alumiinitaivas claims I'm "completely clueless" when it comes to this whole question of race.
After reminding me of logical fallacies, he also gave me these study tips:
I'd also suggest a little brush-up in molecular biology and modern genetics, as evidently you haven't heard about statistically significant hereditary differences in distinct Cavalli-Sforza gene clusters, and well-documented, very practical effects thereof on e.g. pharmaceuticals design, athletics, and affinities to several diseases, perhaps most notably malaria.
As I said earlier, his claim that I deny hereditary differences is a straw man argument. My problem with his argument is that he totally fails to address the central point of my objection to Ellilä's lunatic thesis of "biological racial character", which is that any of what he says implies, in any way, the existence of races.
It's funny he should mention Cavalli-Sforza. Let's go to Wikipedia again:
Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (born January 25, 1922) is an Italian population geneticist born in Genoa, who has been a professor at Stanford University since 1970 (now emeritus).
One of the more distinguished geneticists of the 20th century, he has summed up his work for laymen under five topics covered in Genes, Peoples, and Languages (2000). Physiologist and evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond praised the work for "demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races."[citation needed] According to an article published in The Economist, the work of Cavalli-Sforza "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all." (The Human Genome Survey, 1 July 2000, pg. 11)
The page includes a direct quote:
"The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin." (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994, p. 19).
I'm sure there are, as Mr. alumiinitaivas says, "statistically significant hereditary differences in distinct Cavalli-Sforza gene clusters". So what?
Nothing he refers to in any way proves the existence of races, as the term is used by both Ellilä and Halla-aho's co-nominees from the last election. In one of his comments, Mr. alumiinitaivas told me to "check my dictionary for definitions". I did, and there they were. He, however, like Ellilä, never produces a definition of race. He does, however, directly refer to research he claims somehow proves the existence of races; as it happens, according to the people who actually conducted that research, it does not.
As I said earlier, he sets up the strawman argument that I deny the existence of heredity. I do not. The following is addressed to that strawman:
Neither does it prove, in itself, that it must be positively true, but there is additional, methodologically sound and widely accepted (in academic circles, that is) empirical evidence from e.g. surveys on adopted children supporting the hypothesis. If you have preferably peer-reviewed sources to contrary, I'd be happy to hear about them, although I'm not holding my breath.
As I've said, and believe I made it abundantly clear in the original post he's commenting on, I have claimed that the idea that humanity can be divided into distinct "races" on biological grounds is entirely false. This is distinct from the straw man he sets up and attacks.
I don't, for the moment, have a peer-reviewed source, but I did attend some lectures of the University of Helsinki class Ihmisen evoluutio (Human Evolution). In his class, professor emeritus Petter Portin from the University of Turku addressed the subject. His lecture notes are accessible online. This is what he said:
Rotukäsitteestä ihmisbiologiassa
on luovuttu
• Ihmiskunnan geneettisestä muuntelusta…
• > 80 prosenttia esiintyy paikallisten
populaatioiden sisällä.
• < 10 prosenttia esiintyy ns. rotujen sisällä
populaatioiden välillä.
• Vain < 10 prosenttia esiintyy ns. rotujen
välillä.
Kaikki rotusyrjinnän geneettiset
perustelut voidaan heittää
romukoppaan
When a professor emeritus in hereditary science says this in his lecture, I'm tempted to believe him. What he says seems to completely demolish Ellilä's racist argument that humanity can be usefully divided into discrete races with racial characteristics, let alone a "racial biological character".
Again, when an anonymous Internet poster tells me that when I express the same view as a professor emeritus I prove I'm "completely clueless" about genetics and heredity, I'm somewhat underwhelmed.
**
The interesting thing about his posts, and Ellilä's too, is what they tell us about the people writing them. alumiinitaivas uses very harsh language about my knowledge and understanding of the issues I address when I try to debunk Ellilä's claims. From this, I infer he is defending them.
The problem is that the scientific consensus is that racism is pseudo-science: humanity cannot be divided into races, and those races cannot be shown to have "racial" characteristics. Why, then, does he imagine that if I go and read about Cavalli-Sforza gene clusters, I would change my mind?
There's a very important point to be made here. If one looks at the evidence for the existence of races with an open mind, one finds there is no evidence. Indeed, Cavalli-Sforza himself said his pioneering work on gene clusters conclusively proves that. How, then, can Mr. alumiinitaivas read the same material and come to the opposite conclusion?
Let's remind ourselves, once again, of the "argumentation fallacies" he told me to check for:
Now may I suggest you that the next lesson might be in how not to degenerate into straw man attacks when arguing. Checking for other argumentation fallacies (ad hominem and wishful thinking especially) might be worthwhile, as well.
As I've said, I checked for straw man attacks and ad hominem arguments, and didn't find any in my text. It's time to look at the third fallacy he brings up: Wishful thinking.
In addition to being a cognitive bias and a poor way of making decisions, wishful thinking is commonly held to be a specific logical fallacy in an argument when it is assumed that because we wish something to be true or false that it is actually true or false. This fallacy has the form "I wish that P is true/false, therefore P is true/false."[1] Wishful thinking, if this were true, would underlie appeals to emotion, and would also be a red herring.
The article points out some examples of arguments that are held to be wishful thinking fallacies, and points out that they would be more properly considered examples of confirmation bias.
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.
A side note on Mikko Ellilä. When I knew him, he was a fairly fervent advocate of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, as I am. Somehow he went from libertarianism to political racism, and the only way I can understand it is by that second paragraph. When a determination to question existing modes of thought becomes sidetracked by the lack of a similar determination to question alternatives, a conspiracy theorist is born. His political racism is no different from Markus Jansson's conspiracy theories on how the Americans staged the 9/11 attacks.
The fallacy of confirmation bias offers the only answer I can think of to how alumiinitaivas can possibly imagine I can look at the current state of genetics and heredity research and come to the conclusions that races exist and Ellilä's claims are sound. If one approaches these fields with an open mind, it's exceedingly difficult to come away with the conclusion that humanity divides into races.
If, however, you have already decided that races must exist, then looking into genetics and heredity becomes an exercise in confirmation bias. I look at Cavalli-Sforza's research and am mainly struck by the fact that he considers it refutes the very idea of racism. alumiinitaivas can look at the same research, draw the conclusion that gene clusters must the same thing as race, and therefore it vindicates the idea that races exist!
Confirmation bias lets us look at the same research and arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions. The proponents of the new racism carefully select only those results that seem to confirm their previously-decided views on race, and then claim that their opinions are scientifically founded.
The emphasis on science is particularly strong in most iterations of this racist ideology. Ellilä, in a post on his blog, characterizes the blog post where he compared Africans to animals and other charming things in this way:
viime aikoina suomalaiset ovat enenevässä määrin kirjoittaneet internetiin tosiasioita mm. matalan mediaani-ÄO:n omaavien väestöaineksien maahanmuuton vaikutuksesta yhteiskuntaan.
He has repeatedly characterized the blog post he was sentenced for as containing nothing but scientific facts.
Of course, this is garbage. Reading the post in question one finds it most definitely contains exactly the material he was sentenced for; it slanders and insults entire ethnic groups, which is one of the definitions of "ethnic agitation". That it's a stupid law is a different matter. The point is that the post is by no means restricted to "facts".
However, this is one of the most prominent features of the new racism: an obsession with science and being scientific. By reading scientific evidence selectively, they construct a picture of the world which is in direct conflict with scientific consensus, yet they claim it's "scientific". It's no such thing, because it relies on either discredited pseudo-science like Tatu Vanhanen's IQ studies or taking scientific findings out of context.
This is why alumiinitaivas constantly tries to make it seem like I don't know anything about science but he does, ranging from trying to intimidate me with clever things lie gene clusters to very illiberal flings at my profession and just downright telling me I don't know anything. It's vital for the legitimacy of his views, for himself as much as for his hypothetical audience, that he makes himself seem to be scientific. From the point of view of psychology, this is highly interesting.
**
Another interesting point of the psychopathology of the new racism is their obsession with not being called racists. In my post on Jussi Halla-aho, I pointed to the improbable distinction he makes between being "anti-immigration" (which he has said he is, as quoted in my post) and being "anti-immigrant", i.e. racist. This is what apparently set Mr. alumiinitaivas off, as it's the first thing he comments on:
However, that is most certainly a flawed view. I admit that there are nutjobs such as white supremacists and neo-nazi loonies who share some similar arguments; however, that does not automatically mean that immigration-critical persons are racists, just as concern for animal welfare doesn't make a person a follower of Hitler, (who evidently was very fond of animals and had Nazis to pass one of the first animal-welfare laws in the world).
I personally would classify myself as rational secularist inspired by Enlightement era virtues. Most of the immigration-critical persons I know share broadly this same outlook. We all have work and living experience from abroad and work regularly (in my case daily) with both Finns of foreign descent and foreign citizens; hence I'd abject strenuously to any charges of racism.
This is an interesting sort of meta-argumentum ad Hitlerum; he compares the argument I make to a comparison to Nazis. Very meta! Also, in reference to my previous point, notice he claims to be a rationalist, and that "immigration-critical persons" generally are. This is again being done to imply that I, in disagreeing with them, am not being rational.
He "abjects strenuously" (sic) to any charge of racism; why would he do that, as I haven't accused him of anything? Recently Jussi Halla-aho himself was angry with Helsingin Sanomat for calling him "opposed to immigrants".
In my view, saying that you "work daily" with foreigners and are therefore not a racist, but are against immigration, is purely dishonest and hypocritical. This is a variation of the infamous "some of my best friends are gay" defense; it invariably appears in a form along the lines of "I have nothing against gay people; some of my best friends are gay; however I think homosexuality is unnatural and sinful and should be outlawed". Here, you'll find that the first two bits really didn't make the last one any less illiberal, prejudiced and barbarous.
Similarly, when Halla-aho insists that he has nothing against immigrants and is certainly not a racist, I believe I'm entitled to point out several things. The very next blog post to the one I mention is on the topic of political corruption. In it, he emphasizes how immigrant politicians in Nordic countries have been corrupt, and in no uncertain terms tells us that this is because they're immigrants. Elsewhere in his blog, which I've quoted in my post on him, he tells us that Africans and Muslims are our enemies and seek the downfall of our civilization.
"I have nothing against you personally, but I believe your culture makes you unfit for public office and that you are an implacable enemy of my people." How liberal! Certainly no racist he.
Of course, Mr. alumiinitaivas gets positively livid about this:
If you want to live in a world where everyone who questions the current immigration policy is a "racist" (maybe you'd better check your dictionary for definitions, anyway) and hysterically denounce them as untermenschen that's your problem.
For us in the reality-based community, however, one can be perfectly, even militantly egalitarian and still think that we should be more careful in screening the immigrants to get people who are able and willing to integrate and participate in our society and culture.
Having said what I said about pseudo-science, I strongly question the use of the word "reality-based". It's being used as a part of the self-legitimization strategy of the new racism. Its proponents are very fond of telling people that they are the ones who are seing things as they are and dealing with reality; they often claim that everyone who disagrees with them is living in some kind of cloud cuckoo land.
Here he sets up another angry strawman: apparently I've now said that if you disagree with Finland's current immigration policy, you're a racist. If that were the case, I'd be calling myself a racist, because I thoroughly disagree with our current policy. Of course, I disagree with it in a totally different way from our online racists.
Of course, I completely fail to see where I've "hysterically denounced" anyone as an "untermensch". On the topic of psychopathology, though, isn't it funny that he uses Nazi racial terms to attack me? I wonder why that is. Of course, it could be a coincidence. I'll return to the Nazi point later.
As it is, though, one can easily see that these people get extraordinarily livid if they so much as get the impression you might accuse them of racism. When alumiinitaivas made that comment, I hadn't accused him of anything. He assumed I would. Similarly, he ends another comment with this:
PS. I would still shake hands with you anyway.
I had said in that post that I won't shake hands with a racist. I've never called him a racist; here also I would like to make it clear that he seems to be defending racism, which doesn't necessarily make him a racist. Yet he, on is own, decides to self-identify as the kind of person I wouldn't shake hands with.
Is he really admitting he's a racist?
I can't help but think the reason him and Halla-aho are so touchy about being called racist has to do with an old Finnish proverb about a dog and a stick. It's along the lines of "if the shoe fits": given a number of dogs and a stick thrown at them, the dog that howls will usually be the one that the stick hit. It's a fairly barbaric metaphor, but here I think it's apt. Are they protesting so strongly, indeed overmuch, because they recognize that they're championing an ideology most people will indeed recognize as racism? It would explain the unusual behavior of alumiinitaivas, and the importance that Halla-aho attaches to not being publicly called "anti-immigrant". Perhaps they, too, have to admit to themselves on some level that the shoe does indeed fit.
**
From shoes to hats. I quoted alumiinitaivas's meta-Hitler argument above; this is how I replied to it:
I believe equating the difference between immigration and immigrants to animal rights and Nazism is so fundamentally dishonest that I have a difficult time taking anything you say afterwards seriously.
He justified himself in a follow-up comment.
Given that you are the one wearing, in his public photo, headgear that reminds several people, including myself, of the hat the SS was fond of wearing, I thought that Nazi allegory would be welcomed - or at least better understood.
I couldn't get over this very easily, as this is the most bizarre rationalization for a Nazi analogy I've ever heard. He's referring to my profile picture, where I am indeed wearing a peaked cap. I can't help but find it absolutely bizarre that he, on seeing that, would automatically assume it's an SS hat. If he's implying that people who wears hats like that are somehow Nazi sympathizers, that's a very curious judgement to pass on, among many organizations, the Royal Navy, most of the US armed forces and, until the 1990s, the Finnish armed forces, all of which wear a hat like that.
Why on earth did he assume it's a Nazi hat? I told him it isn't. He replied, in his closing message, like this:
Two, sorry about the hat. I haven't been studying the details of the SS peaked cap so I make these kinds of mistakes when people display signs of uniform fetishism - especially when they, at the same time, pigeonhole people into neat boxes and tell others how dangerous they are because of their opinions. In any case, if that hat is from some other oppressive, totalitarian regime, I consider my point still quite valid - the dead are just as dead whether they were killed as untermenschen, as class enemies, or as infidels.
I mean, wow. He gets all that from my hat?
What he's trying to do here is capture the moral high ground. He can look down on me wearing the headgear of an "oppressive totalitarian regime" and severely condemn me, because his high moral principles would never permit him to wear a hat like that.
It's just a peaked cap!
Also, he's moved on from telling me what I know and what I don't know to explaining my sexuality to me. A uniform fetish? How bizarre, I didn't know I was into that. I'm glad he told me!
It's just a peaked cap!
Psychologically speaking, this is the main point: why does he use such a ridiculous device as my hat to launch into a moral condemnation of me as a person? In Finnish we have a saying about this; we say that he's using my hat as a hobby-horse to attack me.
Might it be because, again, on some level he knows he's championing an ideology and way of thinking that is morally repugnant? That then makes him desperately grasp at any straw he can find to morally condemn me. The only thing he could find was my hat.
It's just a peaked cap!
**
I believe, then, that with the aid of alumiinitaivas I can point out some salient characteristics of the psychopathology of the new scientific racism.
* an excessive concern with science and appearing scientific.
The proponents of the new racism either try to claim that they are not advocating a policy, but only giving scientific research results (Ellilä), or that the policy they advocate is rationalist and is based on a thorough knowledge of biology (alumiinitaivas). Some carefully select statistics and news stories that give the impression that immigrants are mostly criminals, and then flat-out state that this is because they're foreigners, and that admitting more foreigners to this country will cause more crime (Halla-aho). Even this last approach tries to be scientific in its use of statistics. In fact they're all pseudo-science.
* an excessive aversion to being called a racist.
If someone calls me a racist, I just laugh at them. It's very simple: I'm not. These people, on the other hand, fly into a rage when they're called racists, and in the case of alumiinitaivas, resort to personal attacks, strawman arguments and hysterics, all to prove that the person who said something that made them think he might think they're racists is simply wrong about everything. I claim that this heightened sensitivity to the charge of racism stems from the fact that they themselves recognize that they're promoting a policy which is racist.
* a strange readiness to jump to comparisons with Nazi Germany.
Ellilä is especially fond of comparing his trial to Nazi persecution, and as I said in my comments, the idea that the cap I'm wearing in my profile picture is an SS hat came to alumiinitaivas at the drop of a hat. Why, one wonders, do they feel that Nazi Germany is so relevant to the topic that they keep bringing it up?
* a very aggressive approach to any conversation about immigration, racism or race
I don't entirely understand why alumiinitaivas flew off the handle like he did, but he did, eventually just plain insulting me and my profession and making several personal attacks. The distinguishing feature of Ellilä's, and co-believer Markus Jansson's blog posts and Internet presence is that they're relentlessly offensive in every sense of the word. Ellilä especially has an infuriating habit of setting up ridiculous strawmen of anyone who seems to disagree with him. For an example, see Ellilä's post on Kokoomus candidate Iivi Anna Masso. She was challenged for downplaying women's violence against men as opposed to men's violence against women. When she disagreed, this is how Ellilä sums up her position:
Iivi Masso on siis miesvihaa lietsova feministi, joka ei siedä pienintäkään kritiikkiä Amnestyn ym. vasemmistolaisten feministijärjestöjen harjoittamaa miesvihamielistä linjaa kohtaan.
I have no personal opinion on Iivi Masso whatsoever, but based on what Ellilä says in his post, his judgement is totally unjustified. This, however, is the way he writes everywhere. Anyone who disagrees with him is automatically either an idiot or in thrall to some reality-distorting ideology. Jansson is the same, only worse (if that's even possible). alumiinitaivas several times told me to refrain from ad hominem attacks (I made none), but told me I'm talking out of my ass and insulted my profession.
Where does all this aggression and hate come from? That's a proper research question for anyone academically interested in the psychopathology of racism. These people display it prominently.
* an aggressive, unquestioned belief that everyone who disagrees is completely wrong
None of these people can accept the idea that there are alternate political views on the issue. Ellilä regularly rails at people for being idiots because they don't agree with him. alumiinitaivas went from trying to explain that he disagrees with me to insulting me and telling me I don't know anything. They can't abide disagreement. Usually one only finds this mentality with religions or quasi-religions like Marxism. It's present here. They can't really agree to disagree. I'm half expecting alumiinitaivas to, despite his claim that he's "bidding me adieu", turn up and insult me again. I doubt he can deal with the fact that I don't agree with him.
**
In sum, this is the psychopathology of the new racism:
* an excessive concern with science and appearing scientific.
* an excessive aversion to being called a racist.
* a strange readiness to jump to comparisons with Nazi Germany.
* a very aggressive approach to any conversation about immigration, racism or race
* an aggressive, unquestioned belief that everyone who disagrees is completely wrong
This psychopathology can be seen on display in countless Finnish blogs dedicated to being "immigration-critical". Everyone else in Finland and the world but them is totally wrong about everything; only they know what science really says about race, only they know what kind of immigration policy must be adopted, only they are right. Everyone else is in thrall to the global conspiracy of political correctness and multi-culturalism, ignorant of biology and brainwashed.
They all link to each other's blogs and quote each other, constantly patting each other on the back for being so brave in standing up to the worldwide conspiracy. Things like Ellilä's trial bring them closer together by making him a martyr of Finnish racism.
Yes, it's basically one huge conspiracy theory. Why do I even bother with it? Because according to Wikipedia, one of the most prominent members of this racist underground, Jussi Halla-aho, received over 2,000 votes in the previous parliamentary elections. As I posted earlier, his party, Perussuomalaiset, are set to increase their vote in the municipal elections.
**
Political racism in Finland is a reality today. Here I've tried to exhibit its psychopathology, and earlier I've made an attempt to showcase some of its notorious proponents.
To me, this is all very frightening. It's just terrifying to realize that there are several people like you, who live in your society, who are championing a political ideology that, to any historian, is uncannily similar to the racial doctrines of Nazi Germany. Yet here they are.
Be afraid. But more importantly, fight it. Vote against Perussuomalaiset at the polls, and vote against racism in your everyday life. It's the least we can do to stop these people.
