Swedes think of themselves as morally superior to us Americans, because they are less racist. Yet, according to their mystery writers, Sweden is crawling with neo-Nazis. Awhile back I read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which I talked about here. Now I’ve just finished reading Faceless Killers, by Henning Mankell.
Spoiler alert!
Both of these books have neo-Nazis in them. For the former book, that is what it is all about, while Mankell’s book brings them in only tangentially. Are there neo-Nazis in Sweden? If not, then why are their mystery writers mentioning them? And if there are, then what justification do Swedes have for thinking of themselves as morally superior to us Americans? None, it would seem.
At first, I thought there were no neo-Nazis in Sweden, but I did read a column a few months ago by Christopher Hitchens, who said that there were.
This also leads to a paradox in Sweden about prison sentences, for like Norway, they don’t like them. But if there are neo-Nazis around, why wouldn’t they?
Anyway, what drew me to Mankell’s book was the back cover, which suggested that the perpetrators of the book’s murder were immigrants. At last, I thought, a Swede who is willing to openly face what is happening in Sweden with respect to immigration. To some extent, that is true. The murderers are immigrants, though they turn out to be eastern Europeans rather than Muslims. But the book does contain a number of interesting statements about the condition of Sweden when it was written (in 1991). Immigrants, as the book relates, are pouring into Sweden, and this upsets people, and not just the neo-Nazis. The detective has the following conversation with a woman who is a prosecutor:
He: “People who belonged to the fascist secret police in Romania are starting to show up here in Sweden. Seeking asylum. Should it be granted to them?”
She: “The principle has to apply equally.” [p. 214]
One has to wonder what principle is being invoked here. Letting in everyone? Latin American countries like Argentina and Brazil did that after WWII and were chastised for it later by progressives, because they had let in Nazis. Now the left has adopted the same principle, apparently.
Not everyone is happy about this situation:
On p. 232:
But Wallander [Mankell’s detective] realized that he was not alone in his feelings of uncertainty and confusion at the new society that was emerging [as a result of unchecked immigration].
And on p. 252:
[Wallander] sympathized with some of the arguments against immigration that arose in conversation and in the press.... Did the government and the Immigration Service have any real control over which individuals sought asylum? Over who was a refugee and who was an opportunist? Was it possible to differentiate at all? How long could the current refugee policy operate without leading to chaos? Was there an upper limit?
Unfortunately, the West now seems to be run by people who have no uncertainty or confusion at all about unchecked immigration; they welcome it and call anyone who doesn’t agree a racist. They think there is no upper limit. But there are plenty of reasons for uncertainty and confusion, reasons which ought to appeal to progressives, if they were to listen for just two seconds and restrain their impulse to call anyone who disagrees with them a racist.
And speaking of racism, I noticed that a reviewer of the book on Amazon.com called Wallander a racist. This is a little odd. Consider these two episodes:
P. 137: Wallander goes into a restaurant where he is recognized by the bouncer, who remembers seeing him on tv and believes that they share similar views:
“I’m with you,” said the doorman. “All the way.”
“With me about what?”
“Keeping those damned niggers on a short leash. What kind of shit are we letting into this country, going around killing old people? I’m with you, we should kick ‘em all out. Chase ‘em out with a stick.”
Wallander could see that there was no point to getting into a discussion with the man.
Or this, p. 218:
Wallander’s supervisor: “I’m impressed how quickly you solved the murder of the Negro.”
Wallander disliked [his] referring to the Somali as the Negro.
If Wallander is a racist, he’s not a complete racist, but today’s progressives seem similar to the racists of old with their one-drop rule that meant that anyone with the slightest bit of black ancestry was beyond the pale. Today’s progressives have similar views on anyone who doesn’t measure up to their standards. If a person is 95% compliant with progressive norms, that’s not good enough, and the person will be considered to be as racist as if he were a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
It’s true that this book doesn’t get into issues of Islamic immigrants, issues about the treatment of gays, women, and anyone who is not Muslim. But it does at least suggest that there is good reason for uncertainty and that plenty of people in Sweden were unhappy with the situation.
Comments