Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Swedish government has become notorious worldwide in recent years: Its blatant and sometimes brutal suppression of religious freedom, educational liberty, and the traditional family is well known among Western nations. In 2003, the Justice Ministry investigated the Holy Bible for “hate speech.” A few years later, a Christian preacher was sentenced to jail for criticizing homosexuality. Last year, the government passed a law banning homeschooling and religious instruction in so-called free schools. All educational institutions will soon be teaching the government curriculum — including the notion that there is no difference between genders. Examples of the state run amok are near endless.
One recent tragedy exemplifies the government’s attitude: the internationally known case of the Johansson family. Almost two years ago, following years of harassment by the municipal social services, the Johansson family made plans to leave Sweden for good. The government had been pestering the parents about putting their young son, Domenic, into daycare. They refused. Later, instead of enrolling the young boy in government school, the parents decided to educate Domenic at home until they left for India, the mother’s homeland. Homeschooling was — despite draconian restrictions — still legal in Sweden, after all.
But as they were sitting on the plane, just minutes before takeoff, armed police stormed onboard and seized the then-seven-year-old boy. There was no warrant, no suspicion of physical abuse — just an angry social-service bureaucracy that couldn’t stand the thought of the Johansson family escaping its iron fist. After the family was torn apart over the education matter, the government also made an issue about the boy’s not having received all of his optional vaccines. On top of that, a pair of baby-tooth cavities the family had scheduled an appointment to treat in India were also later included in the allegations against them.
Now, years and countless court hearings later, the family is still separated.
(Sweden's Big Government Utopia)
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Once upon a time there was a Butcher a Baker and two Candlestick makers too. The Baker put yeast in his bread and baked some nice cakes for all his friends. He loved his friends and his friends loved him. Those who knew this Baker could have their cake and then eat it too because he could just bake another cake. Now that takes the cake!
The Butcher offered tasty meat but could not make enough of it. He did not want to be the Baker’s friend because he was jealous, so he took a cake. Then, he did it again. So he thought, “That tasted mighty fine. I bet I could even get some friends this way too.” So then the Butcher began stealing some of the best of the Baker’s cakes and he offered them to others. So some people became friends with the Butcher, although he had bloody hands and sometimes this got on the cakes too. It was obvious that something was wrong but some people were like the Butcher so they began to like him. But then the Baker began to lock his doors at night. His wife was a candlestick maker and her candles seemed to burn very bright, sometimes it seemed like they just kept burning through the whole night. So the Butcher was having a hard time stealing now and he was running out of cakes. He did not have enough and couldn’t bake a cake. His wife was a candlestick maker too. Yet her candles did not burn right through the night, if at all. In fact, it seemed like she would rather not have them burn. For it just did not seem nice to her to allow something she made to burn so she kept her candles smothered and hidden under bushels. So their house was dark.
The Butcher was trying to keep his friends, yet he was running out of food. So slowly, while his friends ate some of the best cakes of all he began to stop up their ears. Then, he began to blind them too. He had this way about him, since he was used butchering pigs and had some pigpens in the back. As the candles burned brightly and he couldn’t steal any more cakes he had to make his friends more and more deaf and blind. They were quite deaf, dumb and stupid in the end.
Then the Butcher began to eat his friends little by little. For you see, the Butcher and his wife were hungry too!
I rewrote this for Delaware Politics.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
A summary of his psychological dynamics:
Professionals and intellectuals have additional susceptibilities... as an antidote for isolation and weakness; to romanticized violence and a cult of hardness, as a denial of effeteness, softness, and “scruples”; to the crude and primitive....I emphasized that because note the hatred of certain forms of animal sacrifice typical to pagans, yet they will often be the first to sacrifice babies and Jews. It seems that some can be sacrificed for pretty much any reason, whether it's supposedly keeping Islamists at bay or having lower crime rates. Yet they rebel against animal sacrifice and tend toward the sin of Cain, naturally. Are they their brother's keeper? In any event, they reject the sacrifice of the Lamb of God and animal sacrifice. So one of the first comments from his Herd is:
Most of these susceptibilities involve claims to omnipotence in the name of humility, calls to sacrifice in which the sacrificial group is made up of the regime’s designated victims. These contradictions can be maintained, lived with, through the professional’s special talent for doubling. Only he or she can become a murderous sorcerer while claiming to be a healer....
Worse, one may do these things with the conviction that they are “in accord with the natural history and biology of man,” and that one is acting as healer and savior.
(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Lifton :491) (Emphasis added)
I don't want to ignite an argument over the morality of using animals in medical research and things, but that's about all I could focus on in your post.LinkNote that the Nazis were among the first to advance anti-vivisection laws while experimenting on Jews. And so on.
Evolutionism and proto-Nazism
Related comments, although you may be left guessing as to how:
Safe and Legal
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Monday, January 03, 2011
After considerable difficulties the S.A. was reorganized into an armed band of several hundred thousand men to protect Nazi meetings, to break up the meetings of others and to generally terrorize those who opposed Hitler.
...the brown-shirted S.A. never became much more than a motley mob of brawlers. Many of its top leaders, beginning with its chief, Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts. Lieutenant Edmund Heines, who led the Munich S.A., was not only a homosexual but a convicted murderer. These two and dozens of others quarreled and feuded as only men of unnatural sexual inclinations, with their peculiar jealousies, can.
An organization, however streamlined and efficient, is made up of erring human beings, and in those years when Hitler was shaping his party to take over Germany’s destiny he had his fill of troubles with his chief lieutenants, who constantly quarreled not only among themselves but with him. He, who was so monumentally intolerant by his very nature, was strangely tolerant of one human condition—a man’s morals. No other party in Germany came near to attracting so many shady characters. As we have seen, a conglomeration of pimps, murderers, homosexuals, alcoholics and blackmailers flocked to the party as if to a natural haven. Hitler did not care, as long as they were useful to him. When he emerged from prison he found not only that they were at each other’s throats but that there was a demand from the more prim and respectable leaders such as Rosenberg and Ludendorff that the criminals and especially the perverts be expelled from the movement. This Hitler frankly refused to do. "I do not consider it to be the task of a political leader," he wrote in his editorial...
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History
of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer
(Simon and Schuster) 1990 :120,121-122)
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
Debating a Holocaust Denier
The Separation of Church and State