Varg Vikernes’ view on the victims of Utøya

[nimekirjast999]

As you may know, this man is a controversial artist and intellectual of Norway. He has recently exposed his thoughts about the reflections of the Norwegian society on the absence of an effective reaction from the guys who were being assaulted by the killer in Utøya.
I’ve no special attraction for this person nor I consider him to be such a great thinker, but I find it interesting his critical opinion of what he perceives to be the Norwegian politics about education and work.
I see that northern users here are statistically relevant. There is also some Norwegian. Do you think there is something true in the analysis he offers? Anyone is obviously allowed to reply in accordance with their knowledge of the issue.

Some extract:
How can one single person armed with semi-automatic small arms walk freely about on a fairly small island and shoot his targets when he is outnumbered by about 700 to 1? He says himself that he was attacked only once during his more than an hour long expedition, by a single person whom he simply pushed away and shoot dead on the ground.
...

My first reaction to this was of course shame. How can my countrymen be so extremely coward and indeed helpless? What is wrong with them?
Sure, a few attackers would surely be killed if a group had attacked him, but he would have been overwhelmed in the end, and it would have ended his massacre.
Some of them stopped, resigned and just waited for him to shoot them. Others lay down covering their heads with their arms. Some begged for mercy. They were all executed by Mr. Breivik.

The social darwinist in me applaud this; cowards like that deserve to die! However, I think I understand why they reacted that way. You see, I too grew up in the "Social Democratic" (i. e. Marxist) Norway. So let me tell you a short story about this oh-so-blissful country of Norway.

...

Like almost all Norwegians I first met the true Norway in kindergarten; a children's prison with left-wing extremist feminist guards, indoctrinating their helpless victims with lie-propaganda and forcing the children to "share" and "be kind" to each other. No competition was allowed. No "winning" or indeed "losing" was allowed; everyone were supposed to always be equals in all and everything. No playing alone was allowed. You play with others kids (in communion) and sing happy extremist songs with the fanatic "prison guards".

In Marxist Norway everyone are "equals" and that means in practise that nobody are allowed to be any better than the slowest, dumbest and least skillful of them all! There are no seperate classes for good students, or even seperate classes for very bad students. They are instead all placed in the same classroom, because there are no "good" or "bad" students in Norway! They are all equals, and given equal opportunity they will all be the same... or at least that is what the Marxist extremists say.

When I started to skip classes in 8th grade, stopped doing homework, stopped paying any attention to what the teachers said and did other things in class instead and still managed to get good grades I realized that it was all a waste of my time. I gave up on the entire education system in Norway, and in the 9th grade I barely attended school at all, skipping classes 2/3 of the time.

I got myself a higher education years later, when I took senior high school exams, and later college exams, as a "private candidate", and of course this was no sweat either. I once just read through one single book once the day before the exam and got the best grade possible. I only bothered to do so because I was in prison, and this was a better alternative to prison work (i. e. do completely meaningless and tedious tasks in prison, like drilling holes in wooden boards the entire day). No education in Norway taught me anything; I regard myself as fully autodidact.

You can get a fancy degree in Norway with minimal effort, and all the way you will be followed by the dumbest, slowest and worst students. You see, they too are given the "equal opportunity" to get a fancy degree, and in order to make sure they too succeed the Marxists have removed all real challenges on the way. You can pass a course at the university in Norway by reading maybe three or four books. In my English course at the university in Tromsø I only had to translate four pages of text and attend lectures a once or twice each week to pass. I am not kidding!
The Norwegians don't know any better; they are proud when they get their degrees, thinking they are successful when they do, not knowing how difficult it would be to get the same degree in any other country in the world (Ghana included...).

After education they are just about all given a job. Norway is proud to be one of the countries in the world with the lowest unemployment rates! Wow! What a feat! Marxism must work then, right? Well, not exactly. The Soviet State of Norway has created an abnormal amount of what I call "artificial jobs", intended only to employ Norwegians and to keep the unemployment rates down. We have socionoms, sexologists, journalists en masse, social-anthropologists and so forth, all sent out to confirm the Marxist myths and to keep the Norwegian people in ignorance. Even the dumbest working-class girls have their fancy degrees and are now allowed to perform completely meaningless tasks professionally.

What happens then, to all Norwegians who work, is that the state takes most of the money they earn, in form of extremely high taxes (my father payed more than 60% taxes at one point in his career!). In return the state provides them with everything they need; roads, police, a fire department, hospitals and so forth. The welfare system takes care of everyone. You are poor? No problem, the state will help you! You are sick? No problem, the state will help you! You cannot read or write properly? No problem, the state will take care of you! You are depressed? No problem, the state will help (medicate) you! (You want to die? No! You are not allowed to; you belong to the state!) Your car has been stolen? No problem, the state will help you! The car was completely smashed by the car thief? No problem, the state will help you! You have children? No problem, the state will raise them for you! Your children are not Marxists? No problem, the state will indoctrinate them for you! And so forth. The state needs all those tax money because the state takes care of everything! And don't you dare do anything yourself!
...

Full article here:
http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/war_in_europe03.shtml

[Saim]

What odious bullshit.

Intellectual? Not running around with phrases like "Marxist Norway". And in terms of being a decent human being, "part of me is happy when innocent people die" has to be the pits.

"Full article here"? Nope, not interested.

[Ludwig Whitby]

What a plonker.

[Saim]

Haha, great word. I love UK slang.

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, right when a guy is shooting at you it is that you have time to decide that attacking him without sharing resposibility with others would be ideologicaly incorrect and out of line with any known marxist propoganda, not that fight or flight response kicks in and you choose to flee

[Jurgen Wullenwever]

...

That sounds very similar to Sweden, so the schools have gone down the drain there too, apparently.

[BlackZ]

The social darwinist in me applaud this; cowards like that deserve to die!

If you ask me what I would do in such a situation, I would most likely just throw myself in the floor and pretend I was dead (jeitinho brasileiro ftw!). This Varg Vikernes writes a lot about reacting, but I bet he never ever had a gun pointed at him. I seriously doubt he would react differently...

React against someone with a gun who's shooting randomly at everyone? Without a weapon?! This isn't courage. This is dumbness. The outcome of acting like this isn't that hard to predict...

Social darwinism is all about the "survival of the fittest", not the "survival of the strongest". If you fight your assassin and die, then you'll be doing it wrong... But if you can fool him, flee from him, or whatever, and survive then you are doing it right. Capisce?

[Saim]

That's a good point BlackZ. Social darwinism has very little to do with human solidarity.

[Ashkhan]

I read the entire article and I must say he has a point in a few cases, I can see some of the, so to speak, problems he describes in case of my homecountry's economical and social situation... However, his views on social structure are a bit too extreme, Social Darwinism are antiquated and no longer apply to modern societies (as if they ever did...). It's not a bad thing everyone gets an equal chance, but:
1. Such chance should be given to allow one to rivalise with the others
2. Too many get their chances and waste them
But that's the subject of a way different debate.

[Ludwig Whitby]

What points? I don't think that any of his points stand. Norway has enough oil-money to live off for centuries to come and its inhabitants don't need to try hard, so why should they? He says

Reality had in Norway been replaced by some sort of "Social Democratic reality-substitute", where everything is perfect, and where the mighty Norwegian state takes care of everything.

Exaclty! Reality is bad, really. Malnourishment, poverty, absence of hospitals or skilled doctors, lack of drinking water, no computer to write bullshit on are reality in many countries and they would all like to change their reality with another one where all those needs they can't fulfill themselves there's someone who can help them out.

[Varislintu]

What points? I don't think that any of his points stand. Norway has enough oil-money to live off for centuries to come and its inhabitants don't need to try hard, so why should they? He says

Reality had in Norway been replaced by some sort of "Social Democratic reality-substitute", where everything is perfect, and where the mighty Norwegian state takes care of everything.

Exaclty! Reality is bad, really. Malnourishment, poverty, absence of hospitals or skilled doctors, lack of drinking water, no computer to write bullshit on are reality in many countries and they would all like to change their reality with another one where all those needs they can't fulfill themselves there's someone who can help them out.

Very good point!

I commented on the part about work on facebook, might as well add it here, too, with some additions:

‎

The Soviet State of Norway has created an abnormal amount of what I call "artificial jobs", intended only to employ Norwegians and to keep the unemployment rates down. We have socionoms, sexologists, journalists en masse, social-anthropologists and so forth, all sent out to confirm the Marxist myths and to keep the Norwegian people in ignorance. Even the dumbest working-class girls have their fancy degrees and are now allowed to perform completely meaningless tasks professionally.

But this has _always_ been the case! In a society, most people perform meaningless tasks. Before the technological revolution, it was something time consuming and innefficient like grinding flour or weaving clothes (after growing the sheep and spinning the thread, etc.), or trekking for days for a piece of hunted meat. Hours and hours spent every single day on tasks a simple machine (or supermarket) would eliminate. And in the glorious 50's it was for example paper pushing and typing. Pressing elevator buttons. I don't see how at any point in human history most work hasn't been kinda unproductive on the grand scale of things. At least in the examples he lists, the work isn't the work a machine can do, but the work of a thinking being.

[Babelfish]

Reminds me of a German artist I heard about who had called the 9/11 carnage "the greatest artistic act in history" or something of the kind. Some of these artists and intellectuals are plain crazy, like this one with his paranoid rant about "the Soviet State of Norway"...

[TeneReef]

I've read in an article that many people in Scandinavian countries think: ''the government will take care of us/it''. And some laws of theirs are like this: if you cross the street on red, and a car hits you, then it's the drivers fault, and not your fault.

But sometimes, you have to take care of yourself. You cannot let your children play on roads, and highways and think ''the government will take care of it'' or ''a pedestrian should not be responsible, because it's always drivers' fault, because our laws are like this''

Anything can happen anywhere.
(Therefore, trust no one )

[Ludwig Whitby]

I've read in an article that many people in Scandinavian countries think: ''the government will take care of us/it''. And some laws of theirs are like this: if you cross the street on red, and a car hits you, then it's the drivers fault, and not your fault.

It's like that in Serbia too. I think that that is normal. You can't hit a person with your car, even if he's not supposed to be there. If there are clear evidence of the driver trying to break and if the driver wasn't speeding prior to the incident he should get off the hook though.

But sometimes, you have to take care of yourself. You cannot let your children play on roads, and highways and think ''the government will take care of it'' or ''a pedestrian should not be responsible, because it's always drivers' fault, because our laws are like this''

Captain obvious to the rescue! People of Scandinavia don't let your kids play on roads and highways!


I know that it is fashionable to look down on ''the majority'' or ''the common people'', but seriously, people aren't idiots.

[TheStrayCat]

I've read in an article that many people in Scandinavian countries think: ''the government will take care of us/it''. And some laws of theirs are like this: if you cross the street on red, and a car hits you, then it's the drivers fault, and not your fault.

Believe me, it's much better than living in a country where you can get hit by a reckless bigwig associated with some state deputy, knowing he can get away with it for money or even owing to his connections.

[Varislintu]

I've read in an article that many people in Scandinavian countries think: ''the government will take care of us/it''. And some laws of theirs are like this: if you cross the street on red, and a car hits you, then it's the drivers fault, and not your fault.

But sometimes, you have to take care of yourself. You cannot let your children play on roads, and highways and think ''the government will take care of it'' or ''a pedestrian should not be responsible, because it's always drivers' fault, because our laws are like this''

Anything can happen anywhere.
(Therefore, trust no one )

I don't get the pedestrian / car driver analogy. Aren't the car drivers trusting the government to take care of them ? I mean if everyone is just doing that, instead of using their brains?

EDIT: As for the point I think you were making, about the nanny state. Varg lists a lot of examples, but seems ignore one thing: you don't have to accept the state's help in everything if you don't want it. You can get a Real Useful Job. You can pay for your living costs as a student yourself. You can home school your kids (in Finland). You can raise your own kids. Usually people choose the state provided support for various things because those supports were created for an existing need or problem, and people would rather not carry all their own risk and trust no-one as much as they can avoid it. They have other things to do, like enjoying their high standard of living and relatively safe and stable society. People have a right to choose that, too, if they want. Breivik on Utoya was trying to force his way of life on others just the same as those he felt were doing that to Norway. Varg doesn't want to get his hands dirty, but seems to have the same, age-old basline: that people must be forced to live correctly.

[johnH]

Actually the "Marxist" system doesn't sound to bad, a bit alien thou but it sounds great werer can I sign up for this "indoctinration" it seams so wonderful.
Now onto being serious, Breivik both evil, insane and guilty inspite of insanity.

[Intramentia]

I sympathize with some of Varg's gripes about the education system. In the US, at least, a lot of effort is being directed towards helping minority and disabled students, to ensure that as many students as possible reach some minimum test score every year. But for all students to reach this standard ("No Child Left Behind"), the public education standards have had to be lowered. For instance, some standardized tests have been made significantly easier so that idiots can still get decent scores. Essentially, it became politically incorrect for anyone to be a below average student, so the education system was restructured so that everyone can be above average (but now a lower average). But instead of actually improving the system, they've made it worse and smothered it with euphemisms.

[TeneReef]

I sympathize with some of Varg's gripes about the education system. In the US, at least, a lot of effort is being directed towards helping minority and disabled students, to ensure that as many students as possible reach some minimum test score every year. But for all students to reach this standard ("No Child Left Behind"), the public education standards have had to be lowered. For instance, some standardized tests have been made significantly easier so that idiots can still get decent scores.

Sounds like Brazilian public high school system.

People graduating from Brazilian public high schools are not likely to get into state universities (which are free of charge), because the selection process is tough, and 90% of Brazilian state university students studied in a private high school. Public highschools don't prepare you enough, you only learn basic stuff, and not pegadinhas you will encounter at Vestibular (university admission process). So, you have a paradox situation...Mostly rich people can study at state universities in Brazil.

[BlackZ]

People graduating from Brazilian public high schools are not likely to get into state universities (which are free of charge), because the selection process is tough, and 90% of Brazilian state university students studied in a private high school. Public highschools don't prepare you enough, you only learn basic stuff, and not pegadinhas you will encounter at Vestibular (university admission process). So, you have a paradox situation...Mostly rich people can study at state universities in Brazil.

Sadly that's true. I'm an exception - as I enjoy reading a lot, I managed to learn by myself most stuff that I knew I would encounter in a Vestibular. That, and I had exceptionally good Portuguese and Chemistry teachers.

Now I'm studying at UNESP, one of those state universities that you mentioned. Interesting enough, my class has a lot higher amount of people that come from public schools than the 90% you mentioned - but we are an exception rather than a rule.

The great problem with our public schools is: the powerful people of my country don't care if the poor people get educated well enough to stand a chance of having a better life. You know, less educated people means cheaper workforce. Maybe it's just a conspiration theory... But I can find no other answer for such situations.