Dealing with the Lies of O’Reilly

Bill O’Reilly, the propagandaminister of,   …I mean the news correspondent of “The O’Reilly Factor” on FOX News, was commenting on the Oslo Bombing and Utøya Massacre this monday. His view of the situation was that this was the act of a total nut, and had nothing to do with Christian fundamentalism whatsoever. The impressive act of propaganda can be watched here:

Getting seriously nauseous by his “analysis”, I decided that I would pick it apart the hard way. Word for word. After all, an old Norwegian saying states that “Trolls crack in the sunlight”, meaning that we should delve deeper into the things that disturb us. So here it is. Enjoy. O’Reilly’s statements are in bold.

1. «Breivik is not a Christian. That’s impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder.»


My response: Delusional Christians have committed mass murder in numerous occassions. Everything from the Crusades during the medieval times, the Inquisition, as well as in modern times: The Srebrenica massacre, the pogroms under the Russian Empire, and so on with numerous wars in both the Middle East, in Africa and to some extent in Europe.


2. «He may have called himself that on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith. Also he is not a member of any church.»


My response: I really don’t see any significant difference between calling yourself religious, and being religious. And Breivik was a member of the Norwegian State Church, he had voted in several Church elections, always for the most conservative candidates. I quote his personal statements from the debate site


I myself am a protestant, and was voluntarily baptised when I was 15.

But todays protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans marching for Palestine, and churches resembling minimalistic shopping malls. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion from the protestant church back to the catholic. In the mean time, I vote for the most conservative candidates under church elections.

The only thing that can save the protestant church is to go back to basics.

Translated to english by myself.


3. «Once again we can find no evidence that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.»

As stated above, Breivik was of firmly Christian belief. In his 1500 page manifesto, he states that he himself is the first soldier of a new European Christian Order to drive back the muslims in Europe. Like the Knights Templar. For more information on that point of belief, read his manifesto, or watch the youtube video summarizing the manifesto (this specific video probably won’t be out for long though, just go to youtube and search for ‘2083 manifesto’ instead).

4. «So why was is the angle being played up? […..] The Left want you to believe that fundamental christians are a threat, just like crazy Jihadists.»

And they are. Fundamental Christians have stood behind numerous terrorist attacks in the past, and Fundamentalist politicians remain a pain to the free democracy with their conviction that they are right because «God says so».

5. «In fact, in the NY Times of today, an analysis shows that some say that we have overreacted to the Muslim threat in the world. Of course that is absurd. Jihadists have killed tens of thousands of people all over the world…»

I don’t know where O’Reilly gets his numbers, but atleast we can try to estimate how many civillian casualties the «War On Terror» has caused. In the World Report for 2011 published by Human Rights Watch, they report that cvillian deaths in 2010 have risen by 10 percent compared to 2009, mostly due to the insurgents striking more often and heavier than before. It is clear that the Afghanistan Operation is not going as planned.  A total number of civillian casualties in Afghanistan is hard to find, maybe because there is no definite line between insurgents and civillians? In Iraq, reported civillian casualties due to the war is over 100,000, according to The tightening of security in Western countries after 9/11 have led to quite a loss of personal liberties. I don’t know by people like O’Reilly, but in my head, that is a clear overreaction to the Muslim threat, and some more.
6. «The Left wing press wants to compare nuts like Breivik and McVeigh to state-sponsored terrorism, and worldwide Jihad.»

….I don’t know what to say. Yes, we should take terrorism for what it is, whether it comes from jihadists, or christian fundamentalistic nationalists. Both ideologies are dangerous, and should be treated as such. But there is no “Left Wing” conspiracy to make this tragedy a religious matter. To suppose that there is such a conspiracy, is a serious accusation.

7. «The second reason Liberal media is pushing the Christian «ail», is that they don’t like us Christians much. We are too judgemental. Many Christians oppose abortion, gay marriage and legalised narcotics. Secular Left causes. The media understands the opposition is often based on religion. So they want to diminish Christianity, and highlighting so called «Christian based Terror», is a way to do that.»

This has nothing to do with politically biased media. If anything, then many people in Norway, as well as journalists, were assuming this was an attack by Jihadists, before they knew better. I remember one of my friends stated on facebook right after the bomb exploded, that he thought he could smell the «mulla» in the smoke, and gathered a lot of «likes» from that comment. They have later learned from these mistakes. Anders Behring Breivik’s attack, and gruesome onslaughter of politically active youth, was a reaction to what he thought was an Islamic siege of Europe, and an abolition of Christian values in Norway. Suggesting that this a political campaign for «Secular Left» causes, is an insult to us Norwegians.
8. «The primary threat to this world comes from Islamic Terrorism.»

No, it comes from people like you O’Reilly. People in power who twist and contort the truth so it serves them best. People who themselves are afraid of multiculturalism, so they do their best to make others afraid of this aswell. People who’s primary job is to spread fear. You are such a Propagandaminister, O’Reilly. Even Joseph Goebbels would be proud.


Why I joined the Greens

If everyone seeks the same direction, and that direction proves to be the wrong way, then the whole flock might easily meet its destruction.

-Fridtjof Nansen (translated)

Ever since I began volunteering for the Norwegian Green Party (miljøpartiet de grønne), people have been facing me with accusations about my political views, sometimes even claiming that I’m some kind of political extremist, supporting crazy ideas and marginal thoughts. In a reality where mutual understanding is shattered by accusations and reason is lost, I shall try to provide a reason for my actions.

In short terms: My growing concern for the planet and society as a whole finally made a physical manifestation. I decided to act.

What are the problems we are facing as a community? If you’ve read my previous entries, you already have an understanding of my viewpoint. There is a big gap between our way of life, and the limits to what the ecosystems of the Earth can handle. That we even define ourselves as consumers, beings that consume resources, is a symptom of this disease. There are definite consequences to this way of life. During our lifetime, more species of animals and plants will face extinction than ever before in history. That the way society is developing, to lay claim to more and more of the Earth, is looked upon as “progress” by many people, appear to me as perversion.

The loss of life fills me with sadness. That my children might not experience the diversity of the forests that I experienced as a child, or breathe the same pure air, is to me a great distress. I do not think I’m the only one who shares this feeling, but this seems to be tabu in general discussion. Maybe people hide their fears for the planet, or live in denial, thinking: “It can’t be that bad.” All in all, very little is being done in public to meet our common problems.

When faced with the choice of protecting either the environment or the growing economy, politicians tend to say that they prioritize both, when in truth, they choose the latter. The reality is that we must downscale our rate of consumption, and therefore also the economy. During the financial crisis, when GDP actually dropped, emissions of CO2 went down, and less tropical forestland was desecrated. The drop in financial activity did actually something good for our planet. But what was the governments’ first reaction? “Consumption must rise!” Spending tax money on the banks, the machinery of society soon went back to business as usual, and emissions went back up.

It is clear that the system of economic growth is unsuitable to tackle the situation. At the same time, no one in the ‘left-to-right’ axis of traditional politics dares to question the model. Some, like the prime minister of Norway, believe in the dream that “technology will save us”, as if technology can bring the great rain forests back, or negate climate change. The real problem lies in our minds, that we see consumption as a way of life, that other lifeforms are just another commodity, ready to be made and paid for.

The fact that there is one political party in Norway that acknowledges that the economic system isn’t flawless, but that it in fact is bringing us closer to collapse by the day, led me to Miljøpartiet De Grønne. It is a small, but very diverse group of concerned individuals, some of whom are using all their resources (spare time, work hours, money, etc) to make a change in the stagnated political landscape. During the last three years, they have doubled their numbers many times, and have recently gone past Rødt (the socialists) in the polls. The coming election this fall might very well be their breakthrough in many Norwegian municipalities.

The solutions presented by the Greens aren’t perfect, but at least they have understood the problem, which is far more than one can say for most parties. These people acknowledge the fact that the well-being of human society depends on the well-being of nature, and that to ensure a prosperous future for both parts, a different approach to ‘growth’ is needed. I watch this movement grow with great pleasure, and try my best to do my part. Maybe I’ve become a damned tree hugger, but in a funny way that doesn’t feel bad at all.

Looking forward to my first attendance at MDG’s General Assembly in Trondheim this weekend!


Parkour as an alternative

David Belle once said something along the lines of “A good traceur trains until he/she gets it right. An excellent traceur trains until he/she cannot get it wrong.”

-excerpt from Urban dictionary

Modern society, with all its comforts, has made natural movement obsolete, and thus our bodies are falling into disuse. The symptoms are clear: health problems among both young and old have skyrocketed. And so fitness has become big business, with diets, pills and training programs generating huge profits every year, while advertising makes people more unhappy with their bodies. Seeing as health has become a commodity, something to pay for, the small discipline Parkour can represent something else.

What’s so special with Parkour, you ask. It’s an “underground” physical discipline, that basically has no rules. The only rules are that the landscapes of your surroundings is your playground, and that your goal is to navigate these landscapes as efficiently as possible, using only your body. Your body is a blank slate, and you must yourself decide how to train to acheive your goals.

My first encounter with the term parkour was in fall 2006, as my brother got back from California. He had “something wild” he wanted to show me. A youtube-video of a Russian boy running through industrial landscapes, scaling old communist blocks and making insane drops. He moved in a such a beautiful way, I didn’t even know it was possible to move like that. For a sixteen year-old boy who had given up regular sports a couple of years before, it was to discover the first steps of how to really move.

The first steps were perhaps the hardest. How does one learn an art, a craft, without a teacher, and no active milieu in my hometown for parkour? My brother provided me with hints and tips, as well as being my first parkour partner. Struggling to find good spots to practice (Norwegian suburbs are really boring), we found ourselves travelling to schools and kindergartens in order to find suitable terrain. The first years also involved a lot of conditioning, probably quite a lot compared to many other practitioners. Conditioning for parkour has since been a major part of my training.

Parkour has always been about self-improvement. To get better you have to work hard on your own. The aid of friends and fellow traceurs can only get you so far. In the end, the improvement you experience, the sense of mastering, is due to your own toil. A private project, of which the rewards are many. A functional body, a clear mind, and a calm spirit.

The attributes of an experienced traceur are different than those of most athletes. For one thing, a professional athlete is usually specialized in a few things. The runner has really good cardio, whereas the weight-lifter has specialized in “explosive” strength. An experienced traceur is specialized in being diverse. Fit for both running distances, jumping gaps with high precision, as well as scaling walls.

For the next, regular sports are subject to high competitiveness, with rivalry, drug use and overtraining as some of the side effects of the high pressure. More than once have I met youth who simply “weren’t good enough” to be included on their teams, and were cast out from their old sport. My hope is that parkour can be something different, that it can get people to enjoy physical activity without having to compete. When people compete, someone has to lose.

All this understates my impression of parkour as a project for the self. The discipline should be free from that clammy hand of competition which brings out the best in some, but also the worst in many. Parkour has the ability to make people look at their surroundings with new eyes, it connects them to the concrete-and-steel environment of our time, but also to the savanna of the ancient runners. It is a natural way to experience one’s surroundings.

Introduction: The descent of a society

I can’t shake the feeling that I’m living during the peak of civilization. That, in a few years, things will unravel, and we find chaos where there now is order. Consequently, we might find order where there now is chaos. I shall explain this further.

Collapsing civilizations is nothing new to man. Just look at the Mayans, the Ananazi people (the Pueblo people), or the Romans. These were all advanced societies that, in some way, overstressed sustainable living, and succumbed. The Roman Empire, stretching from the Middle East to the British Isles, could not handle the internal destabilization of opposing politicians and masses of wandering peoples, combined with the invasion of the barbarians. The collapse of the Mayans during the 8th and 9th century, is a mystery, although it is commonly believed to be a result of ecological stress. Whatever the reason, their culture was advanced in both art and science, but to no good. Ananzi indians however, was most probably subject to hunger and plague, provoked by widespread deforestation.

All cultures were noted for excellence in mathematics, architecture and language. As they collapsed, the knowledge was for the most part lost. Every descent brought forth by great catastrophes. The catastrophes were often consequences of human behavior, such as deforestation, or groundwater pollution. And catastrophes often have mechanisms for positive feedback, so that when one dire situation is over, a new one, even more dire, emerges. Basic commodities, such as food and water, become scarce. When people starve, society unravels fast.

Interestingly, even though the globalized culture of the 21st century has knowledge of these downfalls, and of the actions that brought them forth, we still haven’t learned. Many crises are emerging on us now, although they aren’t visible to the general public. To act on them early might be of importance to the survival of civilization. But to identify the problems, I suggest we start with identifying a stable society.

A stable society is just what it sounds like. A society that isn’t under pressure from destructive forces externally or internally. It is not a culture where nothing happens, nothing is ever invented, or no changes are ever being made. It has to be dynamic, so that it can handle such challenges. But the way it exists must not threaten its existence. Cultures that depend on finite resources, are, in a way, a threat to themselves. But cultures that are imperialistic, or big weapon exporters, are also like this. Their existence is based on forcing others through violence, to serve them. If one thing is certain, it is that violence follows violence, and that they will succumb to others.

A stable society is part of a natural cycle where everything is constantly being torn down, and renewed. Garbage is just another resource, but if treated wrong, as in our culture, it will eventually strangle us.

This is the essence of the crises that the global Western culture is facing. Our economy is based on a yearly growth in resource consumption, mainly depending on energy resources that are finite (coal, oil an natural gas). These are soon going into depletion, but that is not the only problem.  The use of these resources is threatening the very ecosystem that us humans are a part of. Every previous society that has ever meddled with its ecosystem, is now gone.

The effects are becoming clearer every day. Climate change, loss of habitat, mass extinction of species. On the other side, our consumption is driving forth situations such as Peak Phosphorous and Peak Oil. The result is a food price that has never been higher*. This again is driving rebellions against bad leadership all over the world, such as the recent rebellions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

I expect the situation to only get worse in the coming years, eventually reaching the heart of the Western world, and changing our very culture. Hopefully to the better.

*FAOs statistics on food prices: