The Norwegian Massacre and Denialism

For those afflicted by an inability to relate to normal society and show tactfulness through speech, the era before the Internet was a limiting epoch indeed. Only as recently as twenty years ago, a person who took delight in the suffering of others or who found humor in brutality had few outlets through which he could share the evidence of his derangement. In today's digitized world, those incapable of empathy have at their disposal the means by which to share their viewpoints with a wider audience.

Such sentiments found their way onto the numerous articles posted electronically concerning the worst act of violence to strike Norway since WWII. Utilzing the Internet as a forum through which they can share their sheer ignorance and callousness, anonymous posters incited the ire of the rational through reactions ranging from "kill all the Muslims," to an indictment of Norway's far-from-draconian gun laws.

Culpability was instantly ascribed to the Muslim minority in Norway by a distressingly large cast of characters. While Islamic terrorism is an affront to the civilized world against which we must be vigilant, the fact that so many would exhibit such absolutism in the absence of evidence is distressing. To gainsay the menace of militant Islam would be to exist in a state of denial, yet the willingness to reach a verdict in the court of public opinion with nothing to substantiate it is a frightening reminder that such a mentality is often the catalyst for vigilantism.

Norway is a civilized nation that enjoys a high standard of living owing to several factors: the oil industry, a low level of corruption in government, a strong work ethic, excellent social services and a population generally averse to violence. Acts of aggression are, for the most part, alien to the Norwegians, thus, the catastrophe that struck yesterday was even more cataclysmic to the collective Norwegian psyche.

Returning to the theme of the sociopathic rantings emenating from posters, one is startled to find the reactions of many upon learning that the terrorist was an ethnic Norwegian. The forces of absolutism made themselves evident as numerous individuals refused to accept the feasibility of this man being even a suspect in the slayings. Bewildered that a non-Muslim psychopath would choose acts of violence as a means of redressing what he believed is his nation's ineffectual approach to immigration and multiculturalism, several still clung to their disbelief and mired themselves in an alternate reality.

The irrationality, the generalizations and the sheer incredulity in the face of facts are astounding. That so many refuse to believe that a European could carry out such an atrocity speaks volumes. The first volume should be one concerning historical ignorance, particularly when brutal attacks as recent as ones in the 1970s were carried out by groups such as the IRA, the UDA, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the ETA and several others. The nations of Europe have borne witness to atrocities in the Post-Modern era, yet the myopic belief that only a Muslim could have done something so dastardly is chilling.

The negation of the fact that a non-Muslim is in custody and has been identified as the assailant demonstrates an element of cognitive dissonance on the part of too many. The need to see only "the other" as capable of evil shows a disturbing trend regarding collective thought processes. As stated previously, it is not unreasonable at first for an individual, upon hearing of such an atrocity, to suspect Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates or sympathizers, but that such "certainty" is taken into public forums where they can find kindred spirits is alarming, to say the least.