Like everyone, even Muslims, my first thought upon hearing about the Norwegian bloodbath was "the religion of peace strikes again." I was wrong, although since prejudgment ("prejudice") is a survival instinct dating back to our jungle days, I'm not ashamed of my initial stance. Muslims (typically Pakistani or Arab) have a record of indiscriminately killing civilians that, until recently, Nordic "Knights Templar" didn't possess. Prejudice, when based on statistics and amenable to change, is common sense.
The Norwegian terrorist is undoubtedly psychopathic. But unlike congresswoman-killer Jared Loughner, who seemed to blame his troubles on the alphabet, Anders Breivik is not crazy in the certifiable sense. His actions, to quote a favourite phrase of the Chomskyite left (which I doubt they will use in this case), had a "root cause": Muslim mass migration and misdeed in Norway. This root cause does not justify the murder of innocents; although, arguably, it is a better justification than the root causes of Islam-inspired violence, like the printing of cartoons and the existence of Jews.
Obviously, I am not one of Breivik's hated "multiculturalists/cultural Marxists." I expressed some thoughts on multiculturalism's failure in a previous post, and even vaguely predicted some kind of violent backlash in Europe:
I don't know about Europeans. History shows they are capable of anything. . . . A forced population exchange of Israeli Jews for European Muslims is possible. (I'd love to see the look on the anti-Semitic Algerian's face when he is forced to move to Palestine and give up his French home to a Tunisian Jew.) Liberal assimilation camps are possible. (Muslims locked into chairs with their eyes pried wide open, ala A Clockwork Orange, forced to watch reels upon reels of gay porn and Sex and the City reruns.) Who can predict the future?
A rational argument can be made that, once a non-assimilated minority group reaches critical mass, social breakdown is likely to result. A rational argument can also be made that to sustain a high standard of living, a country with a low native birth-rate requires immigration. To square the circle, I recommend European countries declare a moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries. Instead, they should look to East Asia. East Asian immigrants are non-violent, hard-working, lack religious and ideological baggage, and tend to intermarry and adapt to Western culture, even taking on Western names.
I might be wrong, and I owe my open-mindedness, at least in part, to Europe's philosophical tradition - hence my tangential interest in Europe's preservation. If the Europe of Plato and Spinoza still exists, rational argument, not the hard nihilism of Breivik and the soft nihilism of his PC boogeyman, will prevail. But as I said in the aforementioned post, I don't know about Europeans. Today's social democrat is yesterday's, and perhaps tomorrow's, Viking.
|