George Rebane
“Norway's murders shouldn't be an excuse to shut down debate over multiculturalism and the failure of many Muslims to assimilate to Europe's cultural norms. British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have broken taboos by speaking sensibly on the subject. Democracies need to address their anxieties openly, rather than push the political debate underground where the likes of an Anders Breivik can let them stew into a rationale for violence.” 26jul11 WSJ
The recent terror in Norway is an event that again has altered our times. But it is not yet clear that its dissection in the aftermath will serve to illuminate these times. This is made amply clear in the various media venues that serve commentary and discussion. The event most certainly has highlighted the radically different views held by various ideologically defined cohorts, and in the US it is another timber thrown into the fire that continues to consume the bonds holding the country together.
This is no more visible than on these very pages as documented in the comment stream for ‘Norway Terror’. For the more attentive reader, it is obvious that much of the generated heat comes from the discussants not taking the time (or being able?) to understand that they are semantically imprecise and all over the map when presenting their views. Semantically orthogonal aspects of the case are co-joined willy nilly and the discussion wanders in random circles, resolving nothing, including where people stand on the related ideas and issues.
In the hope that more commenters here are people of good will, people who want to use this venue to clarify, dispute, or confront each other’s ideas instead of continuing to play ad hominem ‘gotcha’, I offer the following (no doubt incomplete) list of semantically orthogonal notions about the Norway tragedy, and invite others to add to it their own discoveries as they meditate on the greater dimensions of this tragedy.
Then in no particular order, some semantically orthogonal (or independent) areas that come under the larger umbrella of ideas and notions arising from Norway’s terror are –
1. The right of a culture to endure and thrive in its homeland,
2. The right of a culture to spread trans-nationally through (assimilating, insular) settlements,
3. The historical impact of multi-culturalism (cultural mixing) on individual cultures,
4. The status and objectives of the current multi-nationally based Islamic jihad,
5. The status and objectives of non-Islamic needs for energy from Islamic lands,
6. The social impact of EU immigration policy,
7. Major themes in today’s European acceptance/confrontation with Muslim immigrants,
8. Norway’s immigration policy,
9. The behavior of Muslims in Norway,
10. The formal political structure of Norway (major, minor political parties and recognized nationalistic and trans-nationalistic movements),
11. Norway’s sub-rosa political structure (secret organizations, terror cells, etc),
12. The recent sentiments of ethnic Norwegians toward immigration in general,
13. The recent sentiments of ethnic Norwegians toward its Muslim population,
14. Legitimate and illegitimate means of opposing cultural dilution,
15. The ideas in Breivik’s manifesto/compendium,
16. Assessment of Breivik’s stated objectives,
17. Assessment of Breivik’s means (the terror killings),
18. Assessment of Breivik’s sanity and/or mental state,
19. Impact of extra-national political movements and policies on Norway,
20. The political future of Europe,
21. The ethnic future of Europe,
22. The future of western culture in Europe,
23. What the Breivik massacre reveals about American politics,
24. New and beneficial policies for Norway,
25. New and beneficial policies for America.
If a discussant is unwilling to recognize how these notions stand on their own, then it should be his job to establish, identify, and defend any co-joinings in his arguments. If a discussant doesn’t understand any of this, then it is better for all if he continues to study the matter and remains a passive reader of the debate until the ‘Aha!’ occurs.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment