I Love Sweden

About seven days, two hours, and forty minutes ago, I wrote a post about Norway.  Entitled "What is Wrong With Norway?," I quoted a description of Norway's economic model, called the Nordic Model, from Wikipedia:

This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by more generous welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilizing the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.

When I wrote that post, I said this:

I must say that I am disappointed in some of the information I am learning, as I have always been quite fond of Scandinavia...

Since then, I have learned a bit more about Scandinavia (and other Nordic nations).  And this time, I am not disappointed in the least.  Watch the following video.  Not only does it explain my new-found love for Sweden, but it also explains the benefit of a free-market economy. 

(h/t to GayPatriot reader ILoveCapitalism)

That video contains the URL of a CATO Institute policy analysis.  How can you not love a country whose economic model is praised (loosely speaking) by the CATO Institute?

Notwithstanding problems associated with a large welfare state, there is much to applaud in Nordic nations. They have open markets, low levels of regulation, strong property rights, stable currencies, and many other policies associated with growth and prosperity. Indeed, Nordic nations generally rank among the world's most market-oriented nations. 

Nordic nations also have implemented some pro-market reforms. Every Nordic nation has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States, for example, and most of them have low-rate flat tax systems for capital income. Iceland even has a flat tax for labor income. And both Iceland and Sweden have partially privatized their social security retirement systems. 

The Nordic nations offer valuable lessons for policymakers, but they do not fit the traditional stereotype. Conservative critics correctly condemn the large welfare states, but often overlook the positive results generated by laissez-faire policies in other areas. Liberals, meanwhile, exaggerate the economic performance of Nordic nations in an effort to justify welfare-state policies, while failing to acknowledge the role of free market policies in other areas.

Here is a link to the CATO Institute's policy analysis.  What follows are some excerpts from that analysis:

Before drawing conclusions about the desirability of the Nordic model, however, it is important to answer three relevant questions: 

1. Why are Nordic nations relatively rich?
2. Has the welfare state has helped or hindered these countries’ economic performance?
3. Does the Nordic Model create more prosperity than the (relatively speaking) limited-government model in the United States?

The answer to all of those questions is that Nordic nations are reasonably successful in spite of the welfare state. Nordic countries benefit from institutions—such as property rights, stable currencies, and the rule of law—that facilitate economic growth. And although they have large welfare states and concomitantly high levels of taxation, their economic systems in other respects are very market-oriented. Combined with the fact that before the mid-1960s the burden of government in Nordic nations was modest, these factors help explain why those countries today are relatively prosperous.

 ...

The two main ways of comparing economic performance are rate of growth and level of output. One measures how fast gross domestic product (or some similar measure of economic output) is expanding. The other compares the absolute level of economic output (or some similar measure of prosperity). By both measures, the Nordic nations generally do not fare well when compared to the United States. ... According to the OECD, the U.S. grew by an average of 3 percent between 1981 and 1991and 3.3 percent between 1992 and 2006 (mean-ing average growth of 3.2 percent for 1981 to2006). The Nordic nations, by contrast, grew by an average of 2.2 percent between 1981 and 1991 and 2.7 percent from 1992 to 2006 (meaning average growth of 2.5 percent over the entire period). The IMF, meanwhile,reports that U.S. growth averaged 3.1 percentfrom 1981–2006 compared to an average of 2.6percent for Nordic nations in the same period.

... 

...the tax burden in Nordic nations and America was remarkably similar until 1960. Not coincidentally, it was during this pre-1960 era that Nordic nations grew rapidly and became rich.  

Beginning in the mid-1960s, and accelerating through the 1970s and into the 1980s, however, the Nordic nations created large welfare states. Indeed, this is the key difference between America and the Nordic nations. The United States has a medium-sized welfare state and the Nordic nations have large welfare states. Otherwise, America and the Nordic nations have many features in common. Both the Nordic nations and America have sound institutions, including stable currencies, rule of law, and property rights. Both the Nordic nations and America have relatively open markets. Indeed, if the “size of government” factor is removed from the Economic Freedom of the World indicators, Nordic nations score an average of 8.35, ranking above the 8.25 score for the United States.

...

The Nordic nations also have excellent reputations for honest government. According to Transparency International, the five Nordic nations rank among the eight least corrupt nations in the world, with Finland and Iceland tied for first place. The United States also does well, with a ranking of 20 out of 163 nations, but the higher scores for the squeaky-clean Nordic nations presumably help offset the larger burden of government.

The Nordic nations also deserve attention for important reforms. Iceland, for instance, has a flat tax (albeit with a 36 percent rate), personal retirement accounts, and quasi-privatized fisheries. Sweden, meanwhile, has an extensive school choice system and personal retirement accounts.

... 

Before the 1960s, Nordic nations had modest levels of taxation and spending. They also enjoyed—and still enjoy—laissez-faire policies and open markets in other areas. These are the policies that enabled Nordic nations to prosper for much of the 20th century. Once their countries became rich, politicians in Nordic nations focused on how to redistribute the wealth that was generated by private-sector activity. This sequence is important. Nordic nations became rich, and then government expanded. This expansion of government has slowed growth, but slow growth for a rich nation is much less of a burden than slow growth in a poor nation.

What I take from this is that the Nordic nations can learn from the United States.  Based on that video, it seems Sweden is slowly returning to its pre-1960 model.  Because I have ancestors from Sweden, I feel a closeness to it.  This is very welcome information indeed.  

It is important to note that that CATO Institute analysis is from 2007, before the worldwide economic crisis.  The Nordic nation of Iceland has since undergone a major financial crisis, and so any reference to Iceland may not be reliable.  I think an analysis of Iceland's current economic situation is required to ascertain exactly how Iceland fits into all of this.  To my knowledge, the other Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland) were relatively unaffected by that worldwide crisis.

An Ideology of Hatred?

Here is an excerpt from an editorial piece by Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League:

The attacks in Norway seem to stem from a different source. They are the first to emerge from a relatively new, specifically anti-Islamic ideology that moves beyond religious or racial prejudices to incorporate anti-Islamic sentiment as the focal point of a larger worldview.

Growing numbers of people in Europe and the United States subscribe to this belief system; in some instances it borders on hysteria. Adherents of this ideological Islamophobia view Islam as an existential threat to the world, especially to the “West.”

Moreover, they believe that leaders and governments in the Western world are consciously or unconsciously collaborating to allow Islam to “infiltrate” and eventually conquer democratic societies.

Left-wing “multiculturalist” sentiments tear down traditional European culture, they argue, allowing Muslim immigrants to replace it with “their own” culture and values. The result, they claim, will be the demographic, cultural and, eventually, political suicide of the West — unless action is taken to stop it.

These ideas are no longer geographically isolated. The Oslo perpetrator in his manifesto quoted extensively from the writings of European and American bloggers — including Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller — who promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam. Because of the reach of the Internet, these ideas float freely across borders and are reinforced by like-minded bigots.

This belief system goes far beyond anti-Islamic prejudice based on simple religious or racial grounds. In a sense, it parallels the creation of an ideological — and far more deadly — form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the backs of the previously dominant cultural and religious forms of anti-Semitism.

The presence of this new ideological form of anti-Islamism is clear in the Norway attacks. The perpetrator, though motivated by anti-Islamic sentiments, did not attack or kill Muslims. Rather, he reserved his extreme actions for those “traitors” whom he believed to be collaborating with and allowing Muslims to take over Norway (and Europe). He chose targets related to the Labour Party, the alleged “multi-cultural Marxists” who dominated his thoughts.

Breivik’s acts are so far the only major incidents like this. Perhaps they will remain unique. His thinking, however, is certainly not. Thanks to his carefully sourced manifesto, we can identify many of his intellectual influences, and they are prominent on both sides of the Atlantic. And many people hold views similar to Breivik’s. In the United States, we have seen frequent manifestations of this ideology, including the eager promotion by anti-Islamic zealots of a growing conspiracy theory about “creeping Sharia law.”

One bizarre twist to Breivik’s warped worldview was his pro-Zionism — his strongly expressed support for the state of Israel. It is a reminder that we must always be wary of those whose love for the Jewish people is born out of hatred of Muslims or Arabs.

The obvious danger to Americans and Europeans is that as this movement grows and solidifies, more people may become motivated to violence by this hateful ideology.

In America, the polarization, vitriol and fear engendered by anti-Islamic activists must be replaced by reasoned and civil debate. We must rally the voices of reason to overcome the voices of intolerance before it is too late.

What is clear to me is that either Mr. Foxman or I misunderstand this ideology.   However, given the following, I am pretty sure it is he who misunderstands it:

• Muslims attack gays in San Francisco, Washington, and even Amsterdam.  However, that is nothing compared to how gays are treated in Muslim nations. 
• Honor killings are widespread among Muslims.
• Pedophilia is sanctioned by the Quran. 
• Since 9/11, Muslims have committed over 10,000 terrorist attacks, resulting in over 60,000 deaths and over 90,000 injuries.

Those are just a few examples of why I believe Islam is a threat.  If immigration by Muslims to some locations is not curbed, we may see more examples of Malmö, Sweden, where:

• The presence of an Israeli sports team caused a riot.
• Emergency workers do not enter heavily-Muslim areas.
• Heavily-Muslim areas are plagued by rampant unemployment. 
• Crime is widespread; one in three families is affected by "immigrant-fueled crime."
• Over a 20-year period, the number of rapes has tripled. 
• Jews risk their safety by not hiding their religion. 

Malmö appears to have problems because of its quarter-Muslim population.  Assuming the above is correct, multiculturalism and immigration have turned the well-functioning Swedish society into one with many problems.  If certain locations continue their policy of multiculturalism, then they too may see the same problems (if they haven't already).  

It is important to make a distinction between Muslim extremists and everyday Muslims.  The former is likely a tiny fraction of the entire Muslim population.  And, although some people may believe otherwise, I would not judge someone negatively based solely upon their religion, even if it were Islam (however, I may not hold the same attitude toward the Westboro Baptist Church and a few others).  It is, of course, the Muslim extremists that are responsible for all of the terrorism.  However, the same cannot be said for the other things that I mentioned above.  I do realize that there also exists a more liberal version of Islam.  However, that does not erase the evident correlation between Muslims and the above.  Having said that, I would not automatically attatch any of those things to any Muslim without evidence that suggests they may have perpetrated them.  To do so would be, among other things, logically fallacious.  

So, it appears that you simply need to consider Malmö when Mr. Foxman says this...

Left-wing “multiculturalist” sentiments tear down traditional European culture, they argue, allowing Muslim immigrants to replace it with “their own” culture and values. The result, they claim, will be the demographic, cultural and, eventually, political suicide of the West — unless action is taken to stop it.

And, when he says this,

This belief system goes far beyond anti-Islamic prejudice based on simple religious or racial grounds. In a sense, it parallels the creation of an ideological — and far more deadly — form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the backs of the previously dominant cultural and religious forms of anti-Semitism.

...you must simply remember how unlike modern Muslims the Jews of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were.  That is, they cannot be effectively compared.

And, to this...

The obvious danger to Americans and Europeans is that as this movement grows and solidifies, more people may become motivated to violence by this hateful ideology.

In America, the polarization, vitriol and fear engendered by anti-Islamic activists must be replaced by reasoned and civil debate. We must rally the voices of reason to overcome the voices of intolerance before it is too late.

...I say, although I cannot speak for anyone else, my ideology is not hateful.  I wish to propagate reasoned and civil debate.  Based on all the evidence I have seen, I have reason to deem Islam a threat.  If I am presented with evidence that contradicts the evidence I have seen, then I would be more than willing to reconsider my position.

I am not hateful; my position is quite empirical.  And, I will again condemn Breivik's detestable, evil actions.  I hope I have effectively communicated how my ideology is not hateful.  This appears to be yet another example of the acknowledgement of reality being confused for hatred.  Only through civil and reasoned discussion can things be effectively understood, and violence accomplishes absolutely nothing (aside from when it is necessary for protection).

What is Wrong With Norway?

I will admit that prior to the terrorist attack in Norway last Friday, I did not know very much about Norway.  When I think of Scandinavians, I think of people who are unemotional, logical, and efficient.  I realize that that is just a stereotype, and stereotypes cannot be accurately applied to everyone belonging to a certain group (in fact, I should know that better than most people).  However, stereotypes usually have some degree of accuracy, as they must come from somewhere (having said that, I have never met a Canadian who has the stereotypical Canadian accent, pronounces "about" like "aboot," or frequently says "eh"; perhaps that is an Eastern Canadian thing).  And, the more I learn about Norway, the more I realize how inaccurate that stereotype is.  In fact, Norwegians, in general, seem to harbour an irrational hatred toward both Israel and the United States, as well as an irrational compassion toward Muslims and terrorist groups such as Hamas.  I must say that I am disappointed in some of the information I am learning, as I have always been quite fond of Scandinavia, the homeland of some of my ancestors (and, a side note: I am also dismayed at the notoriously liberal Netherlands, also the homeland of some of my ancestors).

Here is some background on Norway:

Norway uses a "Nordic Model," which Wikipedia describes as:

This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by more generous welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilizing the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.

I will say that this seems to work well for them.  Of course, that doesn't mean that it would work well in other societies.

Norway is an extremely wealthy, oil rich nation.  It has one of the world's highest standards of living, and has had the world's highest Human Development Index (HDI) ranking for 8 of the past 10 years.  According to the American think-tank Fund for Peace's Failed States Index, Norway is the world's most well functioning and stable nation.

Aside from the efficacy of Norway's economic policies and the weath Norway's oil provides to its small population, Norwegian society appears to be highly flawed (at least from my biased perspective).  Please read this excellent post by Bruce Bawer at Pajamas Media (h/t Diogenes Borealis).  Here are some excerpts from that post:

This lack of security was certainly not unusual for Norway, where the police don’t carry guns, and where the very idea of police carrying guns is widely looked upon as some holdover from an earlier stage of human evolution. But — hello — in front of the main office buildings of a Western European government? After 9/11? It seemed sheer madness.
...
When I first heard the news of the explosions at those buildings, my first thought, of course, was that it was a jihadist attack. But it wasn’t: it was a right-wing lunatic. It wasn’t jihad. It was a meaningless killing spree by a madman, like the ones at Columbine and Virginia Tech. A headline in one Norwegian newspaper today noted that the death toll in Oslo and at Utøya yesterday was higher than at Columbine and Virginia Tech combined. The Norwegian media have always reported on mass murders by lone gunmen in the U.S. as if they were things that could never happen in Norway: rather, they were symptoms of a sick society that Norwegians could never possibly understand. In Norway, they use the term “amerikanske tilstander” — American conditions. It never means anything good. Yesterday’s nightmare, from a Norwegian perspective, was the most American of American conditions.
Those of us who thought, in the first hours after the blasts in downtown Oslo, that we were witnessing yet another act of jihad can be forgiven. In a way, it made sense. 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai — why not Oslo? Then again…Norway, although a member of NATO with troops in Afghanistan and Libya, was not exactly in the forefront of the struggle to defeat jihad. On the contrary.  Norway calls itself “the peace country.” For years, the Norwegian government and cultural establishment have striven to communicate to even the most extreme elements of international Islam that they want to be friends.  They've shown their good faith in a number of ways: 

...

• They’ve dropped displays of Islamic totalitarianism down the memory hole.  Two years ago, on two separate nights, a small army of Norwegian Muslim youths rioted in the heart of Oslo, turning a usually placid quarter into something reminiscent of Sarajevo or Beirut at their worst.  The alleged motive for this explosion of violence was displeasure over the situation in Gaza; the real intention was to mount a display of power — to intimidate, and to communicate to Norway that their time had come, and that they had better be listened to with respect, or else.  And in February of last year, another small army of Muslims, this time not rioting boys but sullen-looking men in long coats and full beards, gathered in downtown Oslo, in the same square where Vidkun Quisling once held his Nazi rallies, and listened with apparent pleasure while a young speaker named Mohyeldeen Mohammed threatened Norway with its own 9/11.  Both of these events came and went, and the people who make decisions about this sort of thing plainly decided that it would be best to pretend that they had never happened.

• They’ve openly supported terrorist groups.  In the last few days, one of the major stories out of Norway has been the declaration by Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of his country’s support for the effort by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to seek United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state.  This stance scarcely came as a surprise, given the Norwegian government’s longstanding effort to “build bridges” to Hamas.  It was Støre, after all, who — when a couple of dozen Western diplomats walked out on a rabid anti-Israeli speech by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the 2009 UN conference on racism — was the only Westerner who chose to stay and hear him out.

...

During those hours when we all thought this was a jihadist attack, one thought that crossed my mind was that this would change the political map of Norway. For years, the Progress Party, which is the second largest of Norway’s seven or eight major parties, has led the way in calling for more responsible policies on the immigration and integration of people from Muslim countries — and has been demonized as a bunch of right-wing extremist xenophobes who hate Muslims. I assumed that after this attack, Norwegians would vote in a Progress Party-led government in the next elections. Now it appears that the man who committed all these murders is a former member of the Progress Party and is, indeed, a right-wing extremist xenophobe who harbors (according to Dagbladet) a “violent hatred for Muslims” and multiculturalism, and who targeted the Labor Party youth camp because he blames the ruling Labor Party for the Islamization of Norway. Norway’s political future looks very different now, in short, than it did 24 hours ago.

I will say that I thought many of those same things.  He said it better than I ever could.  More:

...it is deeply depressing to see this evil, twisted creature become the face of Islam criticism in Norway. Norwegian television journalists who in the first hours of the crisis were palpably uncomfortable about the prospect of having to talk about Islamic terrorism are now eagerly discussing the dangers of “Islamophobia” and “conservative ideology” and are drawing connections between the madness and fanaticism of Breivik and the platform of the Progress Party. Yesterday’s events, then, represent a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.

It is evident that Norway is anti-Israel and pro-Palestine.  I am not capable of comprehending this, given Norway's claim of being "the peace country."

These points are important to consider, and I hope, for their own sake, Norwegians get some common sense.   Conservatives are not responsible for this man's horrible act of terrorism, and any rational person should be able to see that acts of violence on the part of those opposed to jihad are not only hypocritical, but also counter-productive (not to mention horrible).  It saddens me that "Islamophobes" are labelled as "extreme far-right."  "Islamophobia" is not racism.  Any rational person should be able to distinguish between the two.  The reason I put that in quotation marks is that it is a label with an (unjustifiably) negative connotation.

I will reiterate something I said in a previous post: I do not hate Muslims in general.  I hate jihadists, Muslim extremists, and Sharia law.  I hate Islam's treatment of women and homosexuals.  I hate some Muslims' and Islamic nations' views of Jews and Israel.  I hate the hatred these Muslims spout and act upon.  I hate the hatred Islam engenders.  I am making a distinction between Muslims and Islam here.  Islam is a hateful and oppressive religion.  Not all Muslims are hateful or oppressive.  The vast majority of Muslims are not violent.  For the record, I also hate extreme Christianity.  I hate extremism.  I hate violence.  And I hate unjustified hatred.  I believe my hatred is justified.  I realize that I failed to effectively communicate my views in that previous post, and I apologize for that.  Hopefully I managed to clarify my views in this post.

Furthermore, I hate the bleeding-hearts who hatefully accuse conservatives of unjustified hatred.  Yes, some conservatives do posses unjustified hatred.  But, the majority of conservatives are much less hateful than most bleeding-hearts realize.  Any rational person should be able to distinguish between uncompassionate, frank discourse and hatred.  Over 60,000 people have died as a result of Islamic terrorism.  Islam is a threat.  Although most Mulsims are not a threat, it is difficult to distinguish between the ones that are and the ones that aren't.  Western nations are slowly transforming into Islamic nations.

UPDATE: See also, this.  Norway is repulsively soft on criminals.  

Attack in Norway, Islam in Europe, and Multiculturalism

(Note: The death toll  of the terrorist attack in Norway has been reduced to 76.) 

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian bomber, has been described as a Right-wing Islamophobic Christian who wanted to start a revolution in Europe agains multiculturalism and Islam. 

I consider Islam a threat.  I believe the policy of multiculturalism is idiotic, since I do not believe Islam allows for multiculturalism.  I oppose courts adopting Sharia law.  I strongly support Israel, because it is a mordern nation, in contrast to the 7^th century nations that surround it, where women are oppressed and gays are persecuted.  As with many other left-wing positions, I am simply confused by the left’s opposition of Israel, seeing as how they venerate human rights and how those Islamic nations have such poor human rights.  

In Norway, the population of Muslims is increasing:

Norway has recently tightened its liberal immigration and asylum rules in the midst of a longstanding debate about assimilation and multiculturalism. Despite Norway’s oil wealth and low unemployment, there has been a growing concern over the increasing size of the Muslim population, especially after Sept. 11 and the Danish crisis over the publication in late 2005 of cartoons depicting Muhammad, which were published in Norway, too.

But the Muslim population is growing, and Islam is now the country’s second-largest religion. The impact of an increasing, and increasingly visible, Muslim population in a relatively monoethnic, liberal and egalitarian Norway has led to a surge in popularity for the anti-immigration Progress Party, now the second-largest party in Parliament. And it appears to have been one of the triggers to the massacre carried out here on Norway’s white elite. The suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, claims he was compelled to act by the failure of mainstream politicians — including those in the Progress Party — to stem the Islamic tide.

I applaud Norway for its tightening of immigration rules and I applaud Norwegians for supporting the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet).  I admire the leader of the Progress Party, Siv Jensen, based on what I know about her.

The city of Malmö, Sweden is the quintessential example of Islamization in Europe.  Apparently, Malmö is one quarter Muslim.

But despite Malmö's usually placid appearance, this experiment in multiculturalism has not gone well. In the Rosengaard section of Malmö, a housing project made up primarily of immigrants, fire and emergency workers will no longer enter without police protection.

Unemployment in Rosengaard is reported to be 70 percent. An immigrant-fueled crime wave affects one of every three Malmö families each year. The number of rapes has tripled in 20 years.

But Malmö has been so accommodating toward immigrant Muslims that a local Muslim politician, Adly Abu Hajar, has declared that "The best Islamic state is Sweden!"

Jews Cannot Walk The Streets

Don't ask Malmö's Jews to give the city the same glowing assessment. Jews who dare walk the streets wearing their yarmulkes risk being beaten up.

"It's true. Jews cannot walk the streets of Malmö and show that they're Jews," said Lars Hedegaard.

Hedegaard lives across the water from Malmö in Copenhagen, Denmark, where he was a columnist for one of Denmark's largest newspapers. He says pro-Israel demonstrations in Malmö, like the ones during the fighting in Gaza earlier this year, were met with rocks, bottles and pipe bombs from Arabs and Leftists.

"I was there for demonstration; a pro-Israeli demonstration with about 400 or 500 people," Hedegaard told CBN News. "Jews and non-Jews, and I came over to cover it. The police allowed, I'd say a hundred Palestinians or Arabs to shout and threaten and throw bombs and rockets at us. A homemade bomb landed about ten yards from me, and went off with a big bang. And now of course, I thought the police were going to jump these guys, get them out of the way. They didn't. They just let them stand there."

Swede Ted Ekeroth helped film the Arab-Left counter-demonstrations. He saw Arabs throwing rocks at a 90-year-old holocaust survivor.

"I filmed the police chief and asked him why are they not reacting to this," Ekeroth said. "Why are they not doing anything? And he simply answered, 'It's their right according to the Swedish constitution.' We apparently did not have the same right, because we were forced out of there. Our manifestation for Israel is always peaceful, and theirs is always the quite opposite -- Death, hate and killing of Jews. They come and they shout different slogans," he continued. "It can be everything from Arabic slogans inciting killing of Jews to in Swedish and Danish, 'Kill the Jews.'

Political Alliance Against Israel

And like all over the Western world, some on the Left, along with Arabs and Muslims and anarchists, have formed a political alliance against Israel and Jews. They demonstrate together, and in Sweden, they vote together. Muslims are a core constituency of the Left.

The immigrant issue a big reason the right-wing Swedish Democrats are the fastest growing political party in the country.

Matthias Karlsson is the Swedish Democrats' Press Secretary

"In many parts of Sweden, people are, as I said, fed up," Karlsson said. "And they're being pushed too far and they want to make a stand."

Fascist and Bigoted?

Swedish Democrats, who stand for traditional Christian values and limits on immigration, have been stigmatized by the Swedish media as fascist and bigoted.

Erik Almqvuist is national youth leader for the Swedish Democrats.

"The media has tried to portray us as extremists, racists," he said. "People think we're almost inhuman"

Almqvuist faces regular death threats, and was almost killed recently in a Left-wing knife attack.

"The multicultural model in Sweden has polarized society," Almqvuist explained. "We have a political polarization. We have also an ethnic polarization. And the extremes are growing and it's harder and harder to get to consensus."

Hedegaard says as Malmö goes, so goes the rest of Sweden.

"I think the best prediction is that Sweden will have a Muslim majority by 2049, so we know where that country's going," he said.

Given the heavy immigration to Europe by Muslims, anti-Islamic parties are gaining popularity in Europe.  Other right-wing anti-Islam parties in Europe include: Austria’s Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs), Belgium’s Vlaams Belang (based in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium), Denmark’s Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti), Finland’s True Finns (Perussuomalaiset), Netherland’s Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) (which is led by the admirable Geert Wilders), Sweden’s aforementioned Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), and Switzerland’s Swiss People’s Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei).  

In Switzerland, a constitutional amendment was approved in 2009 banning the construction of minarets (the spires at the tops of mosques).  Several locations in Europe have banned the wearing of the hajib (Islamic headscarves) in certain locations, such as schools.  Personally, I disagree with the Swiss amendment banning the construction of minarets, because it seems purely symbolic to me and I don’t see its practical value.  I’m not sure why the hijab is being banned in certain places.  I believe the threat of the spread of Islam should be dealt with more pragmatically. 

Back to Anders Behring Breivik, regardless of his ideology, he is a murderer.  I do not support violence (except for when it is necessary, such as during war).  I condemn his actions strongly.  Anti-Islamism and right-wing ideologies are not generally violent.  I do not support extremism of any kind.  I applaud the efforts of certain non-violent Europeans who mean to rid Europe of multiculturalist policies that harm its native cultures.  In addition to condemning his violence, I am disappointed that Breivik’s terrorist attack may have undermined those efforts. 

Right wing parties in Europe condemn Breivik’s actions:

Friday's massacre in Norway has placed a renewed focus on the far-right after the killer claimed to have links with extreme right-wing parties in Europe. The parties have quickly responded by condemning the attacks.

I disagree with labelling these parties and these movements as extreme far right or as far right.

I would also like to say that, while I strongly oppose multiculturalism, the spread of Islam, and Sharia law, I do not hate Muslims in general, nor do I believe all Muslims are extremists or terrorists.  The fact, is, however, the spread of Islam (in its current form) poses a threat to Western society.  We cannot let this abhorrent act of terrorism undermine the movement against the spread of Islam.  It is important to remain peaceful and not sink to the Islamists’ level.

UPDATE: Please see the second-to-last paragraph of this post for clarification of my views on Islam.

So Much Death

At least 43 people have died in a train crash in China.

Six people were killed at a shooting at a birthday party in Texas.

Thousands are thought to be dead as the result of the famine in Somalia.

And the death toll of the attacks in Norway has risen to 94.

So why is Amy Winehouse receiving so much attention?  Yes, she died, and that is unfortunate, but how is her death any more tragic than those of the thousands of other people who died?  What has Amy Winehouse contributed to society that is so significant that her death should receive so much attention?  I do not understand this.  I do not understand why celebrities are placed on these pedestals that elevate them above the rest of society.  I do not mean any disrespect to Amy Winehouse or her family.  I just don't understand the inequality.

Terror in Norway

One of the world's safest cities, Oslo, Norway, was bombed today, resulting in 7 deaths.

Residents were stunned by the blast and the possibility that their placid city, which hosts the annual ceremony awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, had become the target of a large terrorist attack.

A jihadist group is thought to be responsible for the bombing.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast, but Norway has been singled out as a target by Al Qaeda. 

Almost exactly a year ago, three foreign-born Norwegian residents suspected of being affiliated with Al Qaeda were arrested on suspicion of plotting an attack. 

Last week, Mullah Krekar, an Iraqi-born cleric who lives in Norway, was charged with terrorism after allegedly threatening politicians with death if Norwegian authorities deport him. Krekar is the founder of the militant Kurdish Islamist group Ansar Al Islam. 

In 2003, an audiotape by Ayman Zawahiri, who succeeded Osama bin Laden as leader of Al Qaeda after his death in May, urged militants to attack the U.S., Britain, Australia and Norway. 

Many Norwegians were puzzled at the inclusion of their country on the list; explanations centered on Norway's participation in the war in Afghanistan.

Norway, like many other European countries, has a problem with their growing Muslim population.  

"It's hard to be a Norwegian in Norway." The Norwegians, as the Swedes and other EU member states, have been embarking on a 'hara kiri' self inflicted cultural-ethnic suicide of their own country.

Via Michelle Malkin, Muslims in Norway have taken it upon themselves to enforce their beliefs on others in a culturally diverse neighborhood of Oslo:

One of Oslo’s most multi-cultural neighborhoods, Grønland, has suddenly emerged as an area far from the ideals of cultural and religious tolerance. Many immigrants claim it’s “more Muslim” than the countries they left, and newspaper Aftenposten reports that both they and others face harassment on the streets if they don’t conform to a code of conduct that some stricter Muslims try to impose.

The leftist policy of multiculturalism is backfiring spectacularly.  Not only is it not having the desired effect (i.e. a society where a mosaic of cultures can coexist peacefully), but the native culture is being enveloped by the oppressive, misogynistic, homophobic culture of Islam.  The fact is that Sharia-law compliant Islam is not compatible with any other culture, ideology, or belief system.  That fact is a dangerous one to ignore.  We, in the Western world, cannot be blinded by our desire to be open-minded and by our love of diversity, because doing so has proven to be deadly.

Hopefully some good can come out of this terror attack.  Hopefully, this serves as a wake-up call to those who do not realize the threat that Islam poses to the West.  However, something tells me that it won't.

UPDATE: Nine or ten people were shot and killed by a gunman at a summer camp on the island of Utøya outside Oslo.  The total death toll of both incidents seems to be rising.

Also, it hasn't been confirmed that a jihadist group is responsible for this attack.

UPDATE: It has become evident that the bomber was a 32-year old Norwegian (i.e. ethnically Norwegian) man:

After the shooting, the police seized a 32-year-old Norwegian man on the island, according to the police and Justice Minister Knut Storberget. The acting chief of police, Sveinung Sponheim, said the suspect, who is not known to have any ties to Islamic extremists, had also been seen in Oslo before the explosions. The police and other authorities declined to say what the suspect’s motivations might have been, but many speculated that the target was Mr. Stoltenberg’s liberal government.

I rescind all comments I made about the connection between jihadists and this attack.  However, I stand by everything else I said about Sharia-compliant Islam.  Perhaps this attack cannot serve as the wake-up call I was hoping it would serve as, but, at the very least, hopefully this incident will spread awareness of Sharia reaching into Western society.  It shouldn't take an unfortunate incident such as this terrorist attack to raise awareness about the danger Islam poses, but it appears that Islam has nothing to do with this attack.

Something I neglected to mention in my original post was that the bomb explosion occurred in a government building in central Oslo.  This government building is the location of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, who belongs to the Norwegian Labor Party.  Also, the sumper camp on the island of Utøya was affiliated with the Norwegian Labor Party.  And, I will point out the word "liberal" is usually reserved for a small-government (economically right and socially left) ideology in Europe.  The Labor Party is not liberal in the European sense, but rather socialist.  Stoltenberg's government consists of a coalition between the Labor Party, the further left Socialist Left Party, and the centrist Centre Party.

UPDATE: There have now been at least 87 confirmed deaths as a result of the attacks in Norway.  At least 80 people died as a result of the shooting spree on the island of Utøya and 7 people died as a result of the bomb in central Oslo.  The shooter is reported to have ties to right-wing extremists.