Thursday, May 10, 2007

Getting Our Minds Right

Fjordman has coined the term “Glossocracy” for the systematic alteration and debasement of language by the Marxist and Multicultural ideologues who control most of the public institutions in the West. When you make it difficult to describe the world except in terms that are ideologically pre-defined, you also make it difficult to think in any other way.

At the same time, ordinary citizens are conditioned not to publicly express their unacceptable ideas. When “hate speech” can cause you to lose your career, or your pension, or even land you in jail, you become very careful of what you say.

It doesn’t require the full repressive apparatus of a totalitarian state to effect these conditions. What Fjordman calls a “soft totalitarianism” will do just as well. Soft totalitarianism has already come to maturity in the European Union, and it is well underway here in the United States.

Finland’s Ombudsman for Minorities is a case in point. for KGS from Tundra Tabloids has translated the Finnish version of Mikko Puumalainen’s interview on today’s Finnish state TV news website, in which the Ombudsman discusses the need to school Finnish law enforcement personnel and the judicial and prosecuting services in the use of the country’s anti-racism laws.

KGS points out that there is also a version of the story in English, Ombudsman: Anti-Racism Laws Not Used Effectively, at the same website. The English version is shorter and has a different emphasis; readers are invited to compare and contrast them.

Ombudsman for Minorities: Officials not familiar with racism statutes

Mikko PuumalainenHundreds of racism related charges are filed yearly, but only twenty or so cases reach the courts. According to Mikko Puumalainen, the police, prosecutors and judges need more schooling about racism.

The racism statutes in Finnish law include incitement against a national group, discrimination due to ethnic background, and more extreme cases which can be described as criminal acts, for example defamation of character as a result of a victim’s ethnic background.

According to the police college’s findings, the number of charges filed dealing with racism has risen over the past years to 500.

The Helsingin Sanamot published a report from the findings of Statistics Finland (Tilastokeskus), according to which during the year 2005 only twenty or so judgments were rendered in racism-related cases. What the differences in the statistics tell of the justice department’s indifference towards racism has yet to be researched. Five years ago Europe’s council ECRI commission against racism and intolerance criticized the attitudes of Finnish officials.

According to Ombudsman for Minorities Mikko Puumalainen, there is still room for improvement in using laws against discrimination, incitement as well as criminal prosecutions.

“The regulations regarding the toughening of investigations are rather new. Police and prosecutors perhaps do not yet even know how to implement the interpretations of the law in the crime investigations when there is reason to do so. That shouldn’t be in itself difficult, because part of the basics in crime investigation is to find out the motive of the suspect. Determining a racist’s motives is quite natural when there is a requirement to do so,” Puumalainen told YLE new in the interview.
- - - - - - - - - -
The number if immigrants in Finland has risen over 100,000 since the fall of the Soviet Union, and is still growing. According to the Ombudsman for Minorities, from the number of immigrants, reports of crime, and statistics on convictions from the findings of research interviews of immigrants, it can be assumed that only two percent of racism-related crimes go reported.

The whole justice process from police to the courts need more information. Ombudsman for Minorities hopes that officials will be given more schooling on the subject matter than in the past.

YLE Uutiset/News [emphasis added]

To recap the highlighted portions of the article:

  • “What the differences in the statistics tell of the justice department’s indifference towards racism has yet to be researched.”
  • Even so, “it can be assumed that only two percent of racism-related crimes go reported.”
  • And, most importantly, “part of the basics in crime investigation is to find out the motive of the suspect.”

Try to get your mind around what’s being said here.

1. If only 2% of reported “racism crimes” result in judicial action, it proves that there is systemic racism, or at best an ignorance of the law, within the criminal justice apparatus. It does not mean that 98% of the accused were innocent of the crimes.
2. We will act on the conclusions from #1, even though we officially acknowledge that we don’t know the reason for the statistical discrepancies.
3. Knowing what’s in the mind of a criminal is part of the basics of crime investigation. And when the crime is “racism”, there is no crime other than what is in the mind of the putative criminal.

The adjective “Orwellian” does not even begin to describe this pernicious process.

The average, normal, commonsensical person loves his homeland, prefers people who speak the same language, and feels an affinity for his own people. That’s not racism; it’s normal human nature.

It shouldn’t be a crime to say, “I’m glad I live in Finland. I’m proud to speak Suomi. I think Finland is better than other countries. I think that people who come to live here should learn to be like us.”

There’s nothing wrong with that.

But we’ve all been trained for the last forty years or so to instinctively feel that there is something wrong with it, to feel a twinge of guilt if we even think it.

That’s how well the Glossocracy has done its job. First you are made afraid to speak the simple truth, and then you are subjected to absurd lies, over and over again. You have to pretend to believe them. You have to repeat them in school. You are subjected to them at work. You hear your government officials assert them as established facts.

Taken to an extreme, this kind of indoctrination destroys the sense of self and can derange your cognitive processes.

The Soft Totalitarians aren’t just interested in how you behave; they’re after what’s in your mind. They want to make sure that you get it right.

Cool Hand LukeI’m reminded once again of the great Paul Newman film from 1967, Cool Hand Luke. Luke is an inmate in a prison farm, and the movie shows the systematic eradication of his insolent and independent nature:

Luke: Don’t hit me anymore… Oh God, I pray to God you don’t hit me anymore. I’ll do anything you say, but I can’t take anymore.
Boss Paul: You got your mind right, Luke?
Luke: Yeah. I got it right. I got it right, boss. (He grips the ankles of the guard)
Boss Paul: Suppose you’s back-slide on us?
Luke: Oh no I won’t. I won’t, boss.
Boss Paul: Suppose you’s to back-sass?
Luke: No I won’t. I won’t. I got my mind right.
Boss Paul: You try to run again, we gonna kill ya.
Luke: I won’t, I won’t, boss.

You got your mind right yet, Mikko?


ricpic said...

Short of physical assault or inciting physical assault why should racism be criminalized? To hate is human, all too human. Do the fools who push through all of the laws criminalizing the expression of racial hatred think they'll eliminate the phenomenon? In fact, the expression of hatred almost certainly acts as something of a safety valve, a letting off of steam, for a society. The only way any society has ever kept the expression of racism down to a minimum has been by making the racist a societal outcast, a leper; not by criminalizing his speech.

Anonymous said...


Yes what you say makes perfect sense. But to keep racial hatred to a minimum, is not the purpose.

The purpose is to shut up political opponents to immigration.

The same people who pretend to be so worried about racism, also
show a complete lack of concern when it comes to racism among immigrant groups.

They consider criticism of Islam to an act of racism, but they see no racism, when Muslims rape a girl and justify their actions by saying she was a hore; meaning she was an infidel.

The accusation of racism is only used against what is seen as political opponents.

Profitsbeard said...

Islam is not a race.

(Muslims are many different peoples, so, are also not a "race".)

You cannot be accused of anything- if you hate Islam -excpet critical thinking.

Once that is forbidden, all is lost.

Anonymous said...


Nobody thinks Islam is a race. But to prefer anything western over anything from other cultures, can be considered racism.

What they really mean is; "Evil person who don't agree with us".

At least there has begun to be serious talk now in Denmark about removing or at least changing this anti-racism law.

And by serious I mean, that it isn't just politicians, but now also a Supreme judge and a professor of Justice, are criticising the political use of this law.

Something has to be done about this, the sooner the better.

A simple solution could be a more tight legal definition of what racism is, it sure seems to float these days. With that, I think the law could stay as it is.

JR said...

It's different in Australia:

"PRIME Minister John Howard said today he unapologetically used the word "assimilate" when it came to absorbing Muslim citizens into the community. Mr Howard said assimilating new citizens into the wider community helped tackle radicalism among a minority of Muslims. In Tuesday's Budget, Treasurer Peter Costello allocated $461,000 to programs that help Muslim communities integrate.

"I think it's in the interests of everybody," Mr Howard said on Southern Cross radio. "There's every reason to try and assimilate - and I unapologetically use that word 'assimilate' - a section of the community, a tiny minority of whose members have caused concern. "After all, once somebody's become a citizen of this country the best thing we can do is to absorb them in the mainstream."

But he denied the measure was about trying to assimilate people's religious beliefs. "The reason that religion is used as a descriptor is it's a small category of radical Muslims that have adopted attitudes that we think are bad for the country and the most sensible thing to do is try and change those attitudes."

Captain USpace said...

Great post, lots of excellent info, a scary situation indeed. This ombudsman is the real racist, because he in effect prohibits defending your race against violent speech if you are white.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
put an end to free speech

calling a racist racist
shall be prohibited

Anonymous said...

Hi I have just started a new site I had one before but certain problems arose and I had to start a new one.
I like your site and I going to link to it.
Would it be possible for you to link to mine as well.