In a nation and a culture that is small in size, and where the important public debate takes place in a language not shared with anyone else, the number of people with the intellectual capital that is available to deal with demanding issues, will necessarily be limited. This is a drawback, because if we make the not too unreasonable assumption that intelligence is pretty much evenly distributed among nations, the basic laws of probabilities dictate that the best thinking takes place in the large nations and cultural groups due to their large populations, and that it is being communicated in one of the world’s dominant languages.

However, even a small nation such as Norway can benefit from this thinking, either through translations being made available to a broader audience — which, despite fairly reasonable English language skills, seems to prefer to purchase Norwegian books and periodicals — or through an intellectual elite that stays up-to-date on the best thinking abroad and communicates this to the local populace. None of these things are taking place in Norway to the extent one could wish for, but even if it did occur to a much larger degree, it still might not enable the nation to understand its own problems.

It is nevertheless the case that sometimes the problems that face us have also been faced by other nations, and the thinking that resulted can easily be adapted to Norwegian conditions. But some issues are sufficiently unique for one’s home country that even if they can be understood to some degree by those from other parts of the world, their experience and advice is of little use. So for many problems, solutions can only be found within the country in question, and Norway is no exception. This logic also applies to organizations and to families, and even to the individual. Some things you just have to sort out on your own. The choices you make define you as an individual, as a family, as an organization and as a country.

The thinking currently on display in Norway is being performed almost entirely by a small elite which is so close to the political power, and dependent upon it, that it renders it so politically correct that variation of opinion only occurs within a very limited range. Not only does this make the thinking predictable and boring, it sometimes also makes it incorrect.

This is clearly a disadvantage compared to large countries such as the US, Britain, France, Germany and Italy where, while there may be plenty of lobbying and group think going on, there is at least more than one single group. And each of these different schools of intellectual thought has its own publications, seminars, salons, schools and politicians. This diversity of differing opinions makes it easier for members of the public to arrive at an informed opinion because it forces them to consider opposing views from perfectly reasonable and sensible people on either side of the argument.

The lack of intellectual diversity in Norway is closely linked to the lack of political diversity. Unfortunately, many do not even notice the latter. Even some otherwise very astute observers make the astonishing claim that the Norwegian media are for the most part apolitical, while any analysis of the media’s choices of issues, angles and omissions, will clearly demonstrate that they are anything but.

Is it possible that they have been steeped in political inbreeding for so long that they no longer realize that what they see as objective truths, are in fact highly political? When bishops make statements about the drilling for oil or the state of affairs in the Middle East, it is quite possible that they actually believe that they are not making a political stance, but merely express the only reasonable opinion that one can have if one is Christian and enlightened.

This consensus mentality is not a major problem as long as you’re sailing in calm waters. But when you are navigating through unsafe or unknown territory, and those on the bridge are asleep at the wheel, real opposition is needed. Such an opposition lays dormant in people, so how can it be awakened?

More than anything, what we could need right now is an intellectual with a talent for politics. Someone who not only could understand the times, but also describe them in a way that common people would understand. Someone who could expose the hypocrisy of the ruling class, their double standards, censorship and dissimulations.

Quite simply, we need a new Ibsen. Heaven only knows what kinds of drama the author of A Doll’s House, Ghosts, The Wild Duck, Hedda Gabler, An Enemy of the People and The Pillars of Society would be able to write on the basis of the phoniness that exist in the public debate present day Norway, in the media as well as around the lunch tables. Perhaps all he would have to do is to recycle A Doll’s House.

For while those who take part in the public debate will privately admit that they are unhappy with having to adapt to the changes in society that has been brought on by the ruling multicultural dogma, they will rarely air such opinions in public. Their relationship to power has thus become every bit as phony as Nora’s marriage to Torvald. But they lack Nora’s courage to walk away.

The result is that we are living in a national Doll’s House.