Home / Culture and Society / Norway: the Progressive West Slippery Slope

Norway: the Progressive West Slippery Slope

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It is extremely difficult to understand the rationale, if any, behind terror attacks. All terror attacks are the sick acts of deranged, if perversely lucid, people who feel impotent against the society they live in or they unwittingly fight for.

The Norway massacre by this young, pleasant looking monster is particularly horrible because it doesn’t seem at first glance to have any explanation or justification, twisted or not. Unfortunately, it is as sickly rational, from a sick mind point of view, as any other terrorist attack.

Historians and intellectuals, fearful of the risk of repeating past atrocities (always perpetrated for the good of humanity of course) have been warning the West’s progressives not to push their agendas to their extreme consequences lest they obtain the opposite of what they theoretically wished onto their citizens (racism, concentration camps, deportations, ethnic cleansing); but power, greed and corruption have muddled the original issues and molded them into perfect demagoguery material. The result? Uncontrolled immigration to the detriment (and often discrimination) of the indigenous population for the purpose of creating voting blocks, welfare and all sorts of entitlements to create dependence and passivity and of course more votes, misguided multiculturalism to appease violent minorities, betrayal of hard won ideals (to the point of harsh anti-Semitism, in Norway) for the sake of security, promotion of extreme relativism to undermine societies’ institutions, etc., etc., etc..

In a normal democracy, these agendas are eventually moderated through political dialogue or die of their own, either when people see the lies behind the policies or when the nanny state runs out of money. Norway, on the contrary, could afford to drown their citizens in entitlements, accommodate and subsidize fresh immigration and at the same time lull everybody into a false sense of security, thanks to its oil wealth.

Such a state of things eventually creates social conflicts which in normal circumstances generate a healthy, at least in the name of democratic choice, shift in politics and nothing more; as seen recently in most of Europe, including Norway. On the other hand, more serious and dangerous effects are produced on the weakest, or sickest, take your pick, minds. To these, the continuous exposure to such social contradictions exasperates their sense of betrayal, oppression, impotence, producing a desire to sow the horror we have sadly often witnessed, as a lesson, a message, a warning or a cry of desperation; who really knows what goes on in their minds.  Someone, either an individual or groups, was bound to exploit the situation. Something was bound to blow up.

Forgetting what man really is, his limitations and potential, and pretending, for political expediency that we all are the same good, altruistic, outgoing beings, helps only power-greedy or clueless politicians, while tolerating intolerance for fear or gain only invites violence, of one kind or another.

A last observation: Norwegians declare themselves proudly to be pacifists and multiculturalists; guns in Norway are severely restricted, even the police are totally unarmed. But most of the Utoya victims would be alive today if anyone had had a gun.

Powered by

About gmaciocci

  • Igor

    38- good point.

  • Ey ey.

  • Anarcissie

    I want to disagree with the first premise of this article, which is that it is difficult to understand the rationale of terrorism. Terrorism is the only means of political violence open to the relatively weak (unless we count voting for parties preaching or doing violence, like the major parties in the U.S.) Terrorism can be very effective: Gavrilo Princip wanted to bring down the Austro-Hungarian empire, and he did just that by setting off World War 1. Osama bin Laden, or whoever constructed 9/11, wanted to damage the United States, and did so very effectively, not only by destroying the World Trade Center, but by setting off processes of imperial war and internal security which are still doing severe damage and may have, by now, bankrupted the U.S. financially and morally. The rationale of terrorism, then, is that you can do a lot of damage to those you conceive of as your enemies. Since identifying, objectifying, and struggling with supposed enemies is an almost universal human occupation, it’s surprising that more people don’t go in for terrorism either as political practice or just as a hobby.

  • Cannonshop

    “Heck, even a majority of the NRA’s members want full registration of firearms!”

    Citation on that one?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    One thing that the gun nuts refuse to acknowledge is that the majority of liberals and Democrats do not want a gun ban. I mean, come on! Gun-totin’ Pandora’s out of the box and she ain’t gettin’ back in, meaning that a gun ban is, frankly, impossible.

    All most of us want is full registration of firearms, and many of us (including myself) want mandatory firearm safety training. Heck, even a majority of the NRA’s members want full registration of firearms!

    But agreeing to that would hurt the Right’s fear-the-guvmint’s-black-helicopters-a-comin’-over-the-ridge stupidity campaign.

  • Deano

    The other element about Switzerland is that little innocuous phrase obligatory life military service.

    In short, the guns and military weapons are regulated quite effectively through membership in the Swiss milita – through proper training, proper storage, regular inspections, and controls on ammunition and weapon usage. These aren’t saturday night specials tucked into someone’s back pocket.

    In addition, they aren’t generally carried around everywhere (i.e. to a youth camp) as they are meant to be used in carrying out military duties.

    They also don’t give them to everyone. There are a wide range of disqualifing factors including criminal records, mental or emotional instability etc. People need to stop comparing Switzerland to the US, the two systems are very much not alike and using the general numbers to claim they are is ingenuous at best, stupidly ignorant at worst…

  • my main point was another (liberal agendas going too far).

    Any agenda gone however far is hardly justification for blaming the actions of a nutcase on that agenda.

    declaring something illegal can only result in delegating to criminals its ‘management’ (same as alcohol during prohibitionism, etc.)

    Quoted for truth. Just so we’re clear, I’m not in favour of a gun ban, just reasonable gun control. It’s a sad reflection of the tenor of debate in America that you lot can’t even agree on what a reasonable amount of control is.

    I opposed the handgun ban that was introduced as knee-jerk legislation after Dunblane for the very reason cited in one of RJ’s links: it penalizes law-abiding gun users, not criminals or maniacs like Hamilton.

    the highest percentage of guns and rifles per citizen is found in…Switzerland! In fact it is mandatory; maintenance of weapons by the citizens is part of the obligatory life military service; that tells us quite a lot…(no big shootouts there that I recall).

    No, but IIRC Switzerland does have the second highest rate of gun homicide among the industrialized nations, albeit still some considerable distance behind the US’s. Make of that what you will.

    What Switzerland, in common with the rest of the industrialized world apart from the US, doesn’t have is a pervasive cultural mentality that guns can solve any problem, any time, instantly.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Yep, Glenn, I’ve had similar experiences with some of my friends and family members.

    But as someone who lost a relative to gun violence (an uncle was gunned down over a property dispute), I’m having a hard time with the notion. I actually had another relative tell me that if he was armed, he would be alive today. It must be nice to so perfectly play out these events after the fact with such precision.

    That’s my problem with this type of thinking. It has very little to do with the guns themselves, as I’m not “against them.”

  • Are you familiar with the Latin phrase “caeteris paribus?”

    No, but I looked it up, so now we’re good.

    But all things are not equal. That’s exactly my point.

  • I am sorry the majority of readers concentrated on the ‘guns’; my main point was another (liberal agendas going too far). However, instead of quoting dubious numbers (statistics can only go so far without taking into account culture, education, ect.), I would like to draw your attention to two points: 1) declaring something illegal can only result in delegating to criminals its ‘management’ (same as alcohol during prohibitionism, etc.); they certainly won’t be deterred by a ban, in fact they’ll exploit it to their advantage and 2) the highest percentage of guns and rifles per citizen is found in…Switzerland! In fact it is mandatory; maintenance of weapons by the citizens is part of the obligatory life military service; that tells us quite a lot…(no big shootouts there that I recall).
    Thank you all for your reading!

  • Jordan Richardson

    No, Irene, but surely you can see where I might have arrived at the conclusion that I needed to clarify my stance. You brought up the second amendment; I didn’t. It’s not all that complicated, really.

    No, this isn’t an article about the War on Drugs. It’s about the Norway shootings…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    To all –

    It’s because not enough people are armed. Only when there’s a gun in every preschooler’s lunchpail will we truly be safe.

    You know, this was almost precisely what my far-right Republican friend said? It wasn’t about preschoolers, but he was sincerely saying that any student who wanted to take a gun to school should be allowed to do so. But he’s not all bad – he said he’d rather see me as president than Donald Trump.

  • And did I say anything about Jordan Richardson personally negating 2nd amendment rights? No, I did not. I said I was AGAINST their negation.

    So we’re all made up now, and I bow to your superior powers of hyperbole. 🙂 Would’ve MUCH rather been talking about the War on Drugs, but nobody had much to say on that thread, and now I have to go offline.

  • Dread:

    Are you familiar with the Latin phrase “caeteris paribus?”

    And are you aware that guns do not, by themselves, commit violent crimes?

    I’ll wait while that all sinks in.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I didn’t say you had, Irene…hell, the comment wasn’t even addressed to you.

    I don’t get what’s hard to understand here. A few of us are taking issue with the claim made IN THIS ARTICLE that armed campers would have been better off against the gunman. There’s simply no way to know that and, what’s more, it’s kind of bizarre to suggest that things would have worked out better because they had guns. We’re talking scared shitless teens and pre-teens, no less.

    So there’s your context. The inference is that if we arm them, they’ll be safer. I’m not so sure. I don’t want to take away the guns or negate amendment rights or whatever.

    But where do you stop? Should anyone and everyone who could potentially be a target to violent crime (ALL of us, in other words) be armed to prevent it? Is that the perfect world?

  • And I’ve never advocated putting a gun in every preschooler’s lunchpail.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Irene, I’ve never advocated “negating second amendment rights” here or elsewhere. My stance is merely one that questions the idea that guns make us inherently safer.

  • RJ, you are misconstruing the thing that I have difficulty grasping.

    I cannot help but notice that the cities of Chicago and Washington DC are located within the country called the United States of America, which as I noted before has a constitutionally protected right to gun ownership. This means that there are a lot of guns about, because by definition there is a potential market for them of 300 million and counting.

    There are also effective gun bans in major world cities such as London, Berlin, Tokyo and Paris. The homicide rate in these cities – and in particular the gun homicide rate – is nowhere near the rate in any sizeable American city.

    Now how is that the defenceless citizens of these metropoli aren’t thoroughly riddled with bullet holes, whereas the defenseless citizens of the Windy City and the Other Windy City are?

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m not advocating a gun ban. I never have. Let’s just get that right out in the open, shall we?

  • Jordan Richardson, one of my concerns about negating second amendment rights is that it makes a population vulnerable to a government that has has an increasingly militaristic stance, not only toward its neighbors in the world, but toward its own citizens.

    But we’ve been in a loooooooooooong conversation recently about police over-reach, Jordan Richardson, and yes, I’m with you: it’s too soon to have another one like it. Good night, now.

  • Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade

    B-b-but…guns were banned! And the ban made them magically disappear!

    Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold. The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year – a rise of 89 per cent.

  • From the BBC:

    A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance’s Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

    But that’s just crazy-talk. Everyone knows the BBC is a right-wing propaganda outlet full of hate and lies.

  • But I would’ve had to scroll my page up to see that, Jordan Richardson. Sorry, Dr. Dreadful.

  • I know leftists have difficulty grasping the concept, so thankfully I’m here to help!

    Guns and Crime in Chicago

    Murder rates soared in D.C. and Chicago after their gun bans were put in place. As shown in the just released third edition of my book More Guns, Less Crime, before the late-1982 ban, Chicago’s murder rate was falling relative to those in the nine other largest cities, the 50 largest cities, the five counties that border Cook County (in which the city is located), and the U.S. as a whole. After the ban, Chicago’s murder rate rose relative to all these other places. Compared with the 50 most populous cities, Chicago’s murder rate went from equaling the average for the other cities in 1982, to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992, to exceeding their average by 68 percent in 2002.

  • Jordan Richardson

    What are you talking about? He said “I stand corrected” in #9 and made another point.

  • See I don’t get it. Dr. Dreadful can (not deliberately, I’m sure) post a bit of misinformation about the Way Things Are on Army Bases, be called out on it, and then continue to steamroll “the opposition” without so much as a “woopsy daisy.”

  • I can’t grasp it either, Doc, but I have learned through experience how futile it is to try to argue the point with True Believers. Much heat and little light is generated in the very long discussions that follow.

  • Oh Dr. Dreadful and Jordan Richardson, you’re just being silly now.

  • Jordan Richardson

    It’s because not enough people are armed. Only when there’s a gun in every preschooler’s lunchpail will we truly be safe.

  • America has the right to bear arms enshrined in its constitution, has more gun crime than the rest of the galaxy put together, yet we’re somehow supposed to believe that the more guns there are, the safer we are. I still can’t grasp the mentality behind that one.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Am I supposed to read that book, RJ? Or is the title alone supposed to prove your point?

  • I stand corrected.

    I note, however, that the base police officers who responded to the shooting were armed, but that they still needed several minutes to subdue Hasan – and he took one of them down anyway before she could stop him.

    Being armed isn’t some kind of (excuse me) magic bullet: there’s no guarantee that the shooter won’t get you before you get him.

  • Dread:

    From your link:

    Lt. General Cone stated: “As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home.” Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal. Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, expressed the opinion that this policy had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: “Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can’t even defend yourself.”

    But nice try!

  • This is the case at most, if not all army bases. Anyone else know for sure?

  • It is my understanding that no one, even with a conceal and carry permit, is allowed to possess a gun on Fort Hood Army Base. People who own guns have to have them checked in at the armory for the duration of their stay at the base, as it is a “gun free zone.”

  • You know, there can be few places on Earth containing more guns than an army base. Someone trying to carry out a mass shooting at one of those places wouldn’t get very far. Nope. No siree.

  • Jordan Richardson

    It’s a simplistic retort that is sounded time and time again, RJ. If only ____ had a gun, ____ wouldn’t have happened.

    You’re talking about a panic situation and employing a pretty idealistic point of view, whereas I take a more pessimistic view of the issue in general. I don’t think more guns make us a safer society and I don’t know that the situation would have necessarily been reversed or prevented had a teenager been “well-trained” and armed.

    The inference is that a “progressive” and permissive worldview makes us more vulnerable. We should be afraid and arm ourselves because people are out to get us.

  • I was unaware, Jordan, that teenage boys are inherently incapable of figuring out how to aim and pull a trigger.

    It seems that it wasn’t so long ago that it was pretty standard practice for fathers to teach their teenage sons how to shoot a gun, at least in rural areas.

    But you’re probably right. The idea that a courageous, well-trained, and armed teenager could have stopped the slaughter is just Hollywood crazy-talk. Better to wait 90 minutes for the police to arrive while dozens of children are slaughtered by the only person with a gun.

  • Jordan Richardson

    But most of the Utoya victims would be alive today if anyone had had a gun

    More “action movie” mentality, huh?

    What do you figure would have happened? 12-13 year old kids would have been diving through the trees on the island, trading fire with the gunman in John Woo slo-mo?

    It’s also not true to say that police in Norway are “totally unarmed.”