Interview with Varg Vikernes
"Druvis" Almanac (2011)

First and foremost, congratulations on the release of your new album "Fallen"! It is great to hear more of your guitar-driven material after long years of silence. Could you tell about the idea behind the album? Is there some overarching concept behind it as was the case with the previous record?

Thank you very much. Yes "Fallen" too is a concept album, and I would say it is very similar to "Belus" only this time it is not about mythology or a deity's death and rebirth. "Fallen" is about man's death and rebirth, in a metaphysical sense.

The period of the beginning and the middle of 1990s in BURZUM history had a strong influence of Teodor Kittelsen's visual style, associated with hairy trolls, etc. This has practically become part of BURZUM's "brand" or imagery. But the cover for the new album seems to be a total break from the esthetics of dark forests and mythical creatures. What was the motivation behind such an unexpected turn to the imagery of pre-Raphaelites?

Well, I think the problem here does not lie with me, but with those who got too hung up in the idea that Burzum and Kittelsen's art was inextricably connected, something which happened most likely only because it took so long before I released a new album and introduced them to fresh "Burzum ideas". I am happy to hear that "Filosofem" made an impact, but Burzum is not only "Filosofem", and "Filosofem" was made in the Month of March anno 1993. That's 18 years ago. Now, why would Burzum anno 2011 be identical to Burzum anno 1993?

The reason I chose Élégie for cover art is the fact that it fits the theme of the album perfectly, and it brings us back in time, to a more romantic era.

I recall the time when the video for "Dunkelheit" appeared. It was something really fresh. I regard it as one of the best metal videos ever made. It masterly blends together painful melancholy of the song itself with an esoteric minimalist video footage. Do you have any inclination to reenter the muddy waters of clip-making and to create some more videos?

We talk about it, my manager and I, but for now it is only talk.

What can you say about the new label you collaborate with? Are you interested in mechanisms of promotion and distribution, questions of sales and royalties? Or do you consider yourself an idealist not touched by petty things?

No, I consider myself too busy to deal with too much of such things. I have some obligations towards my label and distributors, so I do work with promotion, but the rest I leave to professionals.

You once said that after release from prison you would rerecord "Dauði Baldrs" in a proper sound, which had originally been conceived as a metal album, but due to understandable circumstances of your arrest it was recorded in a synthetic format. Did you abandon this idea in favour of working on new material?

Well, I think you got it wrong, but I can see why. I was talking about the track "Dauði Baldrs" and not the album "Dauði Baldrs", and as you might know the track "Dauði Baldrs" is very much re-recorded in it's proper sound, as a metal track on the "Belus" album.

Let's touch upon, if you may, the old notorious matters. I think you are sick and tired of retelling again and again about those times, but maybe you could say a few words. Do you reminisce the times before the imprisonment? Do you try to analyze what you might have done differently? Or you consider that period something to stay in the past and concentrate solely on the present tasks and the future?

It's all water under the bridge. I live in the present and in the future. Not in the past.

What is your current viewpoint on the figure of Euronymous? Do you have now any respect for that man?

It took him nine years to make one good album with his band, and we should give him that, but apart form that I have no respect for him.

The rise of Black Metal was so notorious due to the cases of church arson in Norway which led to media sensationalism and were mimicked by young people in other countries. The radical logics of such anti-christian acts is understandable but I personally feel sorry for the beauty of those wooden constructions which were destroyed in fire. By the way, their wooden carving included native folk and pagan elements. Do you still consider such actions justifiable and reasonable?

I don't know how you build churches in Belorussia, but I can assure you that the churches in Norway are not beautiful in any way. The stave church you must be referring to was burned down, but nobody ever found out who did it, so don't come talking to me about that.

Christianity is the direct or indirect cause of all problems we have today, so I don't care if someone decides to burn down one of their Hebrew temples, and I think that whatever problems they get they just harvest what they have sowed through the ages.

An Australian researcher and musician Kadmon connected the metaphysics of Black Metal with a myth of Wild Hunt. What do you think about this? Which metaphysical and mythical elements and principles could you connect with your music?

Well, I remember reading what Kadmon wrote, but this was many years ago, in fact more than a decade, so I don't remember everything and thus shouldn't say too much about that. Also, this is actually a pretty large subject, and I think I have already written something about this in an article available from burzum.org. Or maybe I just wrote about that in an unpublished book about this... :-/

Anyhow, this really is too large a subject to discuss even in an interview like this.

I noticed that after release from prison you give many interviews. This is rather odd for a person who considers (or considered) himself a misanthrope. Or maybe your disgust for communicating with other people surfaces during real-life situations but doesn't manifest itself when you communicate via the Internet?

Is it really? When did misanthropy ever mean you have to stop communicating with others? So, I think this society is worthless and that most human beings are subhuman scum, and that means I have to stop talking to those who are not? I talk to the masses, via e-mail, in order to find the few worth keeping, so to speak, and if you don't see the logic in this that's not my problem.

I grew up in a village where my parents had held pigs and cows. So I'd like to ask you about your life at the farm you've bought. Do you have any livestock, which is quite common for people living at a farm, or you use your farm only as your home and solely make music there?

It is only a home to me, and a place for me to make music. It is also my fortress, so to speak, where I intend to survive in the chaos of the coming collapse of this civilization.

What do you think of "kin-based" settlements when whole families leave cities and settle in the countryside? Is it not an escape from reality, an illusion of breaking free from the burden of modern living?

Now, I don't think anyone think they break free from the burden of modern living, they just reduce the burden by whatever means are available to them. The cities attract mostly rats and poor human beings, and they are no place for good men, and especially not in crisis situations.

In Norway we see a stream of Dutch families, by the way, moving to the Norwegian countryside, fleeing their homeland because it has been flooded by Muslim immigrants and verges on collapse into total chaos and misery. Their increased freedom from crime, rape and anti-white racism by moving from the Netherlands to Norway is no illusion, my friend.

One of the topics I am attracted to in your writings is your call for expansion into space, as a top priority for humankind. I personally think that gradual curtailing of the space programme from 1980s onwards was a very unfortunate step-back and a big loss for the modern society. We got deprived of a dream about stars. The humanity has become more down-to-earth and pragmatic, limited and dull. Material well-being and full satisfaction of individual aspirations have practically become the main goals for contemporary political institutions. Maybe we still need to return to cosmic romanticism, or we have gotten ourselves nailed to the ground completely?

...man never stepped on the surface of the Moon, you know, it was all a sham (see "Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?"), and we are not even today able to go very far from our own planet, because of the radiation belt found not too far from the Earth, so in a sense we are and have always been nailed to the ground completely.

With that said, I think it is a healthy thing to dream about the stars, and to plan ahead as if we will be able to leave our planet and land on other planets or moons some time in the future. Maybe we should just drop the scientific approach altogether and try to find other ways to reach the stars?

What's your viewpoint on the role of Germany in the history of Norway during WWII and on Vidkun Quisling whose name you had used as a pseudonym? What would you say the main reason was why the German Reich had been defeated?

Actually, Qisling (spelled without the "u") is the name of one of my forebears, my great great grandmother Susanne Malene Qisling, so I didn't take Vidkun Quisling's name as a pseudonym. I just sometimes used one of my other family names... (It was the same family as Vidkun Quisling's). So I do have a right to use this name.

Quisling/Qisling/Kvisling was originally a Danish noble family, by the way, from Kvislemark in Denmark. The Latinized form of Kvislemark was Quislinus, and this is the origin of the surname. They married into a Norwegian noble family, Bakka, in Telemark, when Norway was a part of Denmark.

Germany didn't come to Norway as occupiers, but to help us defend Norway against the planned Franco-British assault, and for some reason the "Norwegian" government fled when the Germans arrived and left the country in complete chaos. Some Norwegians believed we were under attack, others understood that we received help, and many didn't know what to think or believe.

The Germans behaved very well in Norway, and of the meager 10.000 Norwegians killed from 1940 to 1945 the Germans were only responsible for directly or indirectly killing about 3.600 of them – 1/3 of them were Norwegian sailors forced to work for the Allies. The rest were killed by the Allies.

The main reason the Germans were defeated? I know many things to list as reasons for why they lost the war, but the main? Maybe the fact that they underestimated the material strength of the Soviet Army. The Germans attacked the Soviet Union with about 4.500 obsolete tanks, many of them looted from the Czech and the French Army, and faced about 32.000+ Soviet tanks, many of them of the early T-34 or KV-1 or KV-2 type, all tanks of superior quality. Another main reason might be the poor road network in the Soviet Union, and the fact that when it rained even German panzers had problems getting anywhere, because of their narrow tracks. This was pretty disastrous to an army using mobility as the main tactics.

Anyhow; I don't think there is only one main reason. They lost because of many reasons which when combined became too much for them cope with and this ruined their chance of winning. Or maybe we should list Hitler himself as the main reason they lost. Having a corporal as your supreme military leader cannot be very good for any army...

I think German relations with the neighbouring countries were not less dramatic than relations between Russia and countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland... Lots of blood has been spilt. How to reconcile nationalistic feelings, connected with honour for your country, its history and ethnic identity with solidarity of all European peoples, with no regard for the difficult history of relations?

This is certainly a difficult question, but it might help to start looking at each other as brothers and sisters, instead of just neighbors. Personally I am a nationalist, but my race is my nation, and I see all true Europeans as my racial brethren and part of my nation, be them Norwegian, Danish or Swedish, French, German or English, Russian, Polish or Belorussian, or whatever. I can perhaps not help others think differently, but I can change myself, and I at least have no problems with any of the European nations. Those in Europe who are not European on the other hand...

Modern-day Western Europe is overwhelmed with the waves of migrants from southern countries. Many of them have become the fifth column of islamic colonization. How this problem could be resolved? Would Europe see an ethnic war or would it end up as a part of caliphate? What do you think about the idea of "white reconquista".

Europe will revolt before it gets too far, but I think the problem will be solved by so-called right wing extremist parties. They become increasingly popular in Western Europe, and in France their candidate is even the country's most popular candidate for presidentship next year. If France becomes a so-called right wing extremist country, France will leave the EU, repatriate the Muslim immigrants, and the other countries in Europe will follow and do the same. If this does not happen it will end in ethnic cleanisng and civil war, for sure. The bogus "democracies" in our part of the world will in any case fall, sooner or later.

Lithuanian expat, professor Kazys Pakstas developed an idea of The Baltoscandian Confederation (or Baltoscandia), which would unite Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Have you heard of the idea? What do you think of it?

Yes, I have heard about this idea, and I am sure the Balts and the Estonians would like this solely for economic reasons. Scandinavia and Finland is flooded with primitive criminals from these countries as it is, and because of this I don't think you will find many Scandinavians or Finns willing to join a union with these countries. I don't think you will find many in the EU who wanted them there either, for the same reason, and because they are filthy poor and just a problem to the other EU countries. Too bad the EU is not ruled by the population in the EU, but by some corrupt elite who only cares about themselves and their own personal bank accounts.

Culturally Denmark, Sweden and Norway are close to identical, so they could very well be just "Scandinavia", but Finland is very different, and so is Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and I don't see why these countries should be linked together in a union. What's wrong with independent nations anyway? Do we really need all these unions?

...and I find it weird when the Balts and Estonians did so much to leave the Soviet Union, only to run as fast as they could into another Union. Why, didn't they want independence after all? Did they prefer the Jews of the EU to be their masters, rather than the Russians?

What do you think about European Union? Is it an epic failure with too much bureaucracy or do you see any basis for spiritual community of European peoples and rebirth of the European Empire?

It is doing its best to destroy Europe and turn it into an Israeli puppet, and there is really nothing European about it, so to speak. It is run by Jews and their lackeys, and should be destroyed as soon as possible. It is used to force each and every European country into accepting all forms of bad things, even when these nations really don't want these things, and it surely is a disaster.

What do you think of monarchist ideals? It's understandable that, in Scandinavian countries, these ideals were compromised by local monarchies turned into a beautiful decoration for social democratic political order. But do you see some potential in returning to true ideals of power, authority and heredity, as means to overcome social apathy and civil profanity?

Well, I certainly don't believe in so-called "democracy", but I think it would be good to have a true democracy, where only certain citizens were allowed to vote. They could elect amongst themselves a Sheriff to rule each district, an Earl to rule each county, a King to rule each region and a High King to rule the nation, and each ruler would have to answer to the one above him, or in the case of the High King for a council made up of all the Kings. Only native male citizens with a wife and children, a property and a military rank should be allowed to vote and be elected for office. And new elections should be held every year at a great Thing (id est a public meeting), or possible every 4th year. Each and every elected person should be replaced immediately if he was corrupt or did a bad job.

We cannot return to the past, and power should be earned and not inherited from your parents, just like it originally (in the Pagan era) was.

How would you describe your present political views? Which political forces or parties in Norway, Scandinavia and Europe do you sympathize with?

In Norway there are no political parties worth sympathizing with. The so-called "democracy" in Norway is a sham. I know little about the political parties in Sweden or Denmark, but I know much about Front national in France, and sympathize with them 100%.

When it comes to political forces in Norway and elsewhere I – simply put – sympathize with all those who wish to throw out every single Muslim and Jew from Europe, all those who wish to "dismantle" the EU, and all those who want to nationalize all countries in our world.

You were one of the initiators of Den Hedenske Front. But after some period of activity and creation of network of international branches, this organization has disappeared somewhere. Did you follow its destiny and did you consider going back to activities in this direction?

It was never run by me, and I don't think it is worth the effort to try to revive it either.

Today there are many different groups and movements declaring return to pagan roots and renaissance of pre-christian religion. Could you briefly define what paganism means for you and what it must be like in XXI century: nostalgia for the "golden age" or future-oriented techno-gnostic worldview?

Like I said above, we can never return to the past, and we should not try to either. Sure, we can have our "Golden Age" as a dream and something to strive for, but we need to look to the future and not to the past. Paganism is a set of values and virtues, ideas and ideals, and we should bring them with us into the future. They are a part of us as Europeans; they are in our blood. Perhaps we need to accept some religious aspect of this too, for those who need such nonsense, but generally speaking we should not strive for a religious society, but rather a society based on reason and knowledge. Gnosis, if you like.

Technology is not a bad thing. Nothing is really bad, unless it is used for bad things or in a bad way. Even food can be bad, if we don't know how to relate to it.

Did you change your opinion of the Christian faith which, over the past two thousand years on European soil, has incorporated much of the pagan heritage? Should Christianity be battled against while we are faced with a real and present danger of islamization?

Well, Christianity is 90% Paganism, in the sense that all the rituals and festivals are taken from our European religion, so it is much better than Islam, but the problem is that it is first and foremost Christians (and Socialists) who let in the Muslims and they do because they are Christians. Islam is not a problem in the same way; no Europeans worth saving converts to Islam. We – the Europeans – are still Christians, no matter how many Muslims come to our countries. So, we can, if we decide to, just line all the Muslims in Europe up against the wall, and still only have to shoot a few thousand Europeans. The rest will be Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Africans and so forth. This will not harm Europe in any way. We cannot do the same with the Christians, without destroying most of Europe too.

I short Islam is a problem we can remove with a sword, so to speak, but Christianity is the spiritual plague that make us accept what the Jews and the Muslims are doing to us and in our countries in the first place. The problem is Jews and Muslims, for sure, but the reason we have this problem is Christianity (and all other forms of internationalism too). So we need to remove the cause of this problem to make sure it doesn't happen again, and therefore we need to fight Christianity as well.

What is your metaphysical and ethical vision of War? Is it, in all of its forms, just a manifestation of all human tragedies or an unavoidable condition for existence of the World, a factor of human evolution and development?

War is not a bad thing in itself, but I think we can make war in a more positive way than we have the last few centuries, so to speak. War is based on competition, which is a good thing. In the Stone Age our forebears arranged competition between all the men to find the strongest and smartest one, and then they arranged beauty contests amongst the women to find the most beautiful of them all, and then the strongest and smartest man was made "king" and the most beautiful woman was made "queen", and they were to rule the "kingdom" as a sacred couple. Naturally their children were of very high quality, and with time this meant that the "nobility" became better and better. As you might know beauty is a sign of good health; we find beautiful those women who are the most healthy, and of course being strong and smart is always good. From an evolutionary perspective this was a perfect society – and this type of society lasted well into historical times. We know it best from Greece as the Olympic Games, which was one of the four competitions in the Greek area (they had one each year), but it also survived into Christian times in Western Europe in form of Knight Tournaments and Carnivals, and in Northern and Eastern Europe in form of children games – often played as part of Spring celebrations and festivals ("the May Bride" games).

This was an early form of war; a healthy competition with the aim to find and elevate the best amongst us. It was originally very deadly; the competitions often resulted in fatal injuries, and the last year's winner was killed by the new winner, unless the former king managed to win again (but naturally he would eventually be defeated, when he grew older and weaker, and the woman lost her beauty, and they both were replaced by younger individuals). With time it grew less deadly, but the objective was the same; to find the best amongst us.

The war we know from Roman and Greek historical records was good too, in the sense that the best would win their wars. Courage, skill and strength was still important. The same can be said about war all the way to the medieval times, when more and more missile weapons and eventually firearms were introduced, turning war into a slaughter house where death struck randomly. The courageous are the first to be killed in such wars, and the cowards hiding or running away the most likely to survive.

Today war is even worse, as you know, and not only are 90% of the casualties actually civilian – women and children often – but death strikes randomly amongst the military personal as well.

We develop technologically today, but we see only degeneration and recession when it comes to human beings – and that's not only in relation to war.

Yet, as I see it even modern war is good. It forges true comradeship, trust and pride, and it enables us to see for ourselves who we can trust and who we cannot trust. All men should be tested in war, and be able to prove themselves before they should be allowed to decide anything in our society. Perhaps we can replace war with other forms of trials, bringing out the same in man, but I am not sure we will find a good replacement.

My ethical vision? Well, war is like I said important for us to be able to really trust others and forge true friendships and comradeship, and this will be important from an ethical point of view. We are more lawful, kind and helpful in relation to those we really trust. A nation should have at least one war every 20 years or so, to make sure all generations are allowed to prove themselves, and develop the necessary sacrificial spirit and the strong bonds they should have to their nations. It is not ethical to deprive a generation of its opportunity to prove itself, and thus allow the nation to be reduced in strength...

What's your opinion of the Idea of North as a sacred pole, a proto-homeland of primordial Tradition and of all Indo-Europeans? What are the key traits of Nordic worldview and mentality? What could you say about Norwegians of the past and of today - do they keep the light of Nordic culture and traditions still burning?

Most likely we – the fair skinned, fair eyed and fair haired race – had a proto-homeland in Northern Norway. This area is actually called Hålogaland, a name which translates as "the holy land", and even during the Ice Age a part of Hålogaland was free from Ice (the Lofoten peninsula), so it is not impossible that our forebears lived there, before they spread out across Europe and elsewhere too.

The key traits of the European mentality, or Nordic mentality if you like, is honesty and kindness, but also perseverance and strength. The worldview is not linear, like the Judeo-Christian one, but circular, and therefore the relationship to death and danger is more relaxed, making the European man more courageous. There is no beginning ("the Garden of Eden"), and no end ("Judgment day"), but only an eternal cycle. Winter/Night/Lunar Eclipse (rebirth/purification), Spring/Morning/Waxing Moon (birth), Summer/Day/Full Moon (life) and Fall/Evening/Waning Moon (death), and it all just repeats itself, as it has always done, in the history of our species.

Norway today is a Soviet state, and the population is largely brain-washed and ruined, but of course we can still revive them, so to speak, into greatness. Norwegians in the past were not "Norwegians", but Norsemen, and identical to Danes and Swedes, and Saxons and Angles too for that sake, and they were amongst the last Europeans to stay European, so to speak, in the Christianization process of Europe. Even in the 17th and 18th century the Danes complained about the Pagan nature of the Norwegians, and these Norwegian "wild men of the mountains" even competed amongst themselves to see who could kill the most (Danish) priests and sheriffs before being killed themselves. We see this good side of the Norwegians remaining today, as is evident by the fact that in spite of massive propaganda and brain-wash, the Norwegian population turned down a EU membership – twice. Both in 1972 and in 1994. Some of the "wild" spirit of the Norsemen remains. Thankfully.

The true light of European culture and traditions is within us all, ready to be re-kindled anytime, because our blood is still European, and this is why the Jews are so eager to mix us with other races. That's the only way they will ever be able to break us.

What's your understanding of the concept of race? Is it purely biological, connected with a certain set of phenotypical traits or is it something more complex? Do you share Julius Evola's view that there are Race of the Body, Race of the Soul, Race of the Spirit?

Well, I think it is all linked to blood (the race of the body), but the race of the mind (not "soul"; that's a Jewish concept) and spirit derives from this blood, and can therefore always be re-kindled as long as the blood remains "pure". The mind and spirit can change, and be changed into the unrecognizable, but it is never lost in the same way as the body (blood) can be. The children of a Jew-loving Freemason Christian Socialist can still become good men or women, but mongrel children will always be lost to our race.

The most modern science – rejected and of course hated by the Jews and their lackeys – suggests that we, the Europeans, descend primarily from Homo neanderthalensis, and only partly from Homo sapiens. The Asians too are a mix of these two species, but there is more Homo sapiens in them than in us. The blue and rey eyes, the blonde an dred hair and the white skin are all traits we inherited from the neanderthals, as so is our high intelligence, by the way. Homo neanderthalensis were much smarter than homo sapiens. We have some DNA from Homo sapiens females (only) because when they arrived in Europe the (stronger) neanderthals killed the Homo sapiens men and took the women as loot – and had children with them.

The neanderthals looked pretty much exactly like a modern European with blonde hair and blue eyes, and a straight, long nose, only they were a bit shorter and stockier – and we have changed not only because of female Homo sapiens DNA, but also because of micro-evolution.

The modern Asiens don't look like neanderthals because they have much more Homo sapiens DNA than we do.

The phenotypical traits are very important, but I do see all fair skinned Europeans, regardless of hair and eye colour as true Europeans. We do have the dark hair and brown eyes from the Homo sapiens, but nobody are pure, and we don't need to be either. We just need to see it as a point to stay or perhaps even become as pure as we possibly can.

Anyway, the Jews and Socialists don't like this hypothesis, because it contradicts their hypothesis about "one human race", as it turns out we are not even of the same species as the others...

What's your view on the tripartial theory of Georges Dumézil about the society of Proto-Indo-Europeans, divided into classes of priests, warriors and farmers? Do you think this model could still hold sway and be applicable?

Yes, but I don't think Dumézil was right in the way he divided society into three classes. The priests and warriors made up the same class; there were no kings and priests in the Pagan past, only Priest-Kings (and before that Sorcerer-Kings), and all the other priests were also warriors.

Ancient European society was divided in three classes from the moment farming was introduced, but not before that. The highest class was made up of free men who had a land property (farmers). The middle class was made up of those who were free, but had no land property (workers). The lowest class was made up of thralls (also workers). The priest-king (and priest-queen) was chosen by the use of competitions, of the type I mentioned above. Only free men were allowed to compete for these titles. All free men were warriors (and hunters), by the way (and all women gatherers), and possibly even many of the thralls were allowed to participate as warriors in war.

Before farming they were all nomadic hunter-gatherers, and then there were only two classes; the free and the thralls, and the number of thralls was small compared to the number after farming was introduced.

Today we should have a similar model; a class of free men with a land property and the right to vote and be elected, a class of workers and perhaps a class made up of thralls too. Jarl, Karl and Þral.

The first BURZUM album recorded after your release, Belus, is titled after an Indo-European god of light. However, there's an opinion that this name is a Latin and Greek interpretation of the name of Semitic god Baal. How do you interpret this name?

Ba'al is a Semitic name and translates as "lord" or "master". This has nothing to do with Baldur/Belus.

The opinion that Belus is a Latin or Greek interpretation of Baal is nonsense. Belus is a reconstructed name, based on the name of Baldur.

Norwegian: Baldur (it is not known by this, but it would have been Ball)
Old Norwegian (Norse): Baldr/Ballr
Young proto-Nordic: *BalðuR/*BalluR
Old proto-Nordic: *BalþuR/*BalluR
Young proto-Germanic: *Balþuz/*Balluz
Old proto-Germanic: *Balþus/*Ballus
Indo-European form: *Belus
(From the Indo-European root: *bel- )

An asterix (*) indicates that the word is not known from written sources, but is reconstructed using known grammatical rules.

The Indo-European root form *bel- means "shining white", and the younger forms of the name eventually got the meaning "strong shining white and round body in the sky". In other words; the Sun.

I may add that the prefix in Belorussia derived from the same Indo-European root form. This also explains why some Slavs have known Baldur/Belus by the name Byelobog (alias Yarilo) or similar. (I trust I don't have to translate these Slavonic names for you?)

We do have a deity in Northern Europe with a name that also means "lord", and this is Freyr, but his name originally means "love" and "free", and the "lord" meaning came from the fact that he was the deity of the crops, and thus provided everyone with bread. You see the word "lord" derives from (Old English) "hleward" ("bread-protector"). So Freyr has nothing to do with Ba'al either, but is the same as the Greek Dionysos, the Roman Bacchus/Liber, the Slavonic Shiebog/Veles and the Celtic Aengus, and would according to known grammatical rules be known in Scandinavia as *Prius in Indo-European. Take notice of the fact that Liber (Roman name) also means "free".

What are gods for you: a metaphor of nature, an eternal cosmic principle, social projection or something else? Do you worship any gods, do you participate or endorse any rituals of worship or festivities?

The European deities, all of them, are mere anthropomorphized spirits. When man was ignorant he developed a belief in spirits, to explain what he did not understand, and also a belief in his own ability to manipulate these spirits (id est sorcery). With time he realized that sorcery was ineffectual, and therefore started to pray to the spirits instead. What had previously been impersonal and hermaphroditic spirits thus became deities with a name and gender, and that's how all religions in our world came to be, including our own European religion.

So, there are no deities, and there never were any either, in any culture on our planet. No spirits either, for that sake. It's all based on Stone Age ignorance.

With that said, the deities of our European culture are still valuable to us, in the sense that they do represent something important to us, their myths are valuable in many respects, and we should not just forget about this part of our culture.

I am very much non-religious, in theory and practice. In some way I wish I was more religious, though, and I do think our traditions are very charming and valuable, and I don't mind if others in our culture practice these very old traditions. They will be able to do that as well, if they read my book about "Sorcery and Religion in Ancient Scandinavia", which will be published some time in the future. Our old traditions are especially important to our children, who until they are older and wiser tend to favour ritualistic explanations and spells or other repeated behaviour in order to find a peace of mind.

If I am not mistaken, you have never been abroad from Norway? I understand now you have certain limitations, due to the conditions of your release. But do you wish to travel, to see other countries. If yes, which countries would you like to see?

Well I am sorry, but you are mistaken. I have been to many other countries many times, and I have even lived one year in Baghdad (Iraq), when Saddam Hussein was president, and another year in different places in France. I have also been to England twice, Belgium four times, the Netherlands one time, Germany six times, Denmark seven times, Sweden nine times, Lebanon twice, and Greece, Cyprus and Luxembourg one time each. So I have spent quite a lot time abroad.

No, I have actually no interest in travelling abroad, and prefer to stay home. There is no place like home. However, I have been forced to travel anyway – and if I do and I can I prefer to travel by car. (I actually did travel to England by car once, by the help of a ferry from Bergen to Newcastle, and when in Cyprus we rented a car.) Don't be surprised if I at some stage want to see more of Europe, though.

It is quite natural that, with age, people become more moderate and try to forget their radicalism in younger years. I might be wrong but I wouldn't say this rule applies to you that much. What do you think? Did you get calmer, more restrained and not so categorical?

I think you should watch the film "Stalker" by Andrei Tarkovksy, and pay attention to what is said about trees. (That's a brilliant film, by the way, and probably the best film I have ever seen.)

Time has given me more wisdom, so to speak. Although this often only means that I now know what I only believed in when I was young.

There is no general thing to say about this; I am softer and harder, calmer and more aggressive, more and less restrained, more and less categorical, and so forth.

What are your plans for the nearest future - to continue musical activities, putting out new BURZUM albums every year, to write books, to go into politics, or something else?

My plan is to continue making music, and put out an album whenever I have the material to do so. I will also publish "Sorcery and Religion in Ancient Scandinavia", which I finished writing in 2007, but I have no plans to keep writing. Perhaps I will write an article or two every now and then, for burzum.org, but that's it.

No, I have no plans to go into politics. Writing a political article every now and then is okay, but that's it.

© 2011 "Druvis" Almanac