Thursday, September 06, 2007

That Racist Swedish Flag

You know, I’d do just as well to close this blog down and just give readers a permanent link to The Local, the Swedish English-language news site. I’ve been citing The Local four or five times a day; that’s where all the Lars Vilks news is, and from Sweden come all the Multicultural, PC, and dhimmitude stories that you would ever want to read. Not only that, The Local has those good-looking Nordic babes in bathing suits in the ads on the sidebar — who could ask for more?

Anywhere, here’s the latest: it seems that the Swedish flag is inherently racist, and must not be displayed:

‘Racist’ sports shirts banned from school pic

A Swedish football shirtA school principal in southern Sweden has banned pupils from posing for class photos wearing national team shirts containing Swedish flags.

Since national flags may be perceived by some as xenophobic, eighth grade pupils in Karlshamn have been ordered to wear less inflammatory garb for a photo to be published in the school yearbook.

“Anybody looking at the photo could view it as a political demonstration,” principal Pär Blondell from Strandskolan told news agency TT.

The headmaster added that some of the pupils have labelled the ruling “ridiculous”.
- - - - - - - - -
Following an article on the subject in newspaper Sydsvenkan, a number of parents and irate letter-writers contacted the principal to express their dismay at the shirt ban.

But Blondell stuck to his guns, arguing that the pupils risked inadvertently earning themselves a bad reputation. People could begin speculating about “the racists from Karlshamn” once the yearbook began being distributed in the Malmö area, he said.

“National flags may be perceived by some as xenophobic.” Why is that? How could simply displaying your country’s own flag within that same country be xenophobic?

It’s not like these kids are chasing down Somalis in the street and hacking their heads off while waving the Swedish flag. They’re just playing soccer, for God’s sake!

The reason that the national flag is xenophobic is because it represents a nation.

If you are a member of the Multicultural elite, then you believe that the nation-state is outmoded, and should no longer be used as a political construct in arranging human affairs. Therefore, anyone who embraces, supports or refers to a nation is an atavism, and inherently a racist and a xenophobe.

The truly enlightened transnational progressives believe that borders are an artificial construct which need to be deconstructed and done away with.

The people who hold these opinions are limousine liberals, leftover Marxists, the leftists and socialists who guide cultural policy in the West, mostly from unelected positions within the media, academia, and the permanent bureaucracy.

Ordinary people don’t have any say in such things, nor should they; they are ignorant and misguided throwbacks to those benighted days when discredited values like family, religion, and patriotism were the norm.

All these things need to be done away with to hasten the arrival of the Millennium, when we will all live in a Multicultural paradise.

How could we resist?


Hat tip: CG and Carpenter sent me this one virtually simultaneously.

17 comments:

Roger said...

I should have known. Everything is discriminatory.

falcon_01 said...

Roger, I find your accusations against "Everything" offensive. You excluded "nothing!" ;-)

Seriously though, that they are serious about this makes me want to gag. Guess Americans better hide our flags come Sept 11th for fear of offending anyone...

While we are at it we should quickly embrace North Carolina's steps to join the North American Union and pledge our support to a one world government, by the fascists, for the fascists.

spackle said...

These parents should make sure their kids wear the shirts for the photo. Actually, the whole student body should wear Swedish flag shirts for the shoot. I can dream cant I?

Rafael said...

Baron,

This reminds me of a comment I heard from one of my students when I was teaching in France. He said that the Americans are too proud, and as proof he used the number of flags that individuals fly.

He got awfully quiet when I asked him why that was a bad thing.....

the doctor said...

To say that the flag of ones country is discriminatory is obscene and the person who utters it is a traitor to Sweden . The headteacher should be sacked immediately .

Kafir_Kelbeh said...

One more time, Muslims:

It's not racism...Islam isn't a race.

It's "religionism" at most, or "politicism" at least (very least. almost nil, that kinda least.).

Gringo_Malo said...

The Local is interesting. Their top headline just now is Muslim ambassadors: 'Sweden needs to change its laws.' Of course, when you read Swedish navy mothballs largest ship, Swedish defence Minister resigns over cuts, Government offers money for stay-at-home parents, and, last but not least, Being a man 'bad for the environment', you'll understand why Muslim ambassadors think themselves entitled to dictate laws to Swedes in Sweden.

gun-totin-wacko said...

Haven't some institutions- schools, or whatever- done the same thing in the US? It seems to me that I've read about it; I'd guess out in Mexifornia, if I had to take a wild stab.

But this is utterly ridiculous. Do they ban it all the time, or just for pictures? And doesn't this clown believe in freedom of expression?

Geraldo said...

Better racist than dead!

Stephen Gash said...

We had this crap in England where the Cross of St George was uniquely branded as "racist". Not the Union flag, but the English Cross of St George.

There are more St George's Crosses flying now than ever before. The Scots-led government has decreed that all public buildings in England should fly the Union Flag, whereas the Scottish Government has said the Scottish Flag, the saltire of St Andrew will fly over Scottish public buildings; even though the flag of the notorious Ku Klux Klan is the Scottish national flag.

I urge all Swedes to buy a Swedish flag and fly it. I urge parents to send their children to school wearing the Swedish football shirt.

What will they do? Send all children home?

You stand up to bullies, like this idiot masquerading as a headmaster.

Conservative Swede said...

BB wrote:
If you are a member of the Multicultural elite, then you believe that the nation-state is outmoded, and should no longer be used as a political construct in arranging human affairs. [...]

The people who hold these opinions are limousine liberals, leftover Marxists, the leftists and socialists who guide cultural policy in the West, mostly from unelected positions within the media, academia, and the permanent bureaucracy.

Ordinary people don’t have any say in such things ...


Baron, I'm afraid you're very wrong. This is not a fringe opinion. The idea that the nation-state is outmoded is first of all held by everyone with a university education, which is a third of the population in egalitarian paradise Sweden. Secondly by all kinds of hipsters: libertarians, gays, radical feminists, and all the people who do not work but live of a double income of welfare money and unemployment money. This adds up to 2/3 of the population.

Ordinary people are a minority in this country.

Try to defend the idea of the nation state at a social gathering of "decent" people in Sweden. You will be seen as an old fossil.

Nevertheless, you'll find the same people defending free speech (if it's framed correctly). Liberal principles being completely unfolded here in all directions (blended with good ol' trade unionism).

R. Hartman said...

@Conservative Swede.

Baron said: the nation-state, not just the state. Multi-culturalists no longer need the nation-state, but they still very much need the state.

You could not be more wrong about throwing libertarians in with welfare state parasites. The parasites support the state, as it enables them to extort the working people in order to waste the extorted money on their own immoral goals. They need the state.

Libertarians want to get rid of the state precisely for the same reasons the parasites support it: this massive fraud and extortion. A state has to be, by definition, a criminal organisation, having the monopoly on violence, and the ability to legalize its actions by creating laws that allow them. But that does not make those actions less criminal.

It's the state that allows Islam to colonise our countries, it's the state that criminalises free speech if that involves Islam-criticism. It's the state that lies to their citizens about its true intentions. It's the state that takes taxpayes money to hand it to the looters. And because the state has the monopoly, the citizens cannot defend themselves (try paying no or less taxes, you'll be lifted from your bed at gunpoint before you can say 'democracy').

Libertarianism is the closest thing to the original American Constitution, in that it grants people only three rights (negative, natural rights): life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness itself: you’ve got to put effort into it. A fourth right, following from this, is the right to earned property: you get to keep the produce of your work. You don’t have the right to a house, a car, a boat or a million dollars in the bank; you’ve got the right to work for it, and once you earned it, by honest labour (physical or mental), then it’s yours to keep.

Basically libertarianism knows only one rule: you are free to pursue your own goals, as long as you do not impose on anybody else’s same freedom to do so. This is quite a bit different from ‘doing as you please’. The freedom to live your own life comes with the responsibility to bear the consequences of your voluntary choices. Ground rule is: no violence, except in self-defense. If you think about it, you do not need any other laws than this rule, based on negative rights. All positive 'rights' are assigned by people, and thus arbitrary.

Conservative Swede said...

Libertarians are the worst sort of fanatics. Their phantasmagoria is of younger date than the one of socialists and the Christians, so they are more animated by it and therefore more zealous. Libertarians are the worst open borders group of them all, even worse than the Catholics. They want to destroy the state (the nation state, the welfare state and the state as such) by mass immigration. Why? Because they hate the state. Period.

But of course, quite as among the Catholics, there are exceptions to the rule. Such as Hans-Herman Hoppe and Ilana Mercer. Who still hate the state and want to destroy it, however not with mass immigration, as the vast majority of libertarians want.

R. Hartman said...

@Conservative Swede
Wow. Makes me wonder where you got this hate. You are so far off the mark here. Libertarians don't hate the state. Libertarians love individual freedom, free speech, free market, free enterprise. The state has to go because the state blocks these values, out of self-interest, by applying violence. You cannot deny that. You don'rt address a single argument I make, you just vent off steam.

Immigration has never destroyed a state. Colonisation has. But unless you hate everybody that looks different than you, has different beliefs than you, and a different religion than you (why hate catholics?) there's nothing wrong with open borders. I've said it before: immigrants adapt, because it's in their best interest to do so. Colonists don't, therefore colonists are a thread and should be expelled. Immigrants don't have a future if they don't adapt, as there is no welfare state. They have to learn the language and work for their money, just like any local. If they are criminal, they will be punished, just like any local, and expelled.

Read Ayn Rand, Roy Childs, Murray Rothbard, Walther Block, the list goes on... Think, think and think again. And then present me with arguments, not hot air, what's so desperately wrong with libertarianism.

As GoV is hardly the place for such discussions, I will shortly put an article on the subject on my blog DutchConcerns, and invite you to continue the discussion there. In the mean time I urge you to read a bit on the subject, there's plenty available on the net.

R. Hartman said...

@stephen gash
We had the same crap in NL. Well over a year ago, school kids that had a Dutch flag sticker on their schoolbag were told to take it off because it 'could incite hatred'. And the Dutch flag is just three color bands, not even a cross.

Indeed its about showing your nationality, inside your own culture, that's deemed offensive; it's not so much the cross, although that probably doubles the 'insult'. And with schoolkids, 9 times out of 10 they're not even making a conscious statement.

Profitsbeard said...

r. hartman-

"The state has got to go... there's nothing wrong with open borders..."

This is satire right?

Or suicide.

Have the doors on your house got to go, too?

The immune system in your body?

Both are forms of the "state".

The state of self-defense.

Without control of your borders, you cease to exist, because those more instinctually-rapacious will take advatage of your fatal naivete and overwhelem and destroy you.

The state is your shield.

Because others have swords.

Ask Islam.

(Or look at the scimitars on their flags.)

Ontario Emperor said...

Found this post while researching all of the things that have been banned in Sweden. I figure if I can get my blog banned in Sweden AND China, I must be doing something right.