Somewhere I found a link to this
article. I've added the blog to my blog roll. Do have a look.
As long as I can remember, it has been an article of faith among the left in America that Sweden represented the ideal "balance" between government activism and individual rights and that it was a paradise for its citizens as a consequence.
In the early nineties the concept the "Third Way" became the rhetorical refuge of the American Left. This I assume was because they could themselves no longer believe that the subject peoples of the Soviet Union were happy to have lived under its boot heel. Ever pursuaded of the righteousness of Socialism they renewed their efforts to market Sweden (and ironically France) as model societies.
None of this has ever set quite well with me, but I had one advantage over the average person being told this nonsense: I had lived there. I was an exchange student living in Sweden for my Junior year of High School in the year of the Ayatollah and the Miracle on Ice (which I watched live despite the 6-hour time difference).
Sweden had its woes back then. From my perspective the destruction of the traditional family and the inescapable sense of futility among my contemporaries seemed to be the biggest. There was another problem in Sweden which troubled me, but at the time I had not imagined its consequences.
Swedes, like every other people, have a set of social mores which govern what can be said and what subjects can be discussed politely. "Culture shock" is in part the recognition and adjustment to these mores. Swedes are very polite people, and in most circumstances very reserved. This reserve is a longstanding part of their culture and it has been abused in the most ghastly of ways by its politicians.
There were and apparently are some things about Sweden that it is considered most impolite to criticise. One in particular that got me a lot of grief, is that the newspapers are all cheerleaders for various levels of Socialism. It troubled me that their newspapers each openly declared their political affiliations, although I have since come to believe we would be better served if American newspapers would be so candid.
A very broad set of taboos involve what I call "official compassion". Now let me say that this is entirely my term. I have no idea what the Swedish term for this would be in 2005. [Such a term might itself be taboo.] Any subject which is a matter of "official compassion" is beyond criticism. Such is the case with any matter of immigration in Sweden. It is a long-standing issue of "official compassion" that Sweden has a very open policy with regards to immigrants. All immigrants are effectively treated as refugees. Moreover, as Sweden is a nanny-state, every conceivable need or want of an immigrant is indulged by official policy. It would be considered exceptionally rude to ever mention a negative consequence of this policy.
What is the result? Well, if you read the article linked above you've already seen. Let me give you a little context. Nynäshamn is a small port town about 2 hours by train south of Stockholm... or at least it was in 1979. The train service has been halted because of frequent attacks on the trains by immigrant (muslim) gangs. A sensible person might ask, "why don't they lock these thugs up?" I wish I knew. Apparently the fact that these are immigrants or their children makes it politically impossible.
The other issue is that of rape. Rape in Sweden is soaring, but it is not advertised as a crisis, apparently because no one in any official capacity can bring themself to be so rude as to mention that the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators are (muslim) immigrants or their children. I have to ask, exactly what depredation upon its people will the Swedish government finally consider too much? If they could just put one-tenth of the passion in to this issue that they used to put in to the level of Barnbidrag [an allowance for children paid by the government] they'd be rounding these monsters up and disarming them.
Multiculturalism is doomed because there are some issues about which there can be no compromise. In traditional western values, rape is considered objectively evil because the victim has a right to herself. Under shari'a no such right exists for women, nor infidels. If you mix the two you get a lot of rape. In other words, shari'a cannot co-exist with a culture which forbids preying upon your fellow citizens. You can either have shari'a and lots of rape, or no shari'a and harsh punishment for rape.
I grieve for the Sweden I lived in. It is gone. The real "Third Way" turns out to be surrender to muslim thugs. I pray that the Swedes find their submerged warrior selves and take these miscreants on before there are no more Swedes. Alas it would be seen as impolite.
