Thursday, May 13, 2010

“Sweden Is Our Country, Too!”

This will probably be the final video we post of Tuesday’s attack on Lars Vilks. I Mitt Sverige has posted the definitive record of the entire incident, from when the “Allah ho gay bar” video started playing until the police finally started making people leave the lecture hall. As you watch this ten-minute video, pay close attention to what the Muslims shout at the police (subtitles in English).

WARNING: Raw language is used in these subtitles:


Sweden is rapidly approaching the endgame of the multicultural socialist state. The current regime cannot be maintained much longer, and the strain is starting to show. The inevitable animosity generated by the clash of civilizations has brought society to the verge of breakdown in immigrant-rich areas.

Consider the implications of some of the words shouted by Muslims in this video:

1. Sweden is our country, too!
- - - - - - - - -
The man who keeps shouting this is exactly correct: his assertion echoes the central dogma of Multiculturalism, which has been drilled into him as well as the “persons of Swedish background” who formed the vast majority of the country’s inhabitants until a generation ago.

The country belongs to the people who happen to live there, not to a nation or culture, and most certainly not to the descendants of all those Swedes who toiled and sacrificed for centuries to build a civilized society out of a chilly wilderness.

The clincher here is that “we pay taxes, too.” This gives culture-enrichers veto power over what is permitted and not permitted in Modern Multicultural Sweden.

And the same rights are claimed by immigrants on social welfare, who don’t pay taxes but consume them. They’re here, you’re kaffir, get used to it.

2. If he had stopped the film, this couldn’t have happened.

In other words, if Mr. Vilks had moderated his actions to take into account the sentiments of Sweden’s Muslim community, nobody would have tried to kill him. From the enrichers’ standpoint, this makes perfect moral sense: the artist is required to alter his behavior to accord with norms that have nothing to do with Swedish tradition. Freedom of artistic expression is an atavistic cultural artifact that is not included in this particular postmodern schema.

According to the norms of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., the artist has the responsibility not to offend his audience with blasphemous “pornography”. If he neglects his responsibility, then his just punishment may include injury or death at the hands of those whom he has offended.

Immigrants in Sweden have learned that this is their right: their religion is to be respected at all times and by everyone. When an irresistible multicultural force meets an immovable free-speech object, guess which one has to yield? The culture-enrichers have long since learned that free speech is what almost always gives way. Lars Vilks was unable to finish his seminar, and the University of Uppsala is reluctant to reschedule it, due to “security issues”. Mr. Vilks is unlikely to find another venue unless he pays for it out of pocket, so the enrichers are right: their religion — and more importantly, their eagerness to resort to violence whenever they are insulted — trumps long-cherished Swedish freedoms.

3. If you don’t want trouble, take him [Lars Vilks] out of Uppsala.

This, in effect, claims a portion of Sweden for the Ummah. Infidels who refuse to follow sharia within the Islamic enclave must leave, or expect full punishment.

In other words, Multiculturalism has achieved the exact opposite of its purported aim. Multiple cultures don’t mix in harmony; they precipitate out and form antagonistic and immiscible statelets.

When one culture is more aggressive and fecund than another, it tends to prevail. This does not bode well for the future of Sweden.

4. Isn’t it illegal for you to draw your gun? Then we will report you, too!

This tells us that the culture-enrichers (a) know how to game the system, and (b) are aware that the higher-ups — the cowards who hold political authority — will betray their underlings when immigrants complain. The cop on the beat will be tossed to the wolves the moment Muslims are offended.

Yes, the Muslims know the system well. They have learned its rules, and they have figured out how to use its inherent systemic weaknesses against native Swedes.

They know that Swedes are not allowed to fight back, that guns in police holsters are only for show, and that the Swedish social and political system will tremble at the first hint of violent retaliation. They know that if they are brought up on charges, useful idiots in the Swedish legal system with rush to their aid, and that even if they are convicted, any punishment they receive will be so light as to be meaningless.

The Muslims are well aware that Swedish law enforcement is a Potemkin village. That’s why they are willing to stand at the front of the lecture hall and scream invective at Swedish cops.

Now consider the response made by a Swedish girl in the audience:

This is not freedom of speech, don’t you get that?

She’s absolutely right. This isn’t freedom of speech; it’s sharia.

Welcome to Modern Multicultural Sweden.


For previous posts on Lars Vilks and the Roundabout Dogs, see the Modoggie Archives.

33 comments:

kritisk_borger said...

These idiots should definitely be arrested. But I think it’s a pretty long stretch to claim that Sweden is in its dying stages based on this clip. Have a look at this youtube video and see what happened to the hosts of the popular British TV show Top Gear when they travelled to Alabama.

I’d say the Alabamians in this clip display pretty much the same attitudes as the Muslims in Sweden.

Hmmm... is Alabama going to the dogs?

Nick said...

I think you're missing the point.

Baron Bodissey said...

Actually, kritisk, if you read my argument a bit more carefully, you'll notice that I base my conclusion not on the attitude of the Muslims, but on the behavior of the police and other Swedish authorities.

I don't know how they do it in Alabama, but I know what would happen in Virginia to a bunch of punk kids who scream obscenities at the police and spit in their faces.

This is not about the immigrants. This is about the natives.

kritisk_borger said...

Baron, I think you are misguided if you believe that native Swedes males have been feminized and are a bunch of weaklings which can easily be pushed over. I realize that it’s easy to come to that conclusion if you only reading right wing blogs and news from Sweden that solely deal with Muslim crime.

I’ve been living in Scandinavia for most of my life. I have Swedish, Norwegian and Danish friends and I don’t believe that Scandinavians males are weak and feminized. Yes, sure some of the academics are, but then again that’s the case for academics all over the world.

If you’d been out in a Swedish/Norwegian town on a weekend, you’d get a different picture.

I’d say that Swedish/Norwegian males (working class/lower middle class) are a lot more aggressive and willing to fight than you give them credit for. I don’t think that anyone of your readers would want to insult a bunch of say local Swedish hockey players in a bar with the comment that all Swedish males are weaklings. If they did they’d get their heads kicked in by a bunch of 6 foot guys that all look like Arnold Swazenegger.

And by the way, the most violent and aggressive gangs in Scandinavia are the biker gangs, Hells Angels/Bandidos/Outlaws and they consist of purely white ethnic Scandinavians, and they’d happily drill your knee caps with a cordless drill if you cross them.

So don’t worry about the Scandinavians they can look after themselves. You’ll see that when they finally form big country wide gangs to retaliate against more and more frequent immigrant violence.

Baron Bodissey said...

kritisk --

Your method of argument is very similar to that of Nodrog, except that you are more polite. Although I’m convinced that you will never concede a point, but will sidestep and change the subject in the face of effective counterargument — in other words, that you’re not commenting in good faith — still, I’ll answer your last point because it says something revealing, whether you realize it or not.

Notice that you’ve made the case that the only Swedish men who employ real force are outlaws. That’s not a reassuring line of argument. In fact, you’ve proved my point: the legitimate Swedish authorities have effectively castrated themselves, so that only the outlaws and immigrants are willing to use violence.

As for who is more violent, the bikers or the enrichers, you may well be right — the bikers probably win the prize.

But when things start to fall apart, and the lawless minority among the native Swedes turns against the immigrant thugs, whose side do you think the police will take?

Will the police suppress the bikers, or the enrichers?

Hmm?

kritisk_borger said...

Baron, when I comment on a blog I do so with honest intentions. One can’t always expect people to share the same views and same ideas. A healthy discussion needs several different points of views. I share some of your views but not all.

And thank you. I do try to be polite.

Now to your last comment.

The Baron said;

“Notice that you’ve made the case that the only Swedish men who employ real force are outlaws. That’s not a reassuring line of argument. In fact, you’ve proved my point: the legitimate Swedish authorities have effectively castrated themselves, so that only the outlaws and immigrants are willing to use violence.”

Well actually Baron I didn’t. What I said was;

“If you’d been out in a Swedish/Norwegian town on a weekend, you’d get a different picture.

I’d say that Swedish/Norwegian males (working class/lower middle class) are a lot more aggressive and willing to fight than you give them credit for. I don’t think that anyone of your readers would want to insult a bunch of say local Swedish hockey players in a bar with the comment that all Swedish males are weaklings. If they did they’d get their heads kicked in by a bunch of 6 foot guys that all look like Arnold Swazenegger.”

It is my opinion, and I’ve spent the majority of my life in Scandinavia, that Scandinavian men enjoy fighting just as much as American and English men do. Many of my mates went out on Friday and Saturday nights with the sole intention of starting fights.

Also,

When I was young some kids started causing problems in my town, but it didn’t last for very long. Some of the grownups formed a vigilante group, apprehended the scoundrels and whipped their backs with bits of gardening hose. There was no more problem with these kids after that.

In another incident some guys decided to teach another guy a lesson and broke into his house and beat him up with baseball bats.

No these folks weren’t career criminals they were for the most part law abiding citizens with jobs.

So, no I don’t recognize the reality that you describe when you claim that Scandinavian men are feminized Baron.

kritisk_borger said...

Baron,

I forgot to mention that at some stage when push comes to shove the immigrants will lose.

Have a look on wikipedia by the way and look up the “great nordic biker war” to get some info on the criminal MC clubs.

Conservative Swede said...

Kritisk borger,

see what happened to the hosts of the popular British TV show Top Gear when they travelled to Alabama

Seriously, can't you see the difference between a documentary and a dramatization? What was shown on Top Gear was an enactment of a fantasy.

I’d say that Swedish/Norwegian males (working class/lower middle class) are a lot more aggressive and willing to fight than you give them credit for.

I don't know if you regularly end up in a bar fight whenever you come to Sweden?

But sure, men are still men here (but notice also that the Baron spoke about feminized men, not about creatures having gone through a full sex operation). So they might still very well speak like men or fight like men. The point is that they will virtually only do so as a sub-cultural expression; in the sauna, within four walls, in dark corners, back alleys etc. In the public light male behaviour is so stigmatized that we do not see much of it anymore. Yes, men are still biological males here, so surely they find ways of channeling their testosterone, ways that go under the radar of the gender-utopia tyranny.

However in the public light Swedish men have to i) display a lot of feminized namby pamby (and for politicians and celebrities: also queer stuff), and ii) refrain from the differential male behaviour which is so much abhorred, or otherwise they risk social exclusion.

I forgot to mention that at some stage when push comes to shove the immigrants will lose.

No, the immigrants will win. The Westerners will lose. And exactly since they lack the will power to win. It's not until the West has fallen apart that we can win. Exactly since the concept of the West is built on an impossible moral grammar (the Christian inversion of values).

So we have to break down before we can save ourselves. As long as "we = Westerners", we are going to lose, because under this narrative we will never be able to find the will power to win. Western values and institutions is a prison for people of European descent. We need to break free from this prison before we can save ourselves. We need to break that cage in pieces.

But the impossible West is already doing that to itself. The West is in free fall, accelerating to the ground. Our prison will break into small pieces. and we'll have to start over again, with a new narrative; one that will put our own interests in center, instead of the namby pamby about doing the "higher good" (according to Christian inversion of values). So by shedding the skin and sucking the poison out of the snake in this way, we will find the way through and the will power to win.

ChrisLA said...

What was the nature of the film that Lars Vilks was showing? Was it pornographic? Is it available on YouTube?

Baron Bodissey said...

ChrisLA --

A copy of the "allah ho gay bar" video is here (warning: there is some nudity in this clip).

It's not really pornographic, not by today's standards. Just kind of disgusting and unpleasant, at least to an old prude like me.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Paying taxes is irrelevant. And the funny thing is that they TAKE in more in taxes than they PUT in as a group. So even this isn't a legitimate argument.

Oh, did I mention that universities are a disgrace? If I was a dean, I'd reschedule this venue each month. I'd also suggest to Lars to draw a little girl near the Modoggie.

And without some ethnic cleansing, the part about the result of multiculturalism will be here forever. But again, only an idiot can think that people from multiple cultures and ethnicity can mix in harmony.

kritisk, hockey players, football hooligans and bikers aren't representative populations of Sweden. It's like picking just the academic women with balls to consider as the representative Swedish male. The average Swedish man doesn't seem to me to be that manly considering that they're one of the biggest feminist utopia lands on Earth, they don't do any mate guarding and all the other real indicators of manliness. You also miss something else - this won't be just random fighting that men do on Friday or Saturday nights. This will be killing the other one. ConservativeSwede explained really well what I'm talking about indicators of manliness.

And what they show on Top Gear is just entertainment. When they've been to my country, I don't get how they ended up in a Gypsy village while looking for a highway. To get to that highway from my city which is the place from where they left, you just drive straight ahead on a highway and then take a turn at a place where it's a big sign indicating which one. And I doubt that Clarkson is an incompetent driver.

Baron, who the police will join is irrelevant. What's relevant is what most ethnic Swede males will do - the non-thug ones.

Baron Bodissey said...

Rebellious --

It's not irrelevant which side the police will join. This is true especially in Sweden, which has a strong tradition of social consensus.

The side taken by the Swedish police will be the same side taken by the average law-abiding Swedish male, as long as the current political and social order holds together. After that, of course, all bets are off.

Swedes: please correct me if I'm wrong.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Baron, Sweden has a tradition of consensus because only Swedes lived in it and it has a relatively small population.

And obviously, until the current political order will collapse, nothing will change. But the system collapsing will be the result of Swedes not doing the consensus thing anymore.

Baron Bodissey said...

RV --

Yes, I agree. And that means that until the collapse, what the police do will be very similar to what the average Swedish male would do. If they back the immigrants, then that's what he'll do. And vice versa.

After things start to come apart it will become much less predictable.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

What is that thing crawling about in the multi colored top?

Zenster said...

4Symbols: What is that thing crawling about in the multi colored top?

My guess would be that it represents the inhabitant of that rather oversized blank spot in the EU's economic sea chart that has traditionally been labeled:

"Here be monsters."

Zenster said...

Oops, my mistake. I thought you were referring to the skull clutching dragon that head the "Totalitarian Lemonade" thread.

The self-subjugating wannabe Muslima in the Vilks video is a professional victim who has identified Islam as the fulfillment of all her fondest dreams.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

@Zenster,

"Vilks self-subjugating wannabe Muslima." lol :)

Arthur said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arthur said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Conservative Swede said...

RV wrote:
Baron, Sweden has a tradition of consensus because only Swedes lived in it and it has a relatively small population.

And with a unique ethnic homogeneity.

Louise said...

Kristisk Borger: "I’d say the Alabamians in this clip display pretty much the same attitudes as the Muslims in Sweden."
=================
That's a pretty blatant piece of propaganda, there, Kristisk. Like any propaganda film, and unlike the film taken in the lecture hall in Sweden, it's obviously the end product of a sequence of deliberately staged events and a lot editing.

In the first two minutes of the film the viewer is assaulted with words and images meant to create an extremely negative image of Alabamans. It starts with the stars reading instructions which includes the provision that they should attempt to get someone shot. Words like Bible bashing, Christian, redneck, Republican, George Bush, God, etc. are used several times to evoke a stereotypical notion of what they "expect" to find on their journey, setting the viewer up to accept the message they intend to convey. All the vehicles shown in the video are old beat-up rattle-traps. At one point, one of the main characters admits that they are staging things.

It's a prime example of the full blown bigotry of liberal elites, looking down their noses with contemptuous sneering at the common folk, precisely the kind of people that the Baron is talking about who, in Sweden, are leading the country down the tube and have long since closed their minds to any criticism.

Just who is it in that film that you find comparable to the Muslims in that lecture theatre in Sweden? I believe it's the film makers, the one's with British accents, not the Alabamans.

syntec said...

The mistaken notion on the part of non-Whites that White homelands are irrefutably theirs' too has got to be forcibly corrected and then hammered home in a big way.

Where Whites are to be found residing in non-White homelands, eg, South Africa and Zimbabwe, the natives do not, for one moment, concede that any part of the African continent is the homeland of Whites. Likewise, neither do Middle Easterners or Orientals in relation to their respective territories. By the very fact that non-Whites are not indigenous to White homelands means that these lands are not theirs' and never will be whilst the indigenous peoples still exist in them.

Us members of indigenous White nations will collectively have to put a full stop to this false recognition of non-White alien entitlements to automatic claims upon our respective ancestral White homelands. They don't and never will have such a right regardless of whether they've been born on White territories or not. Such a right is the preserve of the native peoples only whose ancestors worked the land and built upon their territories over many hundreds and/or thousands of years prior.

Let's recognise the non-Whites for what they are

INVADERS and COLONISERS

We all know what they, the non-Whites did about former White colonisers trampling all over their territories.

I believe any native White person who allows himself/herself to be brainwashed into believing that non-Whites hold any claims whatsoever on White ancestral homeland(s), is a traitor and renegade.

In non-White countries such traitors would highly likely and not surprisingly, eventually finish up with their throats cut.

rebelliousvanilla said...

syntec, sadly, you are wrong. There is no such thing as rights of indigenous people, rights to your homeland and all that. Just because non-Europeans aren't indigenous in Europe is irrelevant. And nobody has a right to preserve anything. All these are discussed with tanks and guns. In the same way, I have no problem with supporting the Boers in South Africa after we get our house in order, while not caring about non-Europeans in Europe getting separate land.

syntec said...

rebelliousvanilla

I'm afraid it's your who are wrong!

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples makes it clear that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and preserve their homeland(s) and not be subjected to invasion and colonision.

Furthermore, what is politically engineered and orchestrated mass Third World invasion of European homelands, has only begun since WW11 and in the Scandinavian countries as recent as 10 to 15 years ago.

I believe, the reason you say what you say is because of your allegiance to the cause of the South African Boers and do not want to admit that racially, they don't belong in South Africa.

South Africa has its own indigenous peoples (not Sub-Saharan Africans either) and it's they who have the sole right to it.

Another contrasting example of territorial misappropriation is the Roma in Europe. They do not belong here and never will.

I agree with you when you say that tanks and guns may be required to drive the above point home since invaders do not usually go quietly into the night and return from whence they came, but all peaceful avenues must be explored before that point is reached.

syntec said...

cont/d.....

rebelliousvanilla

I would like to pick up on the following comment you made in your last post.

"..... while not caring about non-Europeans in Europe getting separate land."

Unfortunately, your premise appears to be that providing the Boers succeed in winning back South Africa, you personally couldn't care less about what ultimately would mean the dividing up of our ancestral European homelands to accommodate not merely one outgroup but myriad non-White non-European invader hordes.

History is littered with evidence of what happens when indigenous peoples succumb to alien invasion instead of resisting it to the bitter end. The invader doesn't stop at securing just a section of the territory, but rather is encouraged by the compromise or should that read capitulation of the native owners to take the whole by force when his alien demographics permit.

Granting just one invader group a separate patch of territory would further give rise to the rest of the alien myriad hordes demanding their slices too. Obviously, you have not thought this out properly.

rebelliousvanilla said...

syntec, you are prone to liberalo-leftist thinking, even though it's obvious that you're not one. Rights are abstract concepts designed to put order in a society based on the reality of things. The reality of things is that who has a land is those who conquer it, not some indigenous population myth. In the same time, you really believe what the UN puts out as rights? Healthcare, education and whatever else? lol. Also, the UN is pretty committed to diversity, for example. I will tell you something though, arguing based on the UN Declaration might gain you some fans of those who actually believe the things that the UN spouts.

Oh, and you got me wrong. I don't care about the quest of non-Europeans getting European land. I meant to say that I am against them doing it, not that I don't care if they will get half of Europe. So I'm for the Boers getting separate land while for shipping non-Europeans home from here.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

RV, in this instance one has to fight fire with fire. The multiculti left likes to talk about the indigenous rights of, for example, australian aborigines but they refuse to countenance the same rights for indigenous rights off western european populations. Demanding the same treatment for western europeans is simply holding up a mirror to their hypocrisy, and it must be hammered home repeatedly<> Get them to support indigenous rights of some populations and then hold them to the same standard for european populations. If nothing else it will diminish their standing amongst the major part of the population.

Every act must be aimed at reducing the prestige of these people.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Graham, I said that I have no problem with employing these arguments with the left, but among us, it's pointless to employ them. Obviously, feeding the left with some Alinsky is never a bad idea.

syntec said...

rebelliousvanilla said...

"Rights are abstract concepts designed to put order in a society based on the reality of things. The reality of things is that who has a land is those who conquer it, not some indigenous population myth."

Man-made laws governing human rights may fall into that category you describe as 'abstract concepts', but not naturally occurring rights of ancestral lineage and the cultural/spiritual evolution of a people who have sprung from the first settlers who inhabited the territory. The latter comes under Natural Law and is certainly not an abstract concept, but fact.

"In the same time, you really believe what the UN puts out as rights? Healthcare, education and whatever else? lol. Also, the UN is pretty committed to diversity, for example. I will tell you something though, arguing based on the UN Declaration might gain you some fans of those who actually believe the things that the UN spouts."

Yes, I'm fully aware of the corrupt, biased and sham nature of the UN organisation which is not difficult to fathon since it is dominated by anti-European and anti-West non-White nations, predominately Muslim ones, aided and abetted by traitorous White Marxists and Zionists.

What I was pointing out by my drawing attention to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is that it cannot deny its own statement when also applied to indigenous White nations. Indigenous White nations have the right to employ the edicts of its statement fully in their defence.

In my view, White nations should be striving to withdraw from it and forming an alternative one for the self-interests and protection of White nations only.

rebelliousvanilla said...

syntec, I agree about the UN then. And also, natural law is a man made concept. It actually stems from religion and this is another reason why being an atheist sucks - the case for natural law is weaker. All laws are man-made human rights, but I agree, regaining your homeland has on it's face a way higher moral legitimacy than taking your neighbour's land. The whole legal system and laws come from man.

syntec said...

rebelliousvanilla

Natural Law is not a man-made concept since its basis lies in morality and reason, but the man-made element lies in what is currently referred to as positive law formulated and enacted by Man down through the ages as a result of contemporary interpretations to fit, for instance, a particular political and/or religous agenda.

However, the underlying principles of Natural Law such as indigenous territorial rights for all peoples are inalienable. The problem today is that due to selective applications of Natural Law as a result of a particular component of a certain political agenda, ie, Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism), it is the Natural Law rights of indigenous White peoples only which are being intentionally inverted, perverted and subsequently denied.

http://www.constitution.org/haines/haines_011.htm

syntec said...

rebelliousvanilla

"....... but I agree, regaining your homeland has on it's face a way higher moral legitimacy than taking your neighbour's land."

Which proposes, according to your opinion, that invading and stealing the living spaces of others has moral legitimacy to begin with.

Well!!!