Libya Nostalgic for the 7th Century

The 7th century was the century during which the religion of Islam was founded and subsequently spread across Western Asia and Northern Africa via the Muslim conquests.  Since then, Muslims societies have advanced (or liberalized) inconsistently, with some remaining relatively primitive and with others modernizing significantly (in various ways).

There exist about 46 sovereign nations with Muslim majority populations.  These countries are located in Northern Africa (examples: Mauritania, Tunisia and Morocco), Western Asia (examples: Azerbaijan, Yemen, and Iraq), Central Asia (examples: Afghanistan, Iran, and Uzbekistan), South Asia (examples: the Maldives, Pakistan, and Bangladesh), Southeast Asia (examples: Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia), Subsaharan Africa (examples: Somalia, Niger, and Djibouti), and even Europe (Albania and its sovereignty-lacking neighbor, Kosovo).  A full list of countries by Muslim population is available here.  Interestingly, one of the least Muslim countries in the world, Armenia, is located very close to the Middle East.  And something else I found interesting was another country with a very low Muslim population, Malta, is both located very close to Tunisia and has an official language, Maltese, that is derived from Arabic.  

Now, my nerdy inclinations and their requisite history and geography lessons aside, the newly liberated nation of Libya (or at least its de facto interim president) appears to be nostalgic for the aforementioned 7th century (h/t Instapundit):

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council and de fact president, had already declared that Libyan laws in future would have Sharia, the Islamic code, as its "basic source". 

But that formulation can be interpreted in many ways - it was also the basis of Egypt's largely secular constitution under President Hosni Mubarak, and remains so after his fall. 

Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi's era that he said was in conflict with Sharia - that banning polygamy. 

In a blow to those who hoped to see Libya's economy integrate further into the western world, he announced that in future bank regulations would ban the charging of interest, in line with Sharia. "Interest creates disease and hatred among people," he said.  

...

Libya is already the most conservative state in north Africa, banning the sale of alcohol. Mr Abdul-Jalil's decision - made in advance of the introduction of any democratic process - will please the Islamists who have played a strong role in opposition to Col Gaddafi's rule and in the uprising but worry the many young liberal Libyans who, while usually observant Muslims, take their political cues from the West.

Given Obama's and the United States' role in the usurpation of Muammar Gaddafi's rule over Libya by the rebels, I believe he has the responsibility to ensure that the new Libyan government doesn't reduce the freedom that Libyans have.  It is irresponsible, and probably dangerous, to allow an Islamofascist to return Libya to its state of tyranny (not that that will necessarily happen, but it becomes more likely with the incorporation of Sharia law into Libyan law).  Furthermore, the West doesn't need more enemies, and Sharia law is already undermining Western values in Europe.  If Obama cares about Western, Judeo-Christain-based values (which is questionable), he should not sit idly by during Libya's transition.  

“Theatre of the Absurd”

Here are some excerpts from Benjamin Netanyahu’s excellent speech at the UN in response to Palenstine’s bid for statehood (emphasis added) (h/t Frugal Cafe):

Ladies and gentlemen, in Israel our hope for peace never wanes. Our scientists, doctors, innovators, apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers,enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland — it was then that this was braided — branded, rather — shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here,that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised; it was denounced! And it’s here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel — the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the U.N. institution. It’s the — the theater of the absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi’s Libya chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; Saddam’s Iraq headed the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That’s the past. Well, here’s what’s happening now — right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security.

You couldn’t make this thing up.

So here in the U.N., automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide — they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.

...

Ladies and gentlemen, when I first came here 27 years ago, the world was divided between East and West. Since then the Cold War ended, great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, countless more are poised to follow, and the remarkable thing is that so far this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.

That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have.

Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents — in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.

Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday — can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it’s too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. That would be a tragedy. Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.

This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.

And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It’s determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It’s poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.

...

Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn’t defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM (ph) in Gaza didn’t stop the radicals from attacking Israel.

We left Gaza hoping for peace.

We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.

And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of — out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even — we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.

Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.

But ladies and gentlemen, we didn’t get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day — in one day.

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this, Israelis rightly ask: What’s to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank? See, most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from Gaza. But in the center of the country, opposite the West Bank, our cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers away from the edge of the West Bank.

So I want to ask you. Would any of you — would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we’re not prepared to have another Gaza there. And that’s why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us.

Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel’s critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it’s as if nothing happened — just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.

And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel’s security. They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.

So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.

...

I bring up these problems because they’re not theoretical problems. They’re very real. And for Israelis, they’re life-and- death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel’s security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won’t be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.

...

The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day — in fact, I think they made it right here in New York — they said the Palestinian state won’t allow any Jews in it. They’ll be Jew-free — Judenrein. That’s ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That’s racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don’t want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. (Applause.) We want to give up — we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.

President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that’s odd. Our conflict has been raging for — was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the — I guess that the settlements he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be’er Sheva. Maybe that’s what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn’t say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)

The settlements have to be — it’s an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.

...

There’s an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace. I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand — the hand of Israel — in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah — (speaks in Hebrew) — “The people who walk in darkness will see a great light.” Let that light be the light of peace.

I apologize for not posting this sooner, but it is quite a long speech and I haven’t really had the time to read it fully.  Having said that, it is a great speech.  Mr. Netanyahu makes some excellent points, both about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and about the UN, which is, indeed, a theatre of the absurd. 

I do not understand anti-Israeli activists.  It does not make sense that they would ignore facts and so zealously condemn a modern, liberal nation in favour of one in stark contrast, one that, unlike Israel, oppresses its women and homosexuals.  I guess it’s the cool thing to do.

Furthermore, I want to applaud Stephen Harper for his firm support of Israel.

In spite of my often-critical tone toward my country, I am proud of Canada right now.  I am proud that the majority of Canadians elected Stephen Harper’s Conservatives into a majority government, despite the controversy that preceded the election; and I am proud to belong to a country whose leader is a such a firm ally of Israel’s.  Canada’s “progressive values” notwithstanding, these things give me a reason to be patriotic.   

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.

Rhetoric, Fear and REAL Hope and Change

I can't get past Obama's rhetoric.  Many, many other people have pointed out what a hypocrite Obama is.  He promised post-partisanship, but it seems like every speech he makes contains some sort of vilification of Republicans (not to mention "millionaires and billionaires," and my personal favorite, "corporate jet owners").  Obama might have his rhetoric and the obsequious media to rely upon, but the reality of reality should hopefully be enough to evict Obama from the White House.  Obama's and the media's rhetoric cannot be enough to obfuscate the facts (low unemployment, high inflation, et cetera) when so many people are well aware of them, and since they are having such a profound effect on peoples' lives.

Any prosperity loving citizen of a Western nation should support the Tea Party Movement, given how inextricably linked the US's economy is to that of the rest of the world.  I really hope Americans nominate the right Republican to challenge Obama.  I do not believe a RINO like Mitt Romney would be able to effectively curtail government spending, and everyone in the Western world should be paying close attention.  It is too early to determine who the right candidate is, in my opinion, however.  At this point, I would probably support Herman Cain.  I think someone with leadership experience in the private sector may be the perfect person to deal with what the next president will inherit from Obama.  Yes, it would be a risk to elect an outsider, but, at this point, it would be a risk that is well worth taking.  Having said that, I would not support Herman Cain completely at this point.  It is too early.  And, if either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio enters the running, well, they are just too damn good not to support.  But that doesn't look like it will happen.

I am a concerned Canadian.  I am also a university student with a very tight budget.  I don't need a stagnant economy to make things more difficult than they will already be.  I don't have nearly as much at stake as most Americans, but the prospect of another Obama presidency, which will almost inevitably lead to an economic crisis the likes of which Americans haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression (if my amateur reasoning can be relied upon), and hence one the likes of which Westerners haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression, frightens me.

UPDATE: After re-reading this, I realized the last sentence didn't make any sense, so I fixed it.

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.  

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.

Crisis in Greece

The various debt crises in Europe started in 2008 because of the worldwide late 2000's financial crisis.  Greece has suffered the worst economic crisis.

In 1974, when Greece established democracy after the right-wing military junta fell, the government began running large deficits so it could finance public sector jobs and social services in an attempt to mainstream its left-of-centre population.  Because of widespread tax evasion, corruption, and inefficient bureaucracy, Greece has had to rely upon borrowing to sustain its spending.  In recent years, the cost of borrowing has increased dramatically (because of the debt), so Greece entered an economic crisis and it could no longer sustain its level of spending.  This led to the enacting of severe austerity measures.

The citizens of Greece have been protesting these austerity measures, which has resulted in riots.  My question is, what do they want to happen?  There is no other realistic alternative to these austerity measures (at least, none that I am aware of), so why are they protesting?

The crisis in Greece presents a problem to the entire Eurozone because of how interconnected the economies of each of its member states are.  Measures designed to stabilize the Eurozone have been enacted by many other Eurozone members, most notably Germany.  In 2010, Germany made a multi-million euro payment to Greece and other financially unstable nations.  The constitutionality of the bailout is currently being contested in Germany.

The European nations of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and Iceland have also suffered economic crises.

The Obnoxious Muammar Gaddafi

Despite the international pressure on Muammar Gaddafi, he vows to remain in power.

Gaddafi repeated his intention to remain in power amid hopes he could be persuaded to seek asylum in Equatorial Guinea.

A weekend decision by the US and other nations to recognise Libya's rebels as the legitimate government was a another setback for Gaddafi as it could hand billions of dollars in frozen Libyan funds to his enemies.

"They are asking me to leave. That's a laugh. I will never leave the land of my ancestors or the people who have sacrificed themselves for me," he said in a loudspeaker address to supporters in Zawiya, about 50km west of Tripoli. "I'm ready to sacrifice myself for my people, and I will never quit this land sprinkled with the blood of my ancestors who fought Italian and British colonialists.

"After we gave our children as martyrs, we can't backtrack, or surrender, or give up, or move an inch. Rest assured in your tombs, our martyrs, we will not betray you ever."

 ...

Officials discussing the end game in Libya hope Gaddafi can be encouraged to seek asylum in Equatorial Guinea, an African country whose dictatorship and disregard for human rights could make it seem a home from home for the "Guide" and his family.

More on South Sudan

The independence of South Sudan marks a great accomplishment for the West, as it represents the liberation of people opressed by Islamic tyranny and marks a major victory in a brutal fight for freedom.  

A new nation was being born in what used to be a forlorn, war-racked patch of Africa, and to many it seemed nothing short of miraculous. After more than five decades of an underdog, guerrilla struggle and two million lives lost, the Republic of South Sudan, Africa’s 54th state, was about to declare its independence in front of a who’s who of Africa, including the president of the country letting it go: Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, a war-crimes suspect.
From the mid-1950s, even before Sudan shook off its colonial yoke in 1956, the southern Sudanese were chafing for more rights. Sudan had an unusually clear fault line, reinforced by British colonizers, with the southern third mostly animist and Christian and the northern part majority Muslim and long dominated by Arabs.The southern struggle blew up into a full-fledged rebellion in the 1960s and then again in the 1980s, and the Sudanese government responded brutally, bombing villages and unleashing Arab militias that massacred civilians and enslaved southern Sudanese children. Many of the same scorched-earth tactics associated with the crisis in Darfur, in Sudan’s west, in the mid-2000s, were tried and tested long before that here in southern Sudan. (The International Criminal Court has indicted Mr. Bashir on genocide charges for the Darfur massacres.)Christian groups had been championing the southern Sudanese since the 19th century. And their efforts paid off in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States. He elevated Sudan to near the top of his foreign policy agenda, and in 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government — both war weary and locked in a military stalemate — to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede.On Saturday, one man held up a sign that said “Thank You George Bush.”The American-backed treaty set the stage for a referendum this January in which southerners voted by 98.8 percent for independence.At 1:20 p.m. on Saturday, the southerners officially proclaimed their freedom.South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir, wearing his signature black cowboy hat given to him by Mr. Bush, signed the interim Constitution.

I must commend George W. Bush for engineering this process.  Thanks to GayPatriot for the link.  

A New Nation

Earlier today, a new nation, South Sudan, was formed.