The ugly face of Swedish socio-fascism

Sweden's troublesome path towards totalitarianism and intellectual conformism becomes apparent in yet another showdown of bizarre government policy. Approximately 200 students at the boarding school "Lundsberg's" in Sweden are at the moment in shock after have been informed at a press conference that the school is forced to close. This due to government directive and the students have 24 hours to clear the premises.

                       Lundberg's boarding school, a provider of high quality education in Sweden for generations, called Sweden's Eton, now forced to close for the terrible crime of non conformity.

Ms. Ann-Marie Begler, the director of the Swedish School Inspectorate, the government agency set to control the quality and safety of schools and that they fulfill their legal obligations, stated as a good Maoist that the school is forced out of business because:
1. The school doesn't uphold the culture and the values it must and
2. The school has not been able to change its culture and values and
3. Students that attend the school also live there (?).

What has brought this conformist fury down on this excellent school is an accident during initiation of two students where they got burned by irons. Now 200 students have been made homeless and have 24 hours to get out.

This is when the outlandish and bizarre consequences of Swedish government agency lingo becomes apparent. At the press conference Director Begler on the question where these students are going to go now, stated that :

"They can call the municipalities they belong to, since they are by law required to provide a place in the communal schools for these students."

Mind you now, this is a boarding school. The students are primarily children to parents of the so called elite in Sweden, they live in Dubai, Hong Kong, New York etc. Others are students that are placed in the school with the help of the authorities. Some students are in witness protection programs, victims of honor crimes, rape and so on but also victims of severe bullying in their home schools.

Yet other students are not even Swedish. There are three schools such as this in Sweden. There is SSHL which is located my home town Sigtuna and which my daughter attended, there is SSHL's sister school in Gränna and there is Lundberg's. It is not unusual that foreign parents place their children in one of these schools, much like what is the situation with the boarding schools in Switzerland and other European countries. Who are these students going to call? Their parents in Peking? Can they even arrange for something within 24 hours? The students organization has stated in a press release that they are in shock. I can relate to them, the boarding school is in the middle of no-where, surrounded by woods, where are they going to go?

This decision is nothing more than a political attack from the Swedish socio-fascist establishment in this instance represented by the department of education and minister Jan Björklund. Mr. Björklund thinks little of diversity. He has stated that he wants to close down these boarding schools altogether, one down two to go. His outspoken aim is conformity. In an interview (its in Swedish) on homeschooling he stated that he "cannot understand why one would make exception when some parents say - "now we want to do this our selves, we don't want to attend the mandatory school" I cannot understand that idea." This policy is also clearly implemented by the administrative supreme court of Sweden denying a Jewish family the right to educate their children in accordance with their faith. Perhaps WWII is already too far away.

              Minister Jan Björklund, the most current face of Swedish socio-fascism and conformist dogma

The motivation for closing the boarding school which is said to be to secure the "safety of the students" is nothing but a lame cover. Seriously, if Ms. Begler were concerned about school children's' safety this is probably the last school in Sweden that would need attention. Some examples, in St: Olof school in Sigtuna a boy stabbed a classmate several times with a knife. The school was not closed, not only that not a single person demanded that it should. In Sävar school in Umeå a 15 year old boy tried to strangle a classmate and beat him in the face - no one demanded the school to close down. In Nave school in Norrköping a 15 year old student was beat with punches in the face, shortly after another student was also assaulted - no one demanded that the school close down. Five students at Westerlundska high school covered a student in electrical tape forced him to shower and then dragged him trough the entire school. They filmed everything to be able to post it on internet - no one demanded the school to close down. Not to mention the epidemic of assaults on female students and rapes in schools in Sweden and were female students are systematically harassed, called names, degraded based on their gender and constantly in fear for assaults and sexual harassment. As far as I know, no school so far has been closed in Sweden due to systematic sexual harassment of female students.

If initiation is such a huge problem in society, then they should also close the universities, sport clubs and lets not forget the armed forces. Close them all, they have initiation rites.

Also, as in most civilized countries Sweden claims to have outlawed collective punishment. Not so when the "offenses" at hand is a different socio-cultural value system than that which is endorsed and condoned by the Swedish ministry of education and minister Björklund.

To get to the bottom with these cultural dissidents - all 200 of them age 13 -18, the government in a brutal exposition of arbitrary power have ordered all of them to clear the premises within 24 hours. The have been directed to report to their designated communal school.




                                 

Evil / Ondska

                                      Ondskan ikläder sig altruismen/Evil in the guise of altruism

FOR ENGLISH SCROLL DOWN

DN skriver att en undersökning av Alexander Haslam och Stephen Reicher visar att ondskan inte är banal. Gamla teser kastas på soptippen och nya förklaringar omfamnas. Den gamla ståndpunkten att ondskan är passiv, att det handlar om människor som liksom lyder order och inte mäktar ta ställning emot visar sig inte stämma. Samtidigt så tilldelas Augustpriset till Göran Rosenberg för hans författarskap om ondskans implementering.

Jag tycker det är intressant att den ”banala” teorin har fått sådant genomslag, för personligen tycker jag att den nog är kontra intuitiv. Jag tror alla människor har någon erfarenhet av sadistisk ondska i livet. Det kan vara någon elak unge i skolan, eller någon sadistisk distanserad byråkrat som i sken av förment professionalism är slående oberörd av situationen.

Den banala synen har en tendens av självbedrägeri över sig, ett sätt att sticka huvudet i sanden, för att fortsätta kunna tycka att de flesta är ganska hyggliga, följer order, men ville egentligen inte. Man slipper också omaket att behöva förklara ondskans väsen, eftersom människor inte ÄR onda, de bara råkar GÖRA onda saker.

Det tycks mig som om man genom att anta den banala synen också på något sätt minskar på ansvaret. Man kan fortsätta gömma sig i sanden och inte behöva ta tag i problem som finns, men som det blundas för eftersom de ”inte finns.” Ta tanken på den ”goda staten” som är så förhärskande i Sverige, ett antagande som effektivt tystar alla försök att reformera den offentliga verksamheten. Varför har vi till exempel inte en författningsdomstol i Sverige? För att vi har demokrati och lagen som ett uttryck för majoritetens, dvs folkviljan inte kan ha fel? Det gick ju himla bra i Tyskland. Men som de experiment som citeras i DN:s artikel visar så kan bevisligen människor bete sig grymt mot varandra, om möjlighet ges. Det är kanske så man ska se på det.

Författaren Laurence Rees har skrivit: ”It is worth trying to understand why so many of the former Nazis I have met over the last fifteen years appear to find an internal justification for their crimes (”I thought it was the right thing to do”) rather than an external one (”I was ordered to do it”).

Om dessa forskningsresultat får så värst mycket praktisk betydelse återstår att se. Redan innan visste vi ju att människor kan göra de värsta tänkbara saker. Vi visste också att auktoritetstro spelade en roll i detta, vilket jag tror att det fortfarande gör faktiskt även fast denna studie visar att människor agerar efter sitt egen värdering. Man har liksom bara flyttat problemet ett steg bakåt på något vis. Uppfattningen att man gör något som är ”rätt och riktigt” beror till stor del på vilket samhälle man lever i. Vilka impulser och värderingar som förstärks har naturligtvis staten och auktoriteter ett stort inflytande över, vilket ger möjlighet för den enskilde att använda auktoriteten som alibi, som rationaliseringsgrund, för sina egna böjelser eller värderingar.

Nazismen är ett utmärkt exempel. Den Nazistiska regimen tvingade inte befolkningen att hata judar, det fanns redan en utbredd antisemitism i Tyskland, såväl som i andra länder. Den tyska regimen förstärkte värderingar som redan fanns och iklädde sig altruistiska motiv i sin propaganda och vädjade till folkets bästa egenskaper, och opinionen följde stegvis efter, allt för löftet om framtiden, för folkviljan kan ju inte ha fel, eller?

ENGLISH

DN writes that a study by Alexander Haslam and Stephen Reicher shows that evil is not banal. Old theories are replaced by new explanations. The old view that evil is passive, that it is about people who, are obeying orders and not capable to act in any other way, is not accurate according to the study. With relevance to this I note that the August Prize was awarded to writer Goran Rosenberg for his authorship on the implementation of evil under the Nazi regime.

I find it interesting that the "banal" theory has made such an impact, because personally I think that it probably is counter-intuitive. I think everyone has some experience of a sadistically evil person in life. There may be a horrible bully at school, or a sadistically distant bureaucrat that in the guise of supposed professionalism is strikingly unmoved by the situation at hand.

The “banal” theory has a tendency of self-deception about it, it is a way to stick your head in the sand, to continue to find that most people are fairly decent, following orders and such, but did not really want to do all that evil. It also effectively saves you from the obvious trouble of relating to evil as an entity of itself. People can DO evil things – yes, but they ARE not evil.

It seems to me as if by adopting the banal explanation one also reduce responsibility. You can continue to hide in the sand and not having to grasp the problems at hand, simply because they "do not exist." Take the idea of ​​the "good state" that is so prevalent in Sweden, an assumption that effectively silences all attempts to reform the system. Why have we not, for example, a constitutional court in Sweden? Because we have democracy and the law as an expression of the majority, that is the will of the people, can not be wrong? Well, that approach went amazingly well in Germany, if sarcasm is allowed. But as the experiments quoted in DN's article shows it is evident that people can behave cruelly towards each other, if given the opportunity. Maybe that is the way to look at it.

Writer Laurence Rees has written: "It is worth trying to understand why so many of the forms Nazis I have met over the last fifteen years Appear to find an internal justification for Their crimes (" I thought it was the right thing to do ") rather than an external one ("I was ordered to do it").

If the findings of this study will have any practical significance remains to be seen. Even before this we knew that people can do the worst things to others. We also knew that authoritarianism played a role in this, which I think it still does. Even though this study shows that people primarily act according to their own convictions. It has just moved the problem one step back in a way. The idea that you do something that is "right and proper" depends largely on what kind of society you live in. The state and the authorities have a great deal of influence over which impulses and values that ​​are being reinforced in society. Giving individuals the opportunity to use the values derived from authorities as an alibi, as a means of rationalization, for their own inclinations or values, or as history has it, their atrocities.

Nazism is an excellent example. The Nazi regime did not force people to hate Jews, there was already a widespread anti-Semitism in Germany, as well as in other countries. The Nazi regime reinforced the values ​​that already existed and assumed the altruistic motives in their propaganda and appealed to the people's best qualities, and public opinion gradually followed after. All for the promise of the future, for the will of the people cannot be wrong, right?