Sunday, November 16, 2008

The Swedenizing of America

As an example of Euro-Socialism, Sweden resembles a perfectly-formed crystal. Its political culture most accurately represents that ideal to which modern Social Democracy aspires. That’s why Sweden has been, and remains, the model for progressives across the globe.

Sweden succeeded as a Socialist state for so long in part because of its long tradition of national consensus. No police state or gulag was needed to keep Swedes on board with the socialist ideal — there was general agreement among the populace, and an inborn reluctance to make waves by engaging in controversy or oppositional behavior.

But in recent years cracks have begun to show in the façade of folkhemmet, and the maintenance of traditional consensus has required unusual measures. A law forbidding hets mot folkgrupp, defamation of an ethnic group — originally passed to prohibit Holocaust denial and similar Nazi-related political ideas — is now being used to suppress any opposition to Islamization and mass immigration. As Dahn Pettersson discovered to his chagrin, a discussion of the demonstrably disproportionate criminality of Third World immigrants can lead to criminal charges. The recent Lennart Eriksson case, in a final burst of irony, applied the same anti-Holocaust-denial principles to penalize a man who simply supported the right of Israel to exist.

Similar conditions have emerged in other European countries, with dissenters in Britain, the Netherlands, France, Italy, and Finland facing civil or criminal penalties for engaging in any form of racist speech. Since the word “racism” has developed an all but infinite elasticity — it now includes anti-Islamic sentiment, the flying of one’s national flag, and the celebration of Christmas, among other things — virtually any opposition to the dominant socialist political establishment can be suppressed at will.

Mr. Eriksson’s case illustrates the standard modus operandi for this process. As a government employee, the State claimed that his off-the-job behavior, including a political opinion as expressed on a private website, was relevant to his ability to perform his official duties, and was therefore actionable. For all practical purposes, a public employee has no private life. It belongs to the State in its entirety.

Under Socialism, almost everybody is either employed by the state or is a ward of it. Everything within the State, and nothing outside the State. If you are beholden to the State, the State owns all of your behavior.

And everyone is beholden to the State. The circle is thereby closed, and control is complete.

Here in the United States, we should be exempt from similar conditions. It’s a free country, right? We have the First Amendment, and we can say whatever we want.

There’s always been an exception for active members of the military, who are considered to represent their country at all times, and therefore must live under certain restrictions. But over time that exception has been extended to other servants of the State. Government employees don’t always have the right to say whatever they want, even off the job, and the scope of proscribed behavior for them has gradually been enlarged.

We are about to enter a new era under the benevolent rule of our own Dear Leader. Because of an accident of skin pigmentation, any criticism of Barack Hussein Obama will become de facto criticism of an entire race, and therefore a form of “hate speech”. This will become the all-American version of hets mot folkgrupp, an all-purpose mechanism for cracking down on political dissent.

“Baron, why are you talking such tripe?” you say. “What tosh! Such things can’t happen here in the United States of America.”

You think not? Well, think again: they’re happening already. Even before the official inauguration of the One on January 20th, 2009, criticism of him by state employees is being vigorously sanctioned. Consider the latest case, that of two police officers in North Carolina. It seems these unfortunate people made some private remarks during their off-hours which will negatively impact their careers.

According to The News & Observer:
- - - - - - - - -
DURHAM — Derogatory remarks toward President-elect Barack Obama made on a social networking Web site are now the subject of an internal police investigation.

A police department employee claims the statements were made on the MySpace pages of two Durham officers.

“There’s no exact words that were said,” said Police Chief Jose L. Lopez Sr. in a telephone interview Wednesday from San Diego, where he is attending the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference. “It wasn’t a racial slur, but we’re still investigating it.”

Investigators, who are focusing on the context of what was written, have been looking into the allegations since Thursday.

Lopez wouldn’t disclose what was said or identify the officers involved.

[…]

Bonfield added that if the allegations are found to be true and officers posted racially charged statements, then an appropriate response by the department would be warranted.

[…]

Lopez said even though the remarks were made on a personal Web page, the comments could be a violation of the policy.

“As a police officer, it doesn’t matter where you do it, if you provide disservice to the organization, it violates the [department’s] code of conduct,” he said. “It is a high standard that officers are held accountable to.”

Police officers in Durham, North Carolina, have no private life. On the job or off, their opinions must conform with the party line.

The statements by the police chief quoted above make it obvious that the “racist” officers used none of the standard derogatory epithets. I’ll wager that they questioned the intelligence of the president-elect, or his fitness to govern, or remarked on the size of his ears. Whatever it was, it was proof of their “racism”.

We should be in a new post-racial era in America — after all, a huge number of white people, who are inherently racist according to the tenets of Critical Race Theory, helped elect Barack Obama. White people proved their lack of racism by voting for the Messiah, right?

No, they didn’t. Their penance will be required in perpetuo, and deviation will not be tolerated.

The NAACP is already baying for the officers’ blood. According to WRAL TV:

Durham NAACP President Asks for Information on Officer’s Remarks

Durham, N.C. — The president of the Durham National Association for the Advancement of Colored People wants more information about an internal investigation into whether police officers posted derogatory remarks about President-elect Barack Obama on their MySpace page.

“Everybody is trying to say there is an inference, but we don’t know what that inference is,” NAACP president Fred Foster said.

The Durham Police Department has said they can’t release the information because it was an internal investigation.

Foster said there is distrust among some people who feel these officers may not be able to objectively serve the community.

“There is an area of trust that has been violated or at least been damaged,” he said.

Foster said if the officer or officers involved are responsible he wants to see the police department take action against them.

Notice what the NAACP is demanding here: the public exposure of evidence in an ongoing investigation. They want to form a lynch mob with the help of a compliant media, and are insisting that the Durham police department provide them with material to aid their cause.

This is shaping up to be a repeat of the Duke lacrosse players’ case. These two cops don’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell.

If they’re smart, they’ll quit their jobs, grow a lot of facial hair, move to Omaha, and live under assumed names.


Hat tip: JD.

28 comments:

Dymphna said...

Why is a group that calls itself "The National Association of Colored People" legal?

Isn't that a race-based definiton and thereby off-limits according to the latest p.c. rules?

What would happen if there were a group calling itself "The American League of Persecuted Pale People"? What would happen if this group came to the defense of these officers?

BTW, do we even know what color these police officers are? Or is it because they are not black that there is now open season on WHITE officers?

Welcome to Alice in Wonderland as written by Mary Shelley with editorial help from George Orwell.

As Dave Barry moans into his beer, you can't make this stuff up.

Armance said...

Promoting the idea of a Black president was not mere idealism or the result of white racial guilt, but a clever tactical move from the globalist-left (Soros included). Practically, from now on, nobody will have the courage to criticize (or - Heaven forbid! - ridicule) the US president as a person or his policies (no matter how deranged) without being labeled a racist and legally accused of racism, the supreme sin according to the PC rule of law.
El Lider Maximo is untouchable (unlike mere mortals) due to his skin pigmentation. Good start.

Conservative Swede said...

“It is a high standard that officers are held accountable to.”

Oh, a high standard. Makes it sound so good, makes one feel so safe... better taken care of...

If they’re smart, they’ll quit their jobs, grow a lot of facial hair, move to Omaha, and live under assumed names.

Like Karadzic.


Yes Baron. This will become even worse than Sweden. In the old says the concern was how to protect the citizens from abuse of power from the government. This was given much focus in the American constitution as e.g. the second amendment. Now the roles are reversed. Hets mot folkgrupp has transmuted into Hets mot President, the biggest sin of all. The citizens of America will become completely defenceless against their President, and may lose their jobs over simple thought crimes. We've had a lot here in Sweden, but never a head of the country with such magical powers.

It's also scary to think how Obamerica will be able to throw around its military might around the world, without anyone (in the West) daring to criticize it. I have before predicted the end of the West. This might be it.

DenisEugeneSullivan said...

Greetings:

Moral superiority is the Cocaine of the 21st Century.

laine said...

Well, since the police have lots of time on their hands to pursue this new kind of "thought crime" rather than endanger themselves pursuing say, murderers or rapists, why not start with any black or hispanic officer who said a word of reproach about President Bush on Facebook or whatever? That should keep them busy into the next century. They're black, he's white, clearly it's open and shut racism.

The double standard of leftists has to be exposed wherever it rears its ugly head. Inundate any such police chief or other official with similar complaints with the colors reversed until they are drowned in the paper work and cry uncle. For any Muslim complaint about a cartoon, go to the exact same institution giving them a hearing and complain about elephant dung encrusted Mary or P--- Christ.

Fight fire with fire, instead of turning the other cheek all the time. Look where playing nice has gotten us (and John McCain), in the backseat of the Obama-Pelosi express over the economic cliff.

Conservative Swede said...

Sweden -ization:

Lifejackets for Polar Bears

Conservative Swede said...

Plans for creating a national holiday commemorating Barack Obama's election

Henrik R Clausen said...

I think it deserves mention that much of the economical basis for the Swedish welfare state was a large export of weaponry. Just like Yugoslavia, the welfare was partly based on selling guns to various interesting places in the world.

Not illegal, of course.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Under Socialism, almost everybody is either employed by the state or is a ward of it. Everything within the State, and nothing outside the State. If you are beholden to the State, the State owns all of your behavior.

And everyone is beholden to the State. The circle is thereby closed, and control is complete.


Same goes for Fascism.

laine said...

"the economical basis for the Swedish welfare state was a large export of weaponry".

I do recall the United States being wrongly blamed by the left for arming Iraq when the figures showed less than 5% of Saddam's weaponry from that source and the big sellers being France Russia and was it Sweden?

What a perfect example of moral vacuity: "We're peace loving and don't believe in arms for ourselves. We sell them to crazy people far away".

Czechmade said...

I recommend this book:

Paul Britten Austin On being Swedish

University of Miami Press 1968

The author was married to Ingmar Bergman´s sister.

One observation struck me: The Swedes lived and live on farms far away from each other. The vast areas made it possible not to create communities as we know it in continental Europe or Britain. Then he claims that the Swedes who moved to the cities relatively recently brought this "loneliness" with them and continued living on their own.

This social vacuum might be the key to the rapid spread of socialism. There was no latent texture to inhibit the spread of an alien concept. The immigrants dominating the cities might push the Swedes back to their natural=nature habitat. (irony off)

Czechmade said...

laine

I remember 1991 the news of 500 Russian military advisors leaving Iraq short before Baghdad was bombed.

And CNN bowing to Saddam to get the privilege to report from a hotel.

Sweden might also act as a mediator for weapon sales for others. Another reason for heaving self-censorship. Bielorussia does this job for Russians...

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Laine, no, it was Russia, France, Germany and China. The Germans sold Iraq most of the equipment they needed for making chemical and biological weapons, including two mobile labs.

I believe Sweden stayed out of that one.

Lucille said...

Why is a group that calls itself "The National Association of Colored People" legal?

Isn't that a race-based definiton and thereby off-limits according to the latest p.c. rules?


Well, they'll be a hundred years old early next year, so I'm not quite sure they were considering the "latest p.c. rules" when naming themselves. I'm not sure founding members such as W.E.B Dubois could even say what the "latest p.c. rules are". They predate even the term "politically correct", which originated (IIRC) in Maoist China.

I'm also not sure what law you seem to think they violate by including "colored" in their name.

Czechmade said...

Lucille

We might confront them by creating a
"National Association of Secret Colour People". It would be easy on internet.

Anyhow I suspect you all to be black
- unlike me.

Dymphna said...

Lucille, your response begs the question I posed.

What would happen if "The American League of Persecuted Pale People" were to be formed?

Would they end up in court, especially if they used the term "white people" (less alliterative, that's why I chose "pale")?

If they were prosecuted, would that be separate and unequal treatment?

You're right, the NAACP is indeed over a hundred years old. So what. Lots of organizations change their names. Some even go out of existence.

What the NAACP set out to do has been accomplished. Like all bureaucracies, it continues on -- and not very meritoriously at that. Charity Navigator lists it as #7 (of 10) in a distinguished group they call "Highly Paid CEOs at Low-Rated Charities".

I was a member of the NAACP for years and I know how little to nothing the local groups are given by the national organization.

So the NAACP was founded a century ago, in a different climate when lynching was common. Were they honest, they'd disband or find another way to help people, not based on skin pigmentation.

OTOH, Bill Cosby's "Come on People" has it right: quit victimizing yourself, stop whining, take responsibility for yourself and your people. He’s talking to the underclass, not just black folks. Interestingly, he is admired by both groups of that class. It is the entrenched bureaucracy – sullen groups like the NAACP – which find Cosby’s upbeat, characteristically American ideas a threat.

Cosby will send you books for free to pass around. When was the last time the NAACP did anything that creative?

Oh…and the Anti-Defamation League should’ve closed long ago. Ditto the Zionist Organization of America. It’s #8 on that list above.

The Italians should get over it. Disband the Order of the Sons of Italy. The fighting between them and the ADL is energy that could be better used in building up our commonweal.

I don't give a fig about the origins of p.c. What does matter is they’ve gained a strangle hold on social discourse in this country, silencing dialogue.

You mention W.E.B. Dubois. He hated America.

His chronic censure contributed to the aggrieved resentment nearly every black American must now grapple with in order to become fully himself. Then Dubois abandoned everyone, moving to Ghana and Communism.

Some people can only energize themselves with the white* heat of anger. They may do some good, but many people suffer as a result of these “leaders” and their unrelentingly livid assault on reality.

How much more effective he would have been had he led from the force of moral justice as Martin Luther King was to do!
________

*class: is the use of “white heat” a sign of racist language? If not, why not?

Lucille said...

Would they end up in court, especially if they used the term "white people" (less alliterative, that's why I chose "pale")?

No - at least not over their name. T And if they did, the case would get thrown out. Your argument is akin to saying a group with "Catholic" or "Baptist" or "Jewish" in the name is, by virtue of that fact alone, breaking laws and committing religious discrimination.

In all that rant of yours you don't actually respond substantially and produce a reason why you think that naming themselves the NAACP is somehow breaking a law.

Tangentially: You mention Martin Luther King. I wonder if you know he was in favor of affirmative action.

Lucille said...

Anyhow I suspect you all to be black

On what basis, may I ask?

Czechmade said...

Dymphna

"The American League of Persecuted Pale People"

I like it. Could we have also "Ligue of Platonic Pale People" sympathizing with us? So to say "Ideologically self-convinced Pale People (followers?) or "Pale People´s Black People Fan Club"?

or "Contrast(ing) proPale People´s Association"

or "Ideologically Black but Pale People´s Association" (Black half of Obama-voters) to balance our followers from the opposite camp?


Now I came to understand something:

Those who voted for Obama for being black commited a fraud since he is only half black, their votes should be divided by 2! A nasty fraud!



Lucille,

the basis was a joke. Some joke told me to write it and I followed him blindly like a Mohammed.

Lucille said...

Does the European-American Unity and Rights Organization sound like a good name for you, Dymphna?

Dymphna said...

Lucille,

You didn't read my rant closely. When you claim

Your argument is akin to saying a group with "Catholic" or "Baptist" or "Jewish" in the name is, by virtue of that fact alone, breaking laws and committing religious discrimination

you commit a categorical error (and still fail to address my question).

There is no "akin" in your example because you ignored the two groups under discussion: white people vs. people of color.

These classifications are not affiliative groups like religions. Identity groups based on pigment, are not, and never will be, voluntary affiliations. Whether or not they can gather formally to incorporate a group is the question.

You remind me of the old man my family stopped to talk to one Sunday morning in the country. We were looking for a Catholic church in order to attend Mass.

After giving us complicated directions on finding the nearest church, we were curious and asked if he was Catholic. That old guy took off his hat, wiped the sweat from his neck, wrinkled his face in horror and said "CATHOLIC??? No way. I got enough trouble just being black".

See it yet, Lucille? He could chose to run from any church he wanted but there was place on earth he could go to escape his color.

Martin Luther King believed in affirmative action but I doubt he would have continued had he lived to see the harm it did.

Now every black who achieves defensively worries that his success is seen as affirmative action. Being black, he can't run away from the living nightmare of this albatross. Achievement based on his merit is eternally questioned. Affirmative action stole that. No one intended this outcome, but so what? Unintended consequences are as harmful as deliberate racism.

Making this point to the professionally aggrieved is tricky.
Ask the kids who tried to make this point with a bake sale. The prices of their goods depended on the buyer’s color. Black or Asian or Hispanics paid less than white students for the same cookies.

The table was overturned by angry non-white students who disliked the moral behind the sale. It wasn't politically correct, so destruction ensued. Ah, shades of the Chinese Revolution…

Members of the administration stood watching. No one was charged -- though one white kid was bashed around by his self-righteous assailants.

You haven't answered my question because you can’t. No one would permit any group to form peaceably based on their white skin. Nor would 99.5% of whites join such a group, even though they grow weary of the endless taunts of “racism” for their guilt of breathing while white.

BTW, only a European might think you were black, Lucille. They majorly don’t get the black/white situation here. It remains exotic and closed to them, just as their culture is mysterious to us.

Me, I only ever thought you were a garden variety liberal.

Lucille said...

There is no "akin" in your example because you ignored the two groups under discussion: white people vs. people of color.

I didn't ignore, Dymphna. I employed an analogy.

Now every black who achieves defensively worries that his success is seen as affirmative action.

If so, that's not his fault but the fault of the people who like to see affirmative action anywhere and everywhere.

The table was overturned by angry non-white students who disliked the moral behind the sale.

I did a bit of searching but I can't find where that happened. Can you point me in the right direction?

No one would permit any group to form peaceably based on their white skin.

False, absolutely false. I did indeed answer your question, Dymphna. Besides David Duke's organization, which I mentioned above, there are hundreds of organizations whose membership is limited de facto or de jure to people of European descent. And most don't get any attention, not even a critical op-ed.

Now, let me repeat my question which you are dancing around answering: Why do you think that the NAACP is somehow breaking a law by naming themselves such?

Dymphna said...

@Lucille

Now, let me repeat my question which you are dancing around answering: Why do you think that the NAACP is somehow breaking a law by naming themselves such?

I never said the NAACP was breaking a law. You are inferring from my words something that isn't there. My question remains: if a group existed -- one whose mission statement was the advancement of white people -- would it be challenged legally?

THAT is my question.

1. I only used the NAACP as a foil to pose my query because they were part of this report.

2. I could've used any group dedicated to making sure their particular race got a special break.

3.I used a real life example from this story --the NAACP -- because it's promoting racial division with pronouncements well ahead of any investigation.

Remember the Duke la crosse team? Big mouth moralizing on racist white athletes. Endless judgments before the case got to court. Such rabble-rousing maintains a prejudiced environment.

I'll try to state the question again: "what if" white people formed a group with the mission statement of the NAACP, only it substituted "white" for “black” in its documents? Would that group be challenged in court? Further, would it be the target of editorials and condemnation in the press before it ever got to court?

Answer: yes it would.

Your liberal education has not prepared you adequately to grasp rhetorical discourse, to wit:

(a)Your demonstrated failure to understand the concept of categorical mistakes.

(b) you don't appear able to differentiate between descriptive and normative statements.

(c)you confuse inference and implication.
______________

Dympha said: Now every black who achieves defensively worries that his success is seen as affirmative action.

Lucille responded: If so, that's not his fault but the fault of the people who like to see affirmative action anywhere and everywhere.


His suffering isn't his fault? That was an a priori in my argument. You're making my case.

Just how does knowing this lessen his anxiety? How patronizing to say his anxiety is due to mean people. That doesn’t ameliorate his existential concern -- which was caused by affirmact.

Say that a black woman with an IQ of 160, SATs near 1600, and a solid academic grounding gets into college. She can't be differentiated from her black brothers and sisters who are plunked there barely able to spell. She strides ahead; they spend their first year trying to break even.

Should she wear her SAT scores on her T shirt so we know she’s not a quota kid?? The other students learn who got in via quotas. Many affirmact students can’t keep up. They drop out, uneducated but saddled with debt. But hey, the school made a nice bundle on them so who’s complaining?

Read Daniel Moynihan. He was a liberal Democrat senator so he’s safe. His lone prophetic voice warned of the consequences of these ignorant laws we now must endure.

Lucille said...

"what if" white people formed a group with the mission statement of the NAACP, only it substituted "white" for “black” in its documents?

Well, it wouldn't make sense. For starters, the mission statement of the NAACP doesn't use "black" at all:

The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

What in that is liable to be challenged in court without being dismissed as frivolous?

That doesn’t ameliorate his existential concern -- which was caused by affirmact.

No, it's caused by people who single out racial preferences, as opposed for preferences for children of alumni, lower-income whites, or athletes as a punching-bag.

By the way:
The table was overturned by angry non-white students who disliked the moral behind the sale.

Can you tell me where that was?

Lucille said...

Read Daniel Moynihan.

Which title in particular?

Dymphna said...

Lucille--

Google is your friend. It took me ten seconds to find the bake sales information:

Affirmative action bake sale

These bake sales have been organized at many schools across the U.S., sometimes annually, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, Columbia University, Rutgers University, Cornell College, New York University, University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, Northwestern University, DePaul University, the University of Michigan, Indiana University, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, University of Washington, University of Arizona, Arizona State University, Trinity University, Ohio University, and others. Affirmative action bake sales have also taken place at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, the latest (in 2008) having been forcibly broken up by campus security.

My son witnessed the destruction of the cookie table at William and Mary one year. Yes, he saw the kid punched.

Criticism of affirmact scares people. And fear drives them to destroy things because no one ever taught them to respond to their critics with civil discourse.
________

The rest of your comment is a conglomeration of bad faith arguments.

I'm not going to waste my time on subjects I have covered already. This conversation is over, finished, done.

Anything further you have to say is your own monologue. The only response you'll get from me is silence.

Notice that no one else is bothering to respond to you anymore? That might be a hint, hmmm?

Go back under the bridge, Lucille.

Lucille said...

It took me, as well, ten seconds to find where some of these events took place. However, I did not find information on which one resulted in violence.

If this is a monologue, so be it. Given your repeated distortions of my comments and bizarre assumptions about who I am, I wonder who is really spouting "bad faith arguments."

Lucille said...

For the record:
"Garden-variety liberals" are not anti-abortion. They do not tend to vote for GOP or Libertarian candidates. They do not tend to attend conservative-leaning churches. And so on.

I also did not receive a "liberal" education. Liberal schools don't tend, among other things, to teach Manifest Destiny as a positive in history books, nor do they have creationist science texts.