Miss Kolka

Back on track. In the time that has passed since my last visit I haven't been without thoughts. It's just that I have internalized them and then shared with my friends and families instead of writing to some anonymous clicks on the big wide web. Testing theories is tiresome, but rewarding, I was surprised and sometimes disappointed by the input of others but the interaction almost always got me to think.  Most often I took more from the discussion than I had initially brought to it. And lived many "aha moments".

I also know this is only the beginning. In a way this theory making/testing/gathering or whatever you want to call it, helps me to feel active and committed. But it also crowds my head and then it is time for a short break, a self-imposed news blackout, resisting the urge to take up the phone/book /newspaper in the train or skip the music during the bike ride. But it is not that simple. Emptying my head is often the biggest challenge. I hear people recommend meditation. Ultimately not thinking is as good as overthinking. And let things come your way when they happen. I like this anectdote from Hillary Clinton on what made her run for the U.S senate in 2000: be open to your surroundings and when those aha moments make you feel something, act on it. 

"It was an incredibly difficult decision, and I needed a push. Fortunately, I got one. In March of that year, I went to New York City to join Billie Jean King at an event . . . We gathered at a local school, joined by dozens of young women athletes, all of us assembled on a stage beneath a giant banner that read dare to compete, the title of the film. A young woman named Sofia Totti, the captain of the girls’ basketball team at the school, introduced me.

And then something unexpected happened. As I approached the microphone to say a few words about the importance of giving girls every opportunity to grow and reach their potential, Sofia grabbed my hand and whispered in my ear: “Dare to compete, Mrs. Clinton,” she said. “Dare to compete.”"

That news blackout didn't last long. (first of all my phone keeps sending me Le Monde updates about the stockmarkets, not once a day but 6 times a day! Every bloody time a market opens or closes, whether they are low, high or haven't changed, Le Monde considers this the only breaking news worthy of sending push notifications for) Grrrreat. Not that there is anything happening in other areas... or is there?

No matter how much I tried to block out news from London by not logging into news sites, not watching tv news, not listening to the radio or even (yes EVEN) having a facebook blackout, I couldn't help but notice that there are very frustrated youths rioting in London.

People seem to have been cought by surprise (although when going back, there were predictions of Riots on the news by young people when several youth houses were closed down around the 29th of july "there will be riots, there will be riots"). I doubt the only reason people are rioting and more disturbingly looting shops, is because they don't have a hangout anymore. In the last few days, analysts and media have been trying to analyse the reasons behind this anger and the civil unrest that followed. Although it seems to be calming down, as ordinary citizens have taken to the streets to defend their neighbourhoods in the last couple of days, people would like to understand the underlying causes.

What are the reasons? Do the looters have a cause? Or are these just opportunistic brats who take advantage of the situation to get free phones and a new pair of jeans? Could it be that the anger is caused by the feeling that there is no hope for a brighter future? And what is the role of the media in all this?

As mentioned by the excellent Jon snow on the snowblog, the hope doesnt seem to be delivered by the politicians to the those in need of it. In Britain, like in other western countries, the gap between the rich and the poor has just been getting bigger and expecations get more and more unrealistic. People are bombarded with images of "succesful" people, of celebrities with incredible wealth and the idea that money is the most important thing in your life, so when they are reminded everyday they do not have any money or any prospect of getting out of a difficult situation, the level of frustration might rise considerably. That is no reason to go and loot or get violent you might say. But add to that racial discrimination, poor job projects and cuts in public spending and you might get an explosive situation.

There are also other questions.
Is the quest for ever faster News and information on the go contributing to this environment? News news news. Updates and endless debates (if you can call 2:30 min section a debate)  and everybody has to make sure to say something else than half an hour ago when they last were on air.  Should the Media be more careful in covering the news? Because it could well be that the coverage of the first night of riots might have added fuel to the fire for subsequent days.  Perhaps breaking news for the sake of updating the page/the bulletin is not always the way to go forward.

Should all this focus be on money (eternal news on rising/crashing stocks, the worship of business and approbation of wealthy celebrities, no matter what they do)? Is it healthy, as most of us will never attend that ceiling and that many are struggling to even make end meets, to always expect or strive for something that you cannot have? (And let's not even touch on the issue of single parents, that I admire for their tenacity in this messed up world- it seems almost impossible to live without two incomes to support a family)

I heard a good explanation the other day of why the Danish are called the happiest people on earth in recent polls. It's not that everything is much better here than elsewhere, it is perhaps due to less expectations. Maybe the Danes are better than the rest to enjoy what they have and not focus on unattainable things. It does'nt mean all is rozy here. for one, I have to start looking for a new job as my contract is coming to an end, and the job prospects are not promising on the job market right now.

But no worries, it doesn't mean Im going to loot my favourite dress shop. I'll just wait for success like anybody else, being a good girl and do as I am told. 

The news keep telling us it's serious this time. The 2008 crisis was nothing in comparison to the financial hurricane that is coming our way. We need to brace ourselves because its gonna hurt this time. Less jobs in the European Union (just what we needed), the stockmarkets unstable and we might have to pump more money into the banks. Its looking grimm but still they expect us to keep spending. I say, lets grow up, pay our debts and stop living on an economy where the guessing game is so 20's and irresponsible and that doesnt produce any products (other than golden parachutes for the few).  Shouldn't the economy be based on real products and what we actually are producing instead of being about speculations, air and people with money that will only make more money out of money - only for themselves? We should all benefit from the fruits of our work. In the meantime, Im not going to read the news for a while. Life is too fun to spend it in worry.

p.s. Blogging on the phone still isn't all that. Are we saying Miss will need an ipad to be able to blog more often?

One of the best lines in a book I have been reading recently:

"Even in the worst tragedies and crisis, there's no reason to add to everyone's misery by looking miserable yourself. That's my philosophy. This is why I always wore makeup and jewelry into the jungle, nothing too extravagant, but maybe just a nice gold bracelet and some earrings, a little lipstick, good perfume. Just enough to show I still had my self-respect."

I agree one hundred percent. Its not about looking smart, its about the greater good.

I know my friend Thomas would understand.

The media are saturated with news of the terror attacks in Norway. How do you try to understand the motives behind such atrocities without promoting or giving an outlet to the propaganda of the terrorist?

And Yes I do think it's fitting to call him a terrorist. This was a terrorist attack, made with political purpose to terrorise people, with the aim of acheiving societal change. A man setting off a powerful bomb in the center of Oslo then drives an hour away to a little Island to execute teenagers in a political summer camp with cold blood. The terrorist might have been a right-wing extremist but he is a terrorist none the same. The reluctance of the world's media to aknowledge this fact is beyond me. Even authorities in Norway hesitated using the word as they said at first they could not say wether this was a "terrorist attack" or not. It was. And as far as we can see, there were no muslims involved, but a violent muslimhater (and womenhater for that matter) born and raised with Scandinavian values. Muslims are not synonymous with terrorism. And the insistance of the media  to blame muslims for violent attacks is not acceptable.

How do we discuss this rationally (it is impossible not to empathize with the Norwegian people, still in shock) without doing exactly what he expects us to, promote his ideals and beliefs?  

We want to understand how such a tragedy can happen, how it can be planned and executed by someone seemingly like us, living by society's rules without attracting specific attention to himself, planning for years to kill people and executing it right in front of our eyes or rather, right in front of our screens. (The teenagers twitted as they were under attack, asked through their facebook profiles not to be contacted on their phones as this would give away their hiding spots and the rumours took off as the shooting took place, although many of the first details to emerge on the internet turned out to be correct : "he is nordic, blonde, speaks norwegian", "a man in a police uniform is shooting us".  There were other stories such as the one about the workers' youth league (AUF, Arbeidaranes Ungdomsfylking) chairman being rushed off the Island by two bodyguards just as the shooting began that seem to have been incorrect). 

The images of the shooter in action are also terryfying and you find yourself asking the question "How can they capture a picture like this and not shoot down the gunman?" or "why did it take an hour from the call being made to police before they got on the Island and arrested him?". The police has said their helicopters are not equipped to transport personnel and a specific armed force was needed from Oslo so local police was asked to wait for their arrival. The air footage could be from observational helicopters, even news helicopters that might have been airborn due to the bomb explosion earlier that day. It just seems crazy that we could almost follow a massacre live on a screen and still not do anything about it. The manifest posted a few hours earlier online by the shooter where he explains his motives and details his planning is also peculiar. A 1500 page Manifest, with it seems some chapters copied entirely after the Unabomber of the "rational" behind this event seems a perfect way to make sure his beliefs are circulated. The Shooter (and I won't name him as I do not think he deserves to be remembered by name) sees his trial as a perfect platform to make his ideas known to the world (and hence his demand for an open trial) in the hope the world's media will glorify him.  And it is precisly what the terrorist has planned, for us to discuss his work and ultimately realize what is wrong with our society, through him, and the images he himself has chosen for this purpose, so he acheives some kind of recognition.

It is difficult to discuss the ideology (if there is any) behind a terror attack or reasons a person would act like this. Haukur Már Helgason has attempted to dissect some ideas reflected in the manifest on his blog "Bíddu aðeins". It is in Icelandic (maybe we can hope for an english translation soon), but it takes many paragraphs from the manifesto and discusses its ideas. It seems from this reading that the terrorist is extremely bothered by multiculturalism, modernity but mostly feminism. He has such hatred for women (disguised in some praise for those who look attractive enough to bear children of worthy men like himself) that more questions could be asked about his personal background, specifically about his upbringing and family connections. His father has lived in France for a long time and according to his own account has not spoken to his son since 1995. Precisely. The son has lived with his mother for a long time it seems (was he raised by a single mother?) and just recently moved out, he was 32 years old. He seems specifically bothered by his women friends that are promiscuous and concerned about the lack of respect white males in the Northern hemisphere receive from their female counterparts, especially in comparision to other cultures (still he thinks muslims and other cultures, along with the EU are distroying Europe). This hatred for muslims and women is not only extremist, it must be personal. (It is too early to speculate about the family dynamics and anything I say is guess work but I think there is something there that must have contributed to so much anger, frustration and the lack of recognition in one individual. Some want to blame the mother (how very Freudian of them) but could it be that some lack of affection, from either parent, could have ignited the spark to hating the world?)  

These acts were for the terrorist not "plesant but necessary". I think it is a little bit too easy to say that- many want to change the political system but would never go to such lenghth as to shoot another person, or 70 other persons, young teenagers, down to 13-14 year old to make a point. Many would set a questionmark to killing children, and I am not saying it is better to kill adults or to make a bomb explode in a busy city center but to plan an attack on a tiny Island, where noone can escape, where teenagers are holding a summercamp, teenagers that many come from political families and could be argued are too young to have formed any political views for themselves, attacking them by dressing up as a police officer and then play on the trust people have to authorities, luring them from hiding just to shoot them multiple times is more than sick. It requires someone that has so much hatred and thirst for blood that there can not be anything political about it. Trying to dress it up with political ideology, even an ideology full of hatred towards people that are different from yourself (Women, people of other cultures or religions or even opinions) is not being intelligent. It's denying to see what you really are. You are not a visionary. You are not opening the eyes of anybody towards those ideas of yours. Your mission has failed and you are a nobody.

We should make sure not to give too much attention to the terrorist and instead hail the survivors and honor the memory of the fallen.

In the words of a surviving member of the AUF:

 ”Om én mann kan vise så mye hat, tenk hvor mye kjærlighet vi alle kan vise sammen.” 
("If one man can show so much hate, think how much love we can show all together.")

• Aha moments | 24-10-2011
• Rebels without a cause? | 11-08-2011
• It's serious! | 06-08-2011
• when quotes follow you into your day | 03-08-2011
• the fine line between information and propaganda | 25-07-2011
• is rape a rape only if the rapist is a rapist? | 22-05-2011
• Yes He is dead and No there is no virus | 02-05-2011
• Pretty things | 20-04-2011
• Design blogs | 20-04-2011
• Missing little boys | 04-04-2011
• I dream of chocolate and dresses - but not together | 15-03-2011
• Stars in their eyes | 09-03-2011
• Congratulations... | 08-03-2011
• Moving soon | 27-02-2011
• google-ing all the amazing links | 17-01-2011