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.