Regular readers are familiar with Lars Vilks, the Swedish artist whose whimsical depictions of the prophet (some prophet or other, not sure which) as a roundabout dog caused a ruckus that eventually resulted in fatwas and an international conspiracy to kill the blasphemous cartoonist.In a way, Lars Vilks’ case is no different from that of other Swedes, especially if they are in Malmö or certain areas of Gothenburg. In the long run, all Swedes live under the threat posed by cultural enrichment, especially the Muslim variety. Mr. Vilks’ plight is simply more concentrated and immediate than what most citizens face.
The artist has reacted to his situation with his trademark wry good humor. But his life is in danger, so SÄPO, the state security service, has been providing protection for him.
However, protecting Lars Vilks is a costly business, and SÄPO insists that the artist or his supporters help pay for its services. Below is a report concerning this issue, which was posted today at the Trykkefrihedsselskabet (Danish Free Press Society) website. Many thanks to Kepiblanc for his speedy translation:
SÄPO demands money for protecting Lars Vilks- - - - - - - - -
The uproar around Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks continues to raise dust. The Swedish Intelligence Agency (SÄPO) now demands “protection money” if he still wants them around.
By Uwe Max Jensen, May 7th 2010Today the Swedish Mohammed cartoonist Lars Vilks was scheduled to lecture on art in Gothenburg’s Eriksberg Hall. But the event was canceled by the organizers. For monetary reasons, or so they claim.
The Swedish Intelligence Agency SÄPO has started to collect money in order to protect Vilks. In connection with the lecture in Gothenburg, SÄPO demanded the organizers pay 25% of the costs associated with the event’s security, which made Vilks a very costly lecturer.
SÄPO’s approach is just the latest action from official Sweden, which makes it increasingly cumbersome for him to work as an artist and lecturer. In the autumn of 2008 a major retrospective exhibition was canceled due to political interference.
Meanwhile Lars Vilks hasn’t lost his courage. He suggests that rather than relying on SÄPO’s protection he can carry his axe and bring it with him to various lectures, and place it on the lectern alongside his laptop.
In Denmark Kurt Westergaard’s protection hasn’t yet been questioned by the authorities. There seems to be a political consensus to protect the cartoonist regardless of the costs. Nevertheless, in an editorial in the daily Information, an author by the name of Bent Vinn Nielsen argues that the daily Jyllands-Posten should have the “manly grit” to pay at least some of the 20 million kroner — the annual cost of Westergaard’s bodyguards — while radio anchor Huxi Bach advocates that Kurt Westergaard abandon his Viby residence where he was assaulted on New Year’ Day.
One of the most notorious features of the modern multicultural state is its pervasive failure to protect citizens from the depredations of violent immigrants who have been imported as a result of deliberate state policies. So, in a way, SÄPO is right — why does Lars Vilks deserve any better protection from violent thugs than does the average Swedish citizen?
You’ll notice, however, that the state has condescended to grant Mr. Vilks the right to hire his own armed bodyguards. Perhaps it would also allow the same privilege to Sven Svensson, but hiring gunsels is beyond the means of the average Swede. The man on the street is simply out of luck.
On the other hand, Sven might be able to scrape together the cost of a good handgun, which would give him the power to be his own bodyguard. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the government to grant him that right.
Sven will just have to carry an axe.
For previous posts on Lars Vilks and the Roundabout Dogs, see the Modoggie Archives.
Hat tip: TB.
13 comments:
Kurt Westergaard, who is mentioned above, has btw become yet another poster-boy for the dissolution of the counter-jihad movement. See here. SIOE itself is, of course, another ego-driven actor in this surrealistic theater (even though they are blameless in this particular instance).
The counter-jihad movement - the movement of peace. Once piece here, another piece there, and here and there all over the place. All shattered into tiny bits, as if a jihadist had put a bomb in the middle of it.
BTW, I have started blogging again.
That's good news -- about blogging again, I mean.
Your top post is provocative, as usual.
It's hard to go wrong when your back-up is Winston Churchill.
Don't forget Conservative Swede's motto, which is on his website:
Not neocon, paleocon, libcon or tradcon, but KAFIRCON!
Note to other readers: please comment on his blog about his post. It would be OT here.
Glad to see you back and ready to roll, sir.
Thanks, ma'am! :-)
Oh, as for "the dissolution of the Counterjihad movement"...
It's more like a realignment as the various pieces shift in their focus and direction. This is a relatively new movement, at least as far as the blogosphere is concerned.
If there were no movement at all, it would mean the situation was static and dead. At the moment, things are centrifugal and that's a good thing.
Conflict isn't inherently negative. It can often produce change and innovation as people build work-arounds to perceived obstacles.
ha! The Swedish state brought these dangerous Jihadists to Sweden, they can cough up the readies to protect those who need protecting from them!
Just part of the oh-so-worthwhile price to pay for the glories of multiculturalism.
Aside from protecting its citizens, I see no other legitimate purpose of government. If the state refuses this task, what right does it have to tax collection?
Dymphna,
C'mon. The number of rifts within the counterjihad is astounding. And if we take the silly reasons for them in account, the whole thing is flabbergasting. It makes the different factions in "Life of Brian" look rational and goal-oriented in comparison.
My analysis is that the heavy fear-mongering pressure of political correctness makes normal people shy away from the cause, and we end up with too much of a sideshow of big egos (especially among the most visible ones). And the result is as we have been able to witness...
But yes, there is also a mycelium under the ground, which is also important. And will be especially important for the future. But any unified international counterjihad movement, of any visible significance, won't be possible for many years now. The co-operation that actually works happens on national level, mainly within political parties. The international mycelium is nevertheless very important to maintain and build further. This sort of networking makes us prepared for many things that are about to come.
@ Conservative Swede
C'mon. The number of rifts within the counterjihad is astounding...
I don't think the rifts are numerically larger than they are in any kind of political movement or, say, religious organization.
The splinters on each side of our poliltical divide here in the US are small enough to be slivers, and just as wounding, too.
You know the old saying, "three Jews, four opinions"? Well, denominational religion is just like that in the US. We quickly outgrew the concept of a state religion which the colonists brought over with them, but we never outgrew religion. Instead we've fragmented into a thousand forms of (mostly) Christianity.
Yeah, we have devoutly aggressive atheists,too, but that's a passing fad. However, before it does recede from the scene as a viable faith it too will splinter acrimoniously into cities of one.
Have you heard of the Possibilarians, sometimes known as the Possibilitarians (see, factions already)? They straddle the amorphous middle of agnosticism. Interesting group, mostly science fiction fans who reject faith-based religion AND atheism as being too confining.
Nah, the Counterjihad Conflicts are simply growing pains. If you want astounding rifts, look at Islam. Whoo, boy....
@ Conservative Swede, 5/07/2010 11:36 PM
Ho, Ho! It has unfortunately allways been like this! Some valued other(s) think one or two of my thoughts and to my great satisfaction do formulate them in writing much better than I myself would be capable of, only being a piece of that invisible mycelium down in the shit. It was inspiring to meet with the Mushroom Caps dancing in the Counter-Jihad-Fantasia. Almost like whirling dervishes they sometime spin, but finally you get tired, if not pi**ed up.
Dymphna,
I don't think the rifts are numerically larger than they are in any kind of political movement
Oh dear, I have never seen anything like it. Just take the strong fear among nationalist parties for cooperating with nationalist parties in other countries. The whole thing is a mess.
My analysis is that the more left-wing ideals and taboos that are broken, the less comfortable the people within a movement feel about themselves, and the less they are able to find a common direction. The left-wing ideals is our model and reference point for moral goodness. This is what we are socialized into, by narratives that we are fed with on a daily basis. The concepts Left and Right are, unlike what they superficially suggest, not at all symmetrical. Instead they should be read as 'ideal' and 'deviation' (and there are many directions in which one can deviate). The left-wing ideals have deep traditional roots in our culture, it is a result of a long purification process of Christian ideals.
Being right-wing means adding real-world constraints to the left-wing ideals, and thereby deviating somewhat from it, but nevertheless striving for the very same objective of utopian universalist egalitarianism etc. This is the reason for why the right-wing is mostly one and the vary same as the left-wing. It gives the same end result, just a little slower. No surprise, since they have the same objective, the same mental image of the ideal, the same concept of what's morally good and desirable.
But any farther right, by adding so many constraints to the model, makes it virtually impossible to reach the left-wing ideals. So the compass needle starts flipping and fluctuating, and differently for different people. This implants a lot of insecurity into the people of such a movement, which makes people within the group easily fear each other and even see each other as evil. The remedy is to replace the point of reference, the left-wing ideals. Which means changing the very grammar of or moral thinking. But that is too abstract and incomprehensible for people. And even if they understood it, they would fear doing so too much.
It is easier for the extreme right punks, such as the neo-Nazis. They can operate perfectly within the model, and have no problem in finding their direction. It's just a matter of flipping the sign of the objective function, and striving for bad/evil instead of good. This position is perfect for people with a negative self-image. They can enter the stage of the leftist theater (think: Platonic cave) and simply join the bad/evil side. Thus their position is in perfect harmony with the left-wing ideals. No rethinking of the moral grammar is needed, just adding a minus sign before the objective function. And thereby their actions are in all respects just a way of cementing the left-wing ideals.
In this way, being a neo-Nazi is a psychologically safe position, because they have a clear direction and know who they are. While the serious and sensible farther right -- adding so many constraints to their model that the compass needle starts flipping -- end up in a void. They might be in denial about it, but the many inconsistencies are nevertheless there under the surface, just waiting to pop up. The only possible remedy is to change the moral framework, our very definitions of good and bad/evil, and thereby our objective function.
Dymphna, states had state religions until later on. I recall reading about New Hampshire and it had a state religion until the 1830s or so. You take a static form of the last 50 years of the US development and say that it was like that before too. Colonists had state religions for over 200 years.
And I disagree with you and I think ConservativeSwede is right and this is due to a difference. Islam has astounding rifts, but they work with each other against us regardless. We adhere to principles like who is more to the right than me is a Nazi, we battle each other regardless of the consequence and the like. I mean, Lawrence Auster has Israel as a litmus test, X has non-discrimination, Y dislikes the Jews and so on. X will not work with me and Lawrence will not work with Y, while Y won't work with Lawrence. Muslims might argue against each other, but they all work together against us.
Rebvan,
Muslims might argue against each other, but they all work together against us.
Exactly!!!
We adhere to principles like who is more to the right than me is a Nazi
Well, as I clarified in my comment above, the problem is not really that some people to our right are considered Nazis, because in several respects they really are. I'm not talking about the tedious liberal slander of anyone not adhering to strictly leftist ideal being a Nazi, but about how many people see the remedy of the past Jewish-American century as the imagination of the victory of Nazi-Germany in WWII. Such a dead end! (In so many ways!) But these people are stuck in the same world view, and the very same Platonic cave shadow theater as the liberals, only that they flip the sign of the objective function.
When our side have won this struggle, IT WILL NOT HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT DEFEATING THE LEFT. The right is nothing but an epiphenomenon of the left, it has no existence, raison etre or substance of itself. When our side has won, the whole paradigm of left and right will have collapsed. As soon as the left-wing ideals fall, which are really purified Christian ethics, the right will be evaporated the very same minute.
The sad thing today is that people are still so much animated by left-wing utopian ideals coupled by Nazi-Germany symbolism (no matter how they twist it). I'm currently discussing that here.
Right-wing is in no way the answer, but all part of the problem -- think orthogonally!
Regarding state religion and what Dymphna wrote:
Yeah, we have devoutly aggressive atheists,too, but that's a passing fad.
Surprising, if it's true, since I know of no more religious and priestly types then aggressive atheists.
We quickly outgrew the concept of a state religion which the colonists brought over with them, but we never outgrew religion. Instead we've fragmented into a thousand forms of (mostly) Christianity.
This shows the importance of a state "religion". Free superstition among the people will just lead to a mess. We'll need a Franco or a Pinochet to sort it out. The constant infighting is of no use. I don't care too much about the exact content of the new great mythological narrative, but we need one.
Anti-Islamist wrote:
Ho, Ho! It has unfortunately always been like this!
Yes, it has. All through the Western Christian civilization. Only that now it's killing us.
That is, the Right is nothing else but the negative pressure created when the Left moves ahead; creating some insignificant turbulence but in no way changing the general direction. The Right has no existence of its own, but is entirely an epiphenomenon of the Left. The day that the Left is defeated, the Right will be evaporated in the very same moment, such as the bad breath of a bum will go away when he dies.
Post a Comment