Reality Dysfunction by Morten Rand-Hendriksen

Over the past week the world has born stunned witness to the testimony of Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik. Methodically and by all accounts devoid of emotion he walked the court through the planning and execution of a terrorist attack and mass murder unrivalled in history. Much has been said and will be said about these days of recounted terror. What I want to focus on instead is the rationale behind Breivik’s actions and how Breivik in many ways represents a growing trend in western society: One of reality dysfunction. Let me explain:

If we look at the argumentation presented by Breivik divorced from circumstance, context, and other information, it can seem sound and rational.

In the first days of testimony Breivik presented his reasoning for planning and executing the attacks. He laid out historical background, statistics, research results, and drew conclusions from them. And the court, the attendees, the world, winced in horror. As we should. His conclusions are as bizarre as they are incorrect, and his resulting actions are incomprehensible. However, if we look at the argumentation presented by Breivik divorced from circumstance, context, and other information, it can seem sound and rational. And therein lies the real danger: When we start picking and choosing what information to use as our foundation for hypotheses, analysis, and conclusions, we do not get a scientific result but rather the result we are looking for. In science this is called “theory dependence”. In the real world it is a recipe for disaster. And Breivik is the perfect example.

Breivik’s version of history and the resulting argument is fairly simple to break down: After World War II all nationalist and “culture conservative” (his terminology) sentiments were quashed, disallowed and ridiculed because of their obvious ties to Nazism. In it their place socialists, feminists, and “cultural marxisits” with a “multinationalist agenda” (again his terminology) stepped in. These cultural marxists took over educational institutions, government and the media. Then they started a campaign of thinning out the “authentic” genes of indigenous populations such as “ethnic Norwegians” by bringing in people from other cultures like the middle east, Africa and Asia. They also started a campaign to either introduce or at least help bring in Islamic rule in Europe. Nationalists and cultural conservatives were deliberately shut out of the debate because all media outlets were run by these cultural marxists, and as a result no real debate was had and the wool was pulled over the eyes of the masses. Because of this, Breivik and people like him – the nationalists and cultural conservatives – were left watching the destruction of their culture and race from the sidelines. Until they had had enough and took to arms. As Breivik explains it, his attacks on July 22, 2011 were acts of self defense on behalf of all Norwegians. He sees his attacks as similar to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings at the hands of the USA: Preliminary strikes sacrificing civilians now to save millions later.

To the majority of us this line of reasoning is proposterous. However, if you had no background information and you were willing to believe there really was a conspiracy by so-called “cultural marxists” and that there was an “islamic invasion” and a “multiculturalist agenda”, both the reasoning and the conclusion is logically sound.

We love information that builds up under our own beliefs and hate information that contradicts them.

To put it into perspective, this is the same type of reality dysfunction you see when a large percentage of American citizens still believe either that their President Barack Obama is either a) not a US citizen, b) a secret muslim or c) both. In spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, they believe in these fictions so intensely they launch nation wide protests, publish books, and even attempt to take the issues to Supreme Court. Another example is the large group of people who insist the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an inside job and that the World Trade Center was taken down in a controlled implosion.

What links all these cases together is that seen in a vacuum, and ignoring all other evidence to the contrary, the reasoning is (maybe surprisingly) rational and even logical. The problem of course is that to make sound, scientific and truly rational arguments , you have to take all facts into account. And people don’t like doing that.

What we see in Breivik and in these other examples is a basic trait in the human condition: We love information that builds up under our own beliefs and hate information that contradicts them. And if we can argue that all the information that contradicts our beliefs is being put out by conspiracies that deliberately hide the truth, then we can rest safely in our own cocoon and pretend that the world is what we want it to be.

So where does this leave us? In a very bad place. Because millions of other people use the same kind of reality dysfunction Breivik does to allow themselves to believe in their own misinformed (and mostly destructive) ideas about the world.

Though few are willing to say what Breivik did was right, justified, or in any way acceptable, there are thousands of people out there who believe strongly in the same argumentation he used to justify his actions. If you want to see for yourself, look no further than blogs like Gates of Vienna and Atlas Shrugged (I am not dignifying these outlets with a link, but you can find them easy enough). What you will see in these sites and many like them and also in hundreds of publications in print, in audio and in video, is argumentation that the western world is in the midst of a cultural war forced upon us by our leaders who are all joined together in a conspiracy to force Islam on us and cleanse the world of the white race. And if you are willing to accept these ridiculous assumptions as fact, the rest of the reasoning will put you on the same track as Breivik almost immediately.

The human mind is a master of self delusion. And thus begins the reality dysfunction. Logical reasoning and rationality only works when you include all variables and all data, even when that results in your theory being disproven or forces you to change your understanding of the world. Whether it be “cultural marxists”, the “liberal media bias” or the “Islamic terrorism” it is always easier to blame the problems of the world on imagined conspiracies and foes than accepting that your own view of the world may be too simplistic, too ignorant, too self serving. The alternative reality dysfunction may be the easy way out, but it will lead you down a dark hole you may never get out of again.

Burning down the castle in the sky by Morten Rand-Hendriksen

On April 16th begins a trial unprecedented in history. In Oslo, Norway, a terrorist stands accused of the murder of 77 and attempted murder of another 42 of his fellow countrymen and women. And with this trial our simplistic and misinformed post 9/11 understanding of the world, as black and white, east versus west, islam versus democracy, us against them, becomes impossible to justify.

How did our modern western society create this monster?

But accepting this, and accepting the inner dissonance it brings, will be difficult, even more so because of the terrorist himself. The man at the heart of the story, who claims membership in the Knights’ Templar and expects to be crowned king for his actions, has provided an easy way out: He appears to be insane, thus we cannot, and do not have to, understand his actions. Illusion restored. The castle stands. But we cannot take the easy way out. The terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, has presented us with a mirror that, though horribly deformed and smeared with the blood of our future leaders, shows us a true reflection of our society. And it is our duty, to ourselves as well as to those that died at his hand and at the hands of every terrorist around the world, to look deep into ourselves and our society and ask the one impossible question: How did our modern western society create this monster?

A central question in the trial is Breivik’s sanity. The judges, two court judges and three civilians, will be presented with two diametrically opposing psychiatric assessments: The first finds Breivik to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and deems him insane during the act and not fit to stand trial. The second finds Breivik to be suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder but that he was sane during and following the acts and that he is fit to stand trial. It is tempting to side with the first report: Breivik is insane, his actions say nothing about us as a society, we are all OK. But the world is quite simply not that simple.

Much debate sprung from the first report, and though this debate has gotten sparse coverage in international media, it is an important one: Is Breivik really insane, or are his political ideals just so far outside our common understanding we don’t recognize them as such attributing them instead to madness? At the onset, and based on the terrorist’s manifesto and grandiose proclamations to the media, it would seem they were indeed products of madness. But a simple internet search on terms like “eurabia” or “cultural marxism” shows that though his actions may not be supported, there are many people who share his views, his political ideals and even his conviction that only through violence can the western world be saved from cultural invasion.

Through Breivik we have gotten a glimpse of a vast and growing infection in our society; An infection of ideas that sees one cultural group as superior to all others; An infection of ideas that stops at nothing to impose its rule on everyone, through any means necessary. We have seen this type of infection before, and when we did nothing, the world was engulfed in the sickness of war leaving millions dead and causing the near annihilation of an entire culture through gas chambers and concentration camps .

Through Breivik we have gotten a glimpse of a vast and growing infection in our society

What is different now is the vector through which the infection is spreading. Where extremist ideas were once confined to soap boxes and underground newsletters they are now available at the touch of a button through the world wide web. And the very nature of the web creates almost hermetically sealed echo chambers where any idea can be radicalized and turned into a dogmatic obsession. Combine that with our delusions of cultural grandeur and the increasingly vitriolic and populist political debates and you have not only a perfect breeding ground for fascist ideology but also a trigger for someone who wants to hold the world under his thumb.

Though it may not always appear that way, much is lost in translation. When Stieg Larsson completed his Millenium trilogy, he titled the ultimate volume “Luftslottet som sprängdes” – “The castle in the air that exploded”. The message in the title is clear to Scandinavians: Our idyllic view of the world can easily be torn asunder by reality. The English translation, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest” presents a different message all together. And it is because of this loss of meaning in translation, this illusion of understanding across cultures and languages, that I borrow Larsson’s imagery today.

What we see in Breivik is the ultimate extreme of our own cultural arrogance. Western society has built itself a castle in the sky from which it wants to rule the the world imposing on everyone our own interpretations of freedom, democracy, right and wrong. From our vantage point far off the ground we convince ourselves we understand other cultures and know what’s best for them. And when they don’t adopt our ideals, we make them, even when it means using violence to do so. But as our castle grows and more cultures move in our illusion of understanding falters. We realize that other cultures are not like ours and we don’t always understand them. And in this realization we also see that while we impose our cultural ideals on others, these other cultures start inspiring and changing our ideals. For some this shift feels not like cultural evolution but rather dilution. And basing their actions on those of their leaders they turn to violence to impose their own interpretations of freedom, democracy, right and wrong on their fellow castle dwellers under the auspice of protecting their own cultural ideals.

It is time we burn down our castle in the sky and face reality

It is time we burn down our castle in the sky and face reality. Our western society is not the pinnacle of cultural evolution – it is but one of many branches on the tree of civilization. And it is only through this realization and the acceptance of our pluralistic society we can move forward. If we don’t, Breivik may indeed turn out to have fired the first salvo in a new world war, though not the war he imagined. If we don’t face reality now, the fascist cultural elitist ideals fronted by Breivik and supported by thousands will continue to fester, eventually infecting our society and plunging us into a new dark age of dictatorial tyranny.

When the trial begins on April 16th, remember this: We are not out to place blame nor seek revenge. The terrorist was caught, we know what he did and we feel the consequences of his actions. What we need now, what this trial is about, is to understand why Breivik thinks what he did was warranted and what we as a society can do to help those like him that only through participation in the democratic process can true change for the betterment of everyone be achieved.

As humans we fear what we do not understand. Knowing this we must reach out and learn to communicate and understand each other. Only through communication and understanding can we build a truly multicultural society. And only through communication and understanding can we help the Breiviks, the Bin Ladens, the Hitlers of our time come to grips with reality and learn that despite cultural and ethnic differences, we are all equal.

Selling the message: How to get from Occupation to Social Change by Morten Rand-Hendriksen

The world is facing both a financial collapse rivalling that of the Great Depression and political upheaval akin to the riots of 1968. In this turbulent environment it is imperative that those wanting to enact change upon the world learn from the past and adopt policies that move us forward, both in their actual policies and how they approach change.

The biggest danger facing a movement like #occupy or the many uprisings in the Arab world is that rather than changing the world for the better they are just replacing one oppressive system for another. Political change should never happen through force of one group against another but rather consensus and pragmatic discussion. We have an opportunity here to do something together to make a more viable future for everyone. But that requires that everyone participate, whether they are the 99%, the 1% or somewhere in between.

In an earlier part of my life I was a politician. I had ideas, ideals and a strong will to enact social change on my community, my country and the world. And to some small extent I like to think I did. But more importantly my time as a politician taught me some hard lessons about how the world works and how to go about enacting change in the world. And though frustrating, ideologically challenging and often counter-intuitive, these lessons should be the very corner stone of any social movement wanting to make a difference in the world.

They are:

Work from Within
Speak the Language of Your Oppressor
Know that Your Views are Extreme
Strong leadership is vital
Create a political platform
Be pragmatic and think long term

Just before I continue I must warn you what I am about to say will probably make you angry. That’s part of the problem, and can also be part of the solution.

Lesson 1: Work from within

The first and most important lesson is the one hardest to swallow: If you want to make a fundamental change to a system you have to work from within that system and make the changes using its own methods and procedures. This is usually contrary both to the agenda of social movements and also to their premise. Even so it is the hard and honest truth. Save for armed revolt or intentional widespread sabotage this is the only way of enacting large scale systemic change.

To use the #occupy movement as an example: If you want to change laws governing banks, corporations or even electoral systems you must first be in a position to make changes to those laws. This can be done either by electing officials who are willing and able to make these changes or by working your way into the system so you can make those changes yourself. Simply saying the system is flawed and demanding a change will do nothing unless you also have the power to enact this change. This is of course problematic if the root of your complaint is the political system itself, but the cure is the same: If you don’t like the current political system, you must either team up with current politicians or become a politician yourself so you can make the changes necessary.

Call to action: Vote in general elections, vote for the people who share your beliefs, join a political party, set the agenda for your political party.

Lesson 2: Speak the language of your oppressor

This lesson comes from basic marketing: If you want someone to change their mind about something they have to first understand what you’re saying. And I’m not talking about English here; I’m talking about ensuring you are actually talking about the same thing. One of the key problems of radical social movements is that they use language that either doesn’t resonate with or register at all in the minds of their target audience.

A good example of this (and one I get in trouble for bringing up) is feminism. I am a feminist myself (and yes, I’m a guy) but even I have a hard time accepting the vitriolic polemic presented by many in the feminist movement. The reason is much of what is said is rooted in anger, bitterness and all out attacks on “the other”. This creates a chasm between the oppressed (women) and their oppressor (men) and makes it hard for the oppressor to cross over and see the world from the oppressed point of view. The key to winning the war on gender inequality lies in making men see and understand the world from women’s perspective. Only when the oppressor empathises with the one he oppresses can he see his own faults. But this requires that the feminist movement speaks the language of their oppressors and meets them at their level. And that goes against the very nature of the movement, and most movements, which states that the oppressor should understand that they are in the wrong because they are in the wrong.

If you were selling a product this would be crystal clear: To make people feel they have to by the latest and greatest you have to speak their language. The same is true for social movements: Unless you communicate your message in a way your target audience – the people who are doing you wrong – understand, they won’t buy it and they’ll simply ignore you.

Call to Action: Learn the language of your oppressor, speak to them on their terms, use their own language, methods and data to make them empathise with your cause and see that they are the cause of your problems.

Lesson 3: Know that your views are extreme

Social movements almost always hold extreme ideals, largely because it is the people with the most extreme views that feel the most left out and thus feel the strongest need to be heard. This is why terms like “the lunatic fringe” and “the loudest voice in the room” are often attributed to social movements as a reason to ignore them. But even if the social movement itself is extreme, many people will sympathise with most of what the movement has to say, just in a less extreme way. Therein lies the problem:

If a social movement insists on being extreme and ignores more moderate views and approaches it will invariably alienate the large group of people who agree and sympathise with the overall message. As a result the movement will be marginalized because it is not willing to make concessions and the message is never taken seriously.

The only way to ensure wide spread support is to adopt a moderate version of the general ideals of the movement. By taking the moderate route you ensure that a larger group of people will want to join and you keep the overall goal of social change in focus. This usually results in the most extreme end of the spectrum cutting lose and starting its own group denouncing the main group as traitorous. Be that as it may: The end result will be a social movement with clout that people can actually identify with. The bottom line is simple: If you are too extreme, only people who are just as extreme as you will join. And most people are not extreme.

Call to Action: Imagine a scale from 1 (not extreme) to 100 (absolute extreme) and plant your policies somewhere between the 65 and 85 mark, ensure that the leadership of the group is not dominated by extreme elements on one end or the other, include the extreme elements but only as a minority, pursue a moderate message at all times.

Lesson 4: Strong leadership is vital

This is another difficult lesson, especially for left wing movements: Without strong and cohesive leadership your group is doomed to failure. The reasons are many:

The movement must have a clear voice – and that voice can only be communicated by a leadership group. If there is no leadership media and others will ask the general population of the group for information and that information will invariably be diluted and incorrect. A clear and concise message communicated by leaders is paramount.
Without leadership it will be impossible to formulate a goal and move towards it because fractions and individuals will adopt their own special version of the overall goal and pursue it instead.
People need someone to look up to. Without a charismatic leader that people trust and look up to the group will not have a focus and will start breaking into fractions.
Leaders are accountable. A group without a leader is hard to address, and internally it is impossible to decide who makes decisions and who is accountable when something doesn’t go according to plan. A democratically elected leader can both ensure that the movement as a whole moves towards their common objective and be held accountable when things don’t go the right way.

The problem with social movements, and left leaning social movements in particular, is that they tend to see leadership as a pathway to corruption. This is often a key part of their gripe as is the case with the #occupy movement. The goal of the group is therefore often a move towards absolute or direct democracy. Though this looks good on paper it is a recipe for disaster. Absolute democracy – where everyone votes on everything and there is no leadership – is doomed to failure even in small groups because not every member has the time, capacity nor knowledge to make an informed decision on everything. Furthermore the group will be faced with countless decisions that have to be made on the fly, something that is impossible to do if everyone is to be consulted.

The only way to ensure that the group remains cohesive and moves towards its stated goal is to create a democratically elected leadership committee that is left in charge. This committee has to have a platform on which to base its decisions (lesson 5) and must be held accountable to that platform. To ensure accountability remains the group should introduce set election periods at which time the entire committee is dissolved and re-elected.

Call to Action: Hold elections for a leadership committee, set down firm election periods, hold leadership accountable through elections.

Lesson 5: Create a political platform

For the movement to have an impact clear goals must be formulated and acted on. Only with clear goals in the form of a political platform can a plan be created on how to enact the change demanded by the group. Once a political platform is created outsiders can see what the group is about and decide to join and outside elements like other political organizations, the media and others can get a firm understanding of what the group wants and whether or not its goals are acceptable and something that should be supported. In addition, with a political platform as a base the movement can hold their leaders accountable and individual members of the movement can refer to the platform when in doubt about what to do next.

The creation of a political platform is generally done at a general assembly. The overall process is as follows:

Everyone proposes policies
Policies are grouped into defined sub-sections
Committees are democratically elected to deal with defined sub-sections
Committees look over all proposals in their section and conform them into a set of proposals
All proposals are taken to a vote on an individual basis by the general assembly
Political platform is defined based on proposals that are voted in

The movement can decide how often to revise their political platform. This should be done on a time basis (every 6 months, every year etc) to give the elected leadership committee time to enact the policies.

Call to Action: Hold general assembly, open the floor for policy proposals, create sub-committees to organize proposals, vote on individual proposals and political platform.

Lesson 6: Be pragmatic and think long term

The final lesson is both obvious and infuriating: If you want to enact large scale social change you need to be pragmatic and think long term. Unless you are planning an armed uprising things will not happen over night, nor should they. Rapidly implemented social restructuring always ends in chaos.

When I say “be pragmatic” I mean that you have to accept that the general population needs time to understand your demands, think about how they will affect their lives and decide whether or not they support them. You also have to take a step back and turn a critical eye to your own demands to see if they are reasonable or if you are demanding too much. Finally you have to seek consensus with your opponents and aim for acceptable compromises. This is hard to do when you have set ideas about how things should be, but getting 50% there is better than getting nowhere.

This links directly to the thinking long term part: If you have a pragmatic long term approach and seek consensus along the way you are more likely to succeed in implementing your goals. But more importantly you’ll have a chance to test out your policies and see if they are really as great as you firs envisioned. The irrevocable truth about political revolutions is that they never end up the way originally intended because our ideals do not correspond with reality. And due to our lack of a crystal ball and a working time machine we can’t actually see the future result of political change. Slow steady change gives us a method for constant course correction and a better chance of getting things right.

Call to Action: Be critical of your own ideals, seek consensus, set out long term goals and stick to them.

Epilogue

We are all in this mess together, and it is only together we can change it for the better. Together is our only option.

#occupy posters for Canadian issues by Morten Rand-Hendriksen

#occupycanada The #Occupy movement is spreading, and with good reason. In the western world, and North America in particular, inequality is slowly becoming the norm. And nowhere more so than in the USA.
In my view the #Occupy movement is at its core about one thing: Democracy. And though the issues focused on may and should differ from country to country, the one persistent message is clear: Every man, woman and child has a voice and has an equal right to speak, be heard, and be part of society. The problem is that right now, especially in North America, only the rich and powerful get heard while the vast majority get overlooked or ignored.

Occupy Canada – issues for Canadians

One of the dangers of the #Occupy movement is that it may try to transplant issues from one country to another. This will not only erode the cause itself but make the movement seem ill informed. This is especially important as #Occupy events are ramping up in Canada. So if you plan on taking part in the events starting on October 15th in Canada, take up the cause of democratic issues we all face in Canada.

To help with this I’ve created three posters focusing on three important Canadian democratic issues: Electoral reform, control of telecommunications and cross-media ownership. I’ve also attached a short blurb about each of the issues so you can see why they matter and why you should make one of them (or all) your slogan as you #Occupy your city.

Proportional Representation Now!

Proportional representation now Canada has an electoral system that has been referred to as a “sham democracy”. The first-past-the-post system does not reflect the popular vote but stacks parliament based on artificial electoral districts and simple majority rules. The result is that parliamentary composition rarely reflects the popular vote.

Case in point, the current Harper government. Whereas the Conservatives have a Parliamentary majority of 54.2% they only got 39.6% of the popular vote. In other words, based on popular vote the Canadian government would be a coalition of the NDP, Liberals and the Bloc with the Conservatives as official opposition. So when Harper claims he has a “strong majority mandate” he is really talking about an artificially inflated mandate based on an antiquated and undemocratic electoral system. Needless to say something must be done about this.

The solution is some form of proportional representation, employed by most western nations in the world. This would ensure that the popular vote is represented in parliament.

Download the poster in PDF format. JPEG version on Flickr.

Reform the CRTC

Reform the CRTC The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ) is the government watchdog and regulatory body for all radio, television and telecommunications in Canada. In other words they are the ones that decide who and what can be aired or sent over the internet and by whom this information is carried. The CRTC regulates the four big Canadian telecoms (Shaw, Telus, Bell and Rogers) who collectively stand for nearly 100% of all broadcasting and telecommunications.

The problem with the CRTC is that unlike in other western countries (the USA excluded) their mandate does not include the Canadian people nor consumer rights. The job of the CRTC is to protect the big telecoms from each other. This becomes problematic when you learn that the board of the CRTC is stacked with former heads of the four big telecoms.

Because of the weird mandate of the CRTC the four big telecoms can agree among each other to ramp up prices, cut services and lock competition out as long as all of them agree. As a result you, the consumer, gets screwed ever time. Ever wonder why your cell phone bill or cable bill is so high or why you don’t have the same streaming video services they have in other countries? The CRTC is to blame.

To solve this and make the telecoms act fairly and treat consumers with respect the mandate of the CRTC must be reformed to include consumer rights.

Download the poster in PDF format. JPEG version on Flickr.

Cross Media Ownership Kills the Free Word

Cross-media ownership kills the free word On the topic of the four big telecoms, did you know that almost all Canadian broadcasters are owned by the same telecoms that provide the cable signal in your house? Or that most Canadian news outlets are owned by the same big corporations? In Vancouver, both the major news papers The Vancouver Sun and The Vancouver Province are owned by the same company.

The result of such cross-media ownership is that the free word is quashed in favour of corporate interests. When one or a few corporations control the media entirely, the corporate philosophies and political views become the predominant voice in the media landscape. This is further complicated when the broadcasters are owned by the same companies that bring the broadcast signal to your home.

The bottom line is that cross-media ownership results in censorship of opinion and the free word. You see the result in the USA, especially with FOX News, but also in general with the media blackout over the #Occupy movement. And Canada is just inches away from being in that same situation unless the Government starts cracking down on cross-media ownership and passes legislation to prevent it from spreading.

Download the poster in PDF format. JPEG version on Flickr.

Final words

If you’re going to one of the #Occupy protests keep this in mind: If you want someone to change their mind you have to make them understand your case first. If you just shout at them, or try to force them, you will get nowhere. Communication is the key to everything.

Last Friday … in Norway – My Op-Ed piece in the Vancouver Sun by Morten Rand-Hendriksen

This piece is no longer available in the Vancouver Sun archives and is therefore posted here instead.

Last Friday a terrorist tried to kill my friends. With a bomb placed outside their workplace he voiced his political dissent in the most cowardly of ways: Through violence. In the hours that followed I reached out over the Internet, through email, Facebook and Twitter, to make sure they were OK. And they were. By random chance, the luck of the draw, by the tiniest of margins. One was on holiday. Another had gone home early. The third met a mutual friend in front of the building at 3:16pm, only ten minutes before the bomb went off. They likely walked right past the terrorist. In an email to me later, one of them writes “It’s strange to think how close I was to waiting a bit longer.” The bomb went off as they turned the corner a block away, killing 8 and wounding many more. The time was 3:26pm.

Last Friday a terrorist killed our future leaders. Dressed like a police officer he landed on Utøya and opened fire on a crowd of political youth gathered to shape the future of their country. As the kids fled in horror, jumping into the freezing lake, hiding behind rocks and trees, shielding themselves under dead bodies, the terrorist laughed and shouted: “I’m going to kill you all.” Of the more than 650 youth that arrived on the island days before, 68 lost their lives to explosive ammunition and violent hatred.

Last Friday a terrorist took the innocence of my homeland. Armed with weapons, explosives and a political ideology fueled by vitriolic polemic on the Internet, he fired the first shots in an imagined civil war, pitting the “pure Europe” against an “invasion” of “Islamists” and “multiculturalists.” His carefully selected target was Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) and their youth branch AUF. His goal, expressed in a chilling 1500 page manifesto, to “choke” new recruitment and derail the democratic process. In the wake of his attacks, Norwegian political parties have seen a sharp rise in new memberships.

Last Friday a terrorist committed the worst acts of violence in Norway since World War II. And he did so in his own country, against his own people. Not because he was marginalized. Not because he was crazy. He did it because his right-wing fascist ideology, one supported by a large number of people around the world, imagines the western world under attack from Islam, from other cultures, from politicians wanting to bring forth a “new multicultural World Order.” And though most of his ideological brethren would never condone his atrocities, they are ready to support his hateful beliefs.

On Monday the Norwegian people answered the terrorist in the only way they could: By coming together and raising roses to the sky in memory of those slain, in support of the injured, in respect for their families, and in hope for a better future. In their silent vigil, the world saw verification of the words of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg: “Our answer is more democracy, more openness, more humanity.”

Today I ask myself: Do I hate him? The terrorist that hates me, my friends, my views and my country so much? The answer is no. I don’t hate him. I pity him.

I pity him for not understanding the democratic process. I pity him for not seeing the value in a multicultural society. I pity him for his lack of understanding of the human condition.

I pity those who see his political views and ideals as valid. They have surely lost their way and we must help them back on the path of humanity.

I pity those who undermine political discourse, turning to personal attacks, hate speech and ridicule to quash their opposition. Attacking opposing views with hate and vitriol is not debate: it is cowardice.

Today we are faced with a grim reality. Our preconceptions about who commits evil in the world have been proven wrong. Our hate-filled discourse on the Internet has created a monster. Our Global Village is being ripped apart by our fear of “the other,” our misconceptions, our ignorance and our self-righteous beliefs.

It is time to stop, to take stock. It is time to stand together, to raise our own roses to the sky and send a message to those that incite division, hatred, violence and terror. The message: Together is our only option.

Your Questions Answered: Q&A about Norway by Morten Rand-Hendriksen

Moved from Design is Philosophy on April 25, 2012.

Watching online and international news coverage since the terrorist attacks in Norway on July 22nd it has become abundantly clear to me that people outside of Norway are having a hard time understanding our culture, our history and most importantly right now our reaction to what has taken place. I’m not particularly surprised by this – for outsiders, and especially North Americans – Norway must seem like a bizarre country where everything is turned on its head. And in many ways it is. Our culture, our politics and our attitudes towards social and political issues are fundamentally different to those of our fellow people on the other side of the Atlantic.

There is also a serious problem with translation. Norwegian is a notoriously complicated language with many dialects and two official and very different written languages. It is also a language that relies heavily on reference. Many words and sentences taken out of context lose their meaning completely and auto translation solutions like Google Translate often have a hard time making heads or tails of them. In addition there is a cultural translation barrier. Many words, when translated, turn into words with a different reference. And when that happens meaning is lost.

In an effort to help non-norwegians understand what is happening over there in my home country I will answer questions and find reference materials and links for anyone interested right here on this site. If you have a question, if you are looking for information or if you are confused about something, leave a comment below and I will make every effort to answer you. I’ll post all the questions and answers in this post as a running log so come back as it gets updated. I’ll also do the same for all questions asked through social media including Twitter (@mor10), Facebook and Google+ (gplus.to/morten). You can also send me a question directly through the contact form.

*Updated from the top*

Q: Do you think he wrote his “manifesto” himself? Is Roid Rage being talked about in the Norwegian press at all?

A: From reports it sounds like the manifesto is a patchwork of different content. In the preface he also says something to that effect. It is heavily littered with quotations from published authors and bloggers, some of it cut and paste, some in edited format. There is also a section, referred to as a “diary” that is clearly his own work. The last entry there is on July 22nd a few hours before the attacks. Some experts have said it is impossible that he could have written it all himself but I think it is the work of one person. As for roid rage there hasn’t been too much talk about it. Though he did take steroids he doesn’t look big enough to have gotten to that stage IMHO.

Q: What kind of camp took place on Utøya exactly?

A: The AUF summer camp is not a camp in the sense that most North Americans think of camps. It is a gathering of the regional members of the AUF (youth branch of the Norwegian Labour Party) to discuss and formulate policies. It is not as some have suggested an indoctrination camp run by the Labour Party to fill young minds with political propaganda. The Utøya camp is run by and for the members of the AUF and the AUF actually owns the island. A point of interest: Many of the policies and opinions held by the AUF and its members do not correspond to those of the parent Labour Party. There are often quarrels between the two and the AUF in general tends to be more radical and left wing than the Labour Party.

Questions by Cord Jefferson in preparation for his excellent article Why the Norway Shooter May End Up Serving a Life Sentence:

Q: As I understand it, Norwegian law says that nobody, regardless of crime, will be sentenced to longer than 21 years in prison

A: “Life in prison” in Norway is 21 years with a possibility of parole after half the sentence is served. However there is a discussion taking place that the terrorist will be tried for Crimes Against Humanity, paragraph 102, for which the maximum sentence is 30 years in jail. If he receives this maximum sentence he will be released after 30 years unless something changes.

An alternative is to send him into what is called “forvaring” or “containment”. This has a maximum length of 10 years but after this the courts can extend the containment in 5 year increments indefinitely.

The one thing that is a certainty is that there will be no reintroduction of the death penalty. Norwegians don’t consider the death penalty an actual penalty.

Q: Are you comfortable with the idea the perpetrator might only receive 21 years, or would you like to see something more severe? What is justice to you?

A: I am a strong believer in the Norwegian legal and penal system. The system focuses on rehabilitation and restoration, not just punishment and retaliation. Many a murderer has served his or her sentence and is now free to roam and contribute to society. And in all but the most unusual cases these people get on with their lives and are not a continuing problem. In an extreme case like this however I don’t see a future in which the legal system will let the accused out. I imagine they will find some way of keeping him locked up indefinitely under the current legal statute.

Am I satisfied with this? Assuming he is held until the end of his life at age 80, yes. This guy should be made an example of. He should sit in jail, preferably in solitude, and serve as proof that even though he committed the worst crime against the country since World War II, and even though he treated his victims inhumanely, we, the society, will still treat him as a human being. He should be held without visitation rights, without access to news, letters or anything else from the outside. He should be left to spend the next 40 years contemplating the fact that his actions didn’t lead to the outcome he wanted.

I think in all of this the key is that last sentence. We, as a society, have to make sure the acts of this man do not produce the results he was looking for. And to do that we need to treat him as the cowardly criminal he is: with humanity. I pity him for his lack of understanding of the human condition.

Together is our Only Option by Morten Rand-Hendriksen

Moved from Design is Philosophy on April 25, 2012.

When 600 young minds gathered on an idyllic island to form policies and opinions about the future, their own and that of their country, the last thing on their minds was that that future would hold a rain of bullets, devastation, and death. In a short few hours in the late afternoon on a lazy summer Friday their world, and the world as a whole, changed forever. Lives were lost. Innocence was lost. The very fabric of reality seemed to tear, showing a glimpse of a harder, more brutal existence. One in which we fear our neighbours for what they might do to us. One where communities were built to protect us from “the other”. One in which force and violence was the only solution. The world of Hobbes, of Nietzsche, of the individual, alone in the masses.Only the tear was permanent. Burned into facades of buildings by a massive explosion. Ripped into the bodies of the next generation by bullets. Forever imprinted on our retinas as we watched in horrified disbelief.

Is this the world we live in?
Can this really happen?
This cannot happen.
This will not happen.

While the families of the countless victims of the worst terrorist attack in the history of Norway try to cope with their loss it is up to us to take stock. What is this world we live in where people kill? What have we become that makes us capable of such atrocities? What has our society become that the massacre of human lives seems just in the pursuit of an ideological goal?

We have lost our way. Not from God or Allah or Marx or Rand. We have lost our way from humanity. We have forgotten who we are and what we can do. We, the people, the only people, have the capacity for greatness. Yet we resort to petty quarrels over ideology, territory and possession. We have become greedy. Self righteous. Self absorbed. We have lost our way.

I am drawing a line in the sand. And I hope you will stand with me. This ends now.

From this day forth I will do my part to make things better, to make us better. I will speak up against violence. I will speak up against oppression. I will speak up against injustice. I will speak up against indifference. And I will speak up against those who use division and antagonism to pit one against the other, that use words like “us” and “them”, who draw the world in black and white. And I will help them see that division makes us half of a whole. That we are all in this together. No situation has a single cause and no cause has a single effect. In all our actions, no matter how small, wel play our part. And if we all make that part a positive one, one without prejudice, ideology or personal gain, we will all be better for it.

This is not a political manifesto, not a religious doctrine, not a moral dogma. This is humanity, pure and simple: Race, colour or creed we are all sisters and brothers, born of our mothers. We are in this together and together we must make it work.

Together is our only option.