Kiwi Polemicist

July 13, 2009

• Sweden wants to outlaw homeschooling done for religious and philosophical reasons

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

This is from Rohus, a Swedish homeschooling organisation. My comments are in blue:

The 16th of June, 2009, the Swedish Government presented its proposal for a new Swedish School Law, that has been in the works for many years.

The position on homeschooling in the suggested law is a return to darkness. It is unbelievable. Homeschooling will NOT be permitted for those referring to philosophical or religious reasons according to the European convention on Human Rights!

The added words used to make home education virtually impossible, are FOUR:

“Education otherwise is allowed if… there exist extraordinary circumstanses.”

“Education otherwise” means education outside the state system. What is the definition of “extraordinary reasons”?

The reason given is:

“…that the education in school should be comprehensive and objective and thereby designed so that all pupils can participate, regardless of what religious or philosophical reasons the pupil or his or her care-takers may have.” (our emphasis)

This is essentially dishonest. State education always has and always will teach the state ideology; after all, the state does write the curriculum. Remember that one of the ten steps for the transition to communism proposed by Marx is free state education. In the Communist Manifesto he also says:

“Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class”.

Thus, the proposed law argues:

“…there is no need for the law to offer the possibility of homeschooling because of religious or philosophical reasons in the family. All together, this means that this proposed change cannot be said to contradict Sweden’s international obligations [i. e. Human Rights Conventions].”

This is Socialism/Marxism with the gloves off, showing it’s true totalitarian arrogance. Personally I don’t give a damn about Sweden’s international obligations, I just want to see Swedish parents free to choose how they educate their children.

A few families homeschool due to distance or medical problems, but I believe that the vast majority do so for religious or philosophical reasons, so this effectively outlawing the vast majority of homeschooling. This also amounts to discriminaton against religions and philosophies. To put it another way, this is persecution of religions and philosophies by the state. Oh, I forgot: the Church of the State is supreme over all, so that makes persecution of the others ok.

The quotes above are my translations from the proposed law on page 584. The proposed law can be downloaded in Swedish from the Swedish Government homepage – here.

The proposal is now out for review and Rohus will submit a very stern review to the government’s proposal. The review closes on October 1st 2009. The re-working of the proposal will be finished by the spring of 2010. The final proposal will then be voted on by Parliament during the spring/summer of 2010 and will take effect in July of 2011. Due to the many changes in the proposal, it will take about a year for all schools to adapt to it. And for home educators… many may emigrate, if the law ends up the way the proposal reads today.

The Swedish Government is making homeschooling illegal, for religious or philosophical reasons, thus showing off its worst totalitarian socialist roots. We need international support to show that Sweden, as a member of the international democratic community, cannot take such a position. As Sweden is often seen as the great social utopia of the world, it is important for Swedish homeschoolers to win this battle. Any and all help is appreciated immeasurably.

Sensible international comments about the new Swedish school law can be sent to:

Please, also sign our petition HERE if you want to support us in our work to ensure that home education stays a legal alternative to school. They’re collecting signatures internationally, so go for it.

To add insult to injury, when Swedish homeschoolers go to the government website they read this:

The new Education Act – for knowledge, freedom and security
The new Education Act includes education from the kindergarten up to adult education. The law is a coherent laws which will form the base of knowledge, choice and security in all kinds of schools and other activities covered by the Education Act.

If that’s not hypocrisy, what is? What about the “freedom” and “choice” of those who wish to homeschool for religious and philosophical reasons?

I wouldn’t be surprised if Sweden becomes like Germany, where homeschooling is illegal and the state persecutes homeschoolers by taking their children into state custody and fining or imprisoning the parents.

Two words describe the situation in Sweden and Germany: evil and totalitarian.


I believe that the state should not be involved in education in any way whatsoever.

What do you think about the Swedish government’s plan to outlaw homeschooling for religious and philosophical reasons?


Hat tip: HEF

Related posts:

Who is responsible for uneducated children? (Part 1)

Paula Bennett claims ownership of all New Zealand children

Does homeschooling impair social skills?



October 2, 2008

Why has government use of floor space increased by 42% in five years?

Gerry Brownlee has stated that government use of floor space in Wellington has increased by 42% in five years, and now bureaucrats occupy 40% of the office space in the wellington Central Business District. David Parker attempts to defend this, but in doing so lets slip that the public sector has grown by 11% since 2002¹.

Why do we have such a huge increase in bureaucrats? This is a philosophy straight from the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx & Engels:

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. [emphasis added]

Remember that all the Marxist nonsense about the proletariat/working class is just a sales pitch, and history has shown that a communist revolution is all about giving absolute power to the ruling elite.

“Centralising all instruments in the hands of the state” means that the State will steal all private businesses and put them under the control of the ruling elite, because the Marxist agenda is one of power and control. Most Socialists/Communists have by now admitted that this simply doesn’t work², so we have a mixture of capitalism and State-owned instruments of production, e.g. hospitals and education. However, Marxists like Helen Clark do like to increase their dominion and that is why we see such a growth in the public sector.

If you look at the figures below, you will see that 7.6% of the population now works for the public sector, which means that 7.6% of the population is beholden to Helen Clark, and that 7.6% of the population has a vested interest in not rocking the boat. To put it another way, Helen is stealing money from your pay packet and using it to control 7.6% of the population.

However, her lust for power will not be satisfied with the fact that 327,399 people are under her direct control.


1) Consider these points:

a) Parker said “That’s an increase of 32,445 compared with an increase of 251,700 in the employed labour force.” Is he implying that the bureaurcrats aren’t actually gainfully employed?

b) If 32,445 is an 11% increase in public sector employees then we have 327,399 bureaucrats today, or 7.6% of the population.

c) according to Statistics NZ the population grew by 7.6% from 2001 to 2006, whilst the public sector grew by 11% over a similar period: even the fiction that the public sector needs to grow in proportion to the population doesn’t hold up.

d) if the public sector has grown by 11% and governmental use of Wellington office space has grown by 42% over a similar period, this suggests a bias towards growth in bureaucrats involved in central planning (i.e. they are administering the nanny state), rather than in public sector employees like nurses.

e) it is reasonable to assume that these figure do not include consultants, the use of which has grown by huge amounts (far above 11%, although I do not have the exact figures to hand) according to Ian Wishart.

2) I will not attempt to explain here why the State cannot run a business, but consider this: we’re forever short of public health services, but we’re never short of privately produced toilet rolls. If Helen ever nationalises toilet paper production I’ll be on the next plane out.

September 10, 2008

• Graduated income tax, rates, and the Communist Manifesto

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

What’s the link between these things? First, a little background information.

Income tax rates vary from 12.5% on income of less than $14,000, to 39% on income over $70,000. That’s graduated tax: the government steals from the rich to give to the poor.

Rates (local body taxes) are a graduated tax, since they’re based on the government valuation of the property (i.e. the thieves decide how much they’re going to steal). The rates rebate scheme for low income people exaggerates this effect even more.

The link is the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848 by Marx & Engels, where they listed ten steps for the transition from a capitalist society to a communist one. Step #2 applies here: ” A heavy progressive or graduated income tax”. It’s definitely heavy, with a true tax rate of about 45%, and it’s definitely graduated.

These ten steps are a method of accomplishing the following:

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. [They obviously had a different idea of what democracy was. This was just a sales pitch; the proletariat never did gain power]

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie [e.g. steal their money with a graduated tax system], to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state [State Owned Enterprises, hospitals, etc, etc], i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class [so a communist revolution is just a change of rulers]; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic [despotic: think of Helen Clark or Sue Bradford and you’ve got the basic picture] inroads on the rights of property [money is property; we only lease our land from the government for 999 years and they can take it off us whenever they wish*; laws like the Resource Management Act restrict what we can do with the land], and on the conditions of bourgeois production [reminds me of the umpteen regulations that employers have to comply with]; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable [yes, Marxism is economically insufficient and untenable: it’s not a good omen when an economic theory starts out with insufficient and untenable policies], but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves [how can insufficient and untenable measures outstrip themselves?], necessitate further inroads upon the old social order [this isn’t just an economic doctrine, it’s all about changing society], and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

Marxism is alive and well today, but it has a new name: Socialism. Poison is no less lethal if you call it cordial.


*Step #1 “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.”


August 16, 2008

• Why isn’t the government’s monetary policy working?

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Our government attempts to attain the “economic objective of achieving and maintaining stability in the general level of prices” via the Reserve Bank (does that remind you of Muldoon’s wage and price freeze?). Usually this is manifested in the Bank adjusting the Official Cash Rate to try and manipulate the rate of inflation. So why is this mechanism always beset with trouble?

In 2007 the government got a committee to look at the latest problems with the government’s monetary policy and Bruce Sheppard made a submission critical of the government. Part of his submission in regard to the causes of inflation was:

The Crowns activities in the property market through Housing New Zealand are also not helpful. The Crown is the largest holder of residential property in New Zealand, and to blame the baby boomers for the “scarcity” of homes is a little unfair. The Crowns holding is now valued at $13 billion.

Basically, houses are a popular investment in New Zealand, and because the government owns so many there are fewer available for purchase. High demand coupled with low supply drives prices and inflation up.

What is the common thread between the government’s manipulation of prices via the Reserve Bank and the government’s ownership of more houses than anyone else? Why are both policies causing economic harm? The common thread is this: both policies are directly from the Communist Manifesto.

The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848 by Marx and Engels, and listed ten stepping stones for the transition from a capitalist society to a communist one:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. That’s government ownership of houses and administration of almost a third of New Zealand’s land area via the Department of Conservation.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. That’s the Reserve Bank.

It’s no wonder that these policies are a failure when they are based on communist economics. Such economics simply don’t work, as any Russian who queued for toilet paper between 1917 and 1991 will tell you.

There is a far simpler mechanism for “maintaining stability in the general level of prices”, and it doesn’t require hordes of expensive bureaucrats; it’s called the law of supply and demand. In other words, if the government stops interfering with supply and demand things will sort themselves out.

Attempting to fix a governmental monetary policy based upon the Communist Manifesto is akin to finding the skeleton of a horse and trying to get it to pull a cart.

What do you think about the points that I have made here?


Blog at