Lord of Chaos was written by Michael Moynihan and Didrik Søderlind
I must say it always interesting to find out how others view things. In that perspective the book was good. Also it can be called a professional work considering the fact that Moynihan lets different people give their version of the story. However, when it comes to that I must say I am shocked to see how certain statements are not given a "second opinion".
The book is pretty much objective, and even though there are statements that are uncomfortable and even insulting, I do not mind that at all. If it is the truth, it is okay. The sad thing though is that the book did not try and find out if they told the truth or not. All Moynihan needed to do was write to me and I would have clarified the matter. Now they stand there, as "assertions" that will forever pervert the truth and give a completely wrong picture of the situation to both reader – and to future writers for that sake, who might use the book as a source.
Some of these assertions are not that important, others are obviously mendacious, but that does not matter. There are also some things I think that should have been disclosed as lies. Like when Samoth claims he knew Aarseth for six years before he died. If you take 1993 minus 6 that is 1987, right? And if you know that Samoth was 19 years old in 1993 and Aarseth 25, that means Samoth would have been a friend with a 19 year old, while he himself was 13 years old. Not impossible perhaps, but still pretty thin. 13 year-olds are also not likely to have friends that live 300 kilometres from their home anyway. Besides, when Harald Nævdal (Demonas, Immortal) and I drove to Mayhem's place in 1991 we dropped by Samoth, and at that time Samoth had only heard of Aarseth, so this is just stupid.
Of course this in itself is not important at all, but it tells a lot about the truthfulness of Samoth's statements. He wants to make his statements on Aarseth more credible by claiming he knew him "so well", while in truth he mostly just speculates. And during the police-interviews he wanted to be "important" in this context as well.
In short that is the problem. People speculate too much. They don't know what they are talking about, and instead of saying "hey, I don't know" they want to be important and know something about it, or have an opinion about it that is just based on their hopes and wishes and little else.
Another thing is this talk – by so-called "experts"(Katrine Fangen, Simen Midgaard, Asbjørn Dyrendal, Pål Mathiesen etc. NB! I mention many of them here, but only some of them mentioned talked about this) – about us being influenced by "the media". The book does point out that these things happened before the media went amok, but I still think it would be only fair to mention that I for instance have never read a newspaper in all my life, before they started to write about me. I read only the TV-program guide when I was a kid, and when I moved from home when I was 18 I did not read at all. So their ludicrous theories fall on hard ground, and for sure will be shattered by the truth.
As for the pyromania theory. You left out a vital fact, namely that none of the arsonists stayed to watch the churches burn (as far as I know), and that is the thrill for a pyromaniac – to watch things burn. Not to light them up, but to watch them burn. See my point?
But to continue on the the subject of the so-called "experts"; I honestly do not understand why they are interviewed in the first place, as they know nothing about what they are talking about. This Katrine Fangen for instance wrote her essay on the Norwegian skinheads. I have read that essay, and can assure you that she only know one side of the story, and that is the side presented by some dipsomaniac skinheads near Oslo, who represent the most braindead and meaningless bunch of the whole movement – as well as their views of the rest of the movement. Considering the fact that she knows so little about the NS movement which she studied for a year, imagine how little she knows about the heathen movement or the Black Metal movement!
I know it is impossible to talk to anybody who know about these things – as there are none – but I still think that should be made very clear in the book; these guys speculate only, and have no real understanding to say anything that anyone should take seriously.
It is like interviewing me as an outsider looking into a Christian sect. How on earth can I do anything but speculate on how they think, behave and act – except from the little I see? And if I know so much it must be from reading about them, meaning I have read some other persons' speculations to base my own speculations on! When these "experts" base their speculations on what the newspapers write (and they do) or on what they hear from others who again have their theories from the press, then obviously the whole thing is just one big stew of meaningless speculation. FAMA CRESCIT EUNDO (the rumour grows as it travels).
I will comment on some things in the book here:
On Page 67, Bard Eithun ('Faust') states that "he (me) was against Nazis". This is not important, and obviously mendacious, but Moynihan could have received a confirmation that he was lying so easily. He has openly declared that he intends to kill me – in other words he is all the time looking to hurt me as best he can, in all ways possible.
On Page 78, it states that Fantoft Stavechurch was burned at 6.00am. That is not correct. According to the police it was arsoned between 3.00am and 3.40am or so, and the firefighter arrived at the scene around 4.00am. So the journalist-invented 666 theory (6th hour of 6th day of the 6th month) holds no truth. They just want it to be like this, as that would support their own paranoid Satanist-theories, and present their speculations as facts in the newspaper.
On Page 80, the book says that the picture is "allegedly" taken by me. Well, why speculate on this? Why not just ask me? As matter of fact I have not taken the picture, and I don't see the point in speculating about this (as well). We are trying to get a re-trial, and false accusations like these do not make our case any stronger.
On Page 90 the Moynihan begins with the "Ashes" question. As you can see from my answer I do not know anything about this, I do not know what Moynihan is talking about. Well, I know now that I have never even seen the illustration which accompanied the Ashes poem, and I have most likely never seen the Ashes poem either – as I have not written it! I think it must have been by Williams or somebody else. Anyway, it is not me.
On Page 96 there is the Kerrang "quote"where they claim I say VON stands for Victory-Orgasm-Nazi. This is utter bullshit, and the error lies on Kerrang, who completely misunderstood what I said. What I said was VON, and when asked me to the spell the name for him I said "V as in Victory, O as in Orgasm and N as in Nazi" [as one does – Rainer], it is like A as in alpha, B as in Beta, etc. Copy? They did not, obviously – they are braindead it seems, unless my English is worthless and I have misunderstood what "A as in.." means.
I know perfectly well that von means hope in some Norwegian dialects – like in the one that is official in my home county. In old Norwegian is written ván. It is the name of one of the rivers that run from the mouth of Fenris, when he lies tied up with a sword through his mouth. I also told Kerrang about this, needless to say they found it of no interest – you know, no support to their version of the story.
Further on the clowns in Kerrang are simply full of shit, and about everything they say is all wrong, and the rest is partly wrong. Like I have never been accused of child abuse, so why on earth should I say that in Kerrang? Also, I have never cited Venom as an influence, and if I by chance really did I must have lied to them, as I have never listened to Venom.
In addition to that the Kerrang article uses the Norwegian press as a source. First a journalist presents his speculations, then the Kerrang journalist "translates" the newspaper articles, adds his own speculations and then sends it to Kerrang. So, why not just ignore these clowns and don't let them influence people with their mendacious crap?
On Page 116 you state that Aarseth was killed on the 17th of August (1993). Well, slap Soderlind's [co-author] face the next time you see him. Even every single ludicrous newspaper has got that right; he was killed the early morning of the 10th of August (1993).
On Page 122 it talks about my card (ATM withdrawal). Well, I have never had a card, and I will never have one either (due to the electronic surveillance). The card was Snorre's and I had nothing to do with any of this. Not using it as an alibi, not giving anybody a card, nothing. It is all something Snorre talked (in court) about after the killing, and as a matter of fact I don't even know if it is true to any extent. He might have invented it together with the other guy to nail me.
On Page 124 it continues about the card-crap, and talks about "Varg's account", bla bla. In short; see my comments above, besides, I did not even have a normal account, as I do not trust the bank system whatsoever. If it was up to me the banking system would have been abolished altogether.
On Page 126 there is talk about fingerprints. Well, there are no fingerprints! It is just a bluff by the police, and attempt to make me "admit" the killing before the trial as they had no proof. This "fingerprints" evidence was not mentioned even a single time in court, no evidence was ever shown on this. Why? Because it simply does not exist. It was a bluff. It is – obviously – impossible for me to leave fingerprints with my right thumb when I hold the knife in my right hand. Plus they may have hoped that knowing it was a bluff, I would say "it can't be true, as I wore gloves" – which of course would strengthen their first-degree murder charge! That is just speculation of course, but you see my point, right?
As a matter of fact – and this is important – I usually wear gloves like that, and even if I had no plans to kill him it would be likely that I wore such gloves there and then as well – coming from the car and all that. It is not impossible that I did that you know, and that I say otherwise because I fear this would strengthen the police's theory and get me busted for something I did not do; plan to kill him and follow the plan to it's end. It is like saying "I wasn't there" when you were there, because you don't want to be mixed into a crime committed by somebody else at that same place. See my point?
On Page 127 Snorre talks about "we" imagined bla bla, "we" saw plainclothes policemen bla bla, "we" etc. Well he did, not I. I can talk for myself, and really do not want some mentally confused, feeble loser to talk for me. Yeah, he probably said this, but what about being critical to his ability to judge my reactions? If one is compare his to a third person's theory they are very different. Be sure about that! I outran the police, he messed about with the card, etc. Not we. His other statements are pathetic as well, but even though he is wrong, stupid, etc., I will not complain as he was allowed to state his opinion. That is a different thing. Lying is another matter.
On Page 134 Samoth states that he was arrested in September 1992 because of the Bergens Tidende "interview" with me. Well, if you check the date on the Bergens Tidende "interview" you will find it was published on the 20th of January 1993 (see appendix I in the book), and was made some days before that. Need I say more?
Maybe the book just got the date wrong, but if not it should be pointed out in the book that he is obviously trying to put the blame on me here as well – like he did in the case.
On Page 140 I am the one providing the erroneous information. My lawyer checked out the case with Jørn Inge Tunsberg, and he was not found guilty of perjury. This time I was the one to trust the newspapers, and you see the result from that. He only got a long sentence (longer than the others) because he was obviously lying in court (and that is not perjury, but his full right, although not all that smart), in the face of the jury and the judges.
As for my relation to my father (on page 142) I must say both my mother's statements on this, and mine later in the book, are not really correct – at the best exaggerated. We had a quite normal father-son relationship I think, but compared to my brother's relationship it was worse – but that does not mean bad. And as for today – and the last six years – I have sporadic contact with him, maybe once every three months, and we get along very well.
On Page 165, some Hoidal (Høidal?) mention the St. Olav's cross as if it were a Christian symbol. I understand why Hans Jacobsen disliked the fact that NS used the cross (calling it St. Olav's cross and using his colours, read and yellow/gold), but the symbol is not really Christian. It is a sunwheel, used in Norway since the stone-age, together with other versions of the sunwheel (different Swastikas as they say in English). It is the symbol of MjQllnir, as shown on the Daudi Balðrs album cover. It was adapted by Christians alright, but really is a Pagan symbol – just like the Cross actually (a Mediterranean symbol of man standing upright praising Mother Earth for all her gifts to us).
On Page 177 the rural-urban thing is discussed. Actually I did not grow up in an urban environment either, as I am from a rural area just outside of Bergen – about ten miles from Bergen town. It is still in the Bergen municipality though – like Nordmarka is in the Oslo municipality, and is still uninhabited woodlands and hills full of animals. Not very urban in other words, like Oslo "city" (Large town is more like it).
On Page 184 the translation of "The (þá) er hann oc útlagr úheilagr oc heitir brennuvargr" is not very good. The correct would be "Then/in that case he is an outlaw and deprived of all things (literally: unholy/violateable) and is called fire-varg (or better burn-varg. "Eld-vargr" is "fire-varg". "Brennu-vargr" translates as "fire-varg" but it means "arsonist/fire-raiser"). The point is not lost though, in the book.
On Page 189 you mention Saxnot. It is correct that he was the tribal deity for many of the Saxon tribes (and there were many!), but he really is the same as Tíw/Ziu/Týr/Tír/Tíg(Mars). His Saxnot name derives from "sax", the traditional one-bladed sword of the Germanic tribes, which by the way is why they were called Saxons in the first place – as they swung these blades – and "not" derives from either "njótr" (enjoy) or "nöt" (spear) or most likely "nøti" (sign, mark). He is the swordsman of the Gods, like Óðinn/Woden wield a spear and þórr/þunor a hammer.
Mentioning it, þunor and Woden are English names. The Saxons living in Germany/southern Denmark called them Wodan and Donnar (and Saxnot). The Germans (including the Saxons living in Germany) called him Saxnot or Ziu, the Anglosaxons called him Tíw (pl. Tíwaz) or Tíg, the Scandinavians called him Týr (pl. Tívaz), the Greeks Zevs, the Latins Divus, the Romans Deus (or Mars), the Aryans in India Dyaus, etc. I am not sure but I don't think the Saxons in England called him Saxnot. The Saxnot name is from north-to-central Germany I think.
On Page 277 some policeman I have never heard about claims that I have read LaVey and Crowley. Sure, I have read one 20 page book by Crowley and found it utterly meaningless and ludicrous, but I have never read a single line by LaVey, and I have never considered reading his books, or any more books by Crowley. I did subscribe to THE BURNING FLAME some years ago, but only received two issues – both of which I found a waste of time (and as far as I know there were no articles by LaVey there. If there were I didn't notice any).
My point is that I don't like pointless and groundless accusations like that. As a matter of fact I have always been against this plastic US-church of Satan. This has been based on my knowledge on the Crowley and LaVey followers in Norway and Sweden – whom all I know of have appeared to be exactly like everything I dislike. I have warned against this tasteless plastic-Satanism since 1991, and honestly I am amazed by the fact that not even the police have understood this, nor the authors – since this is not pointed out in the book.
On page 325 the ignorant Katrine Fangen states that "they will have to prove themselves in rituals and group activities without moral inhibitions". If it is the Black Metal scene or about the Pagan scene then she is "far out". I am surprised the book keeps letting such narrow-minded, ungrounded statements appear in its pages. You could just as well interview some five-year-old girl in a kindergarten, and get a more sensible answer from her.
As for Simon Midgaard (another person I have never heard of) and his article (Appendix III), that is the biggest rubbish I have ever read in a long time. He talks about "ritual murder of hamsters" for instance. Sure. Dead allegedly killed a hamster once and took it with him to a Bathory press-conference. This was mid-to-late eighties, in Sweden, by the way. Is that "ritual murder of hamsters"? The unofficial theory though is that the hamster of one of Dead's friends died, and Dead was allowed to have it when it was dead. But would Euronymous admit to such a version of his former "ultra-evil, black leather, ball-and-chain" vocalist? (I can confirm by the way, as is pointed out in the book, that did not wear dark clothes – the week I was with him he wore light jeans and white t-shirts all the time).
I also wonder what "all kinds of pretty sadistic acts" is. Perhaps he refers to playing Venom loud or something? Or perhaps not washing the hair for a week? I am sure that this is about the most "sadistic" thing any of these "satanists" have ever done.
In short this Simon Midgaard has about as much knowledge about this scene as any other Norwegian in the street.
Okay, that's about it. I hope there are some corrections for the second edition. Apart from the things I have mentioned above and some other things as well, the book was – I think – good. It focussed on some interesting subjects, and was generally pretty objective (which is a good thing). I think both Erik Lancelot of Ulver and Ihsahn [of Emperor] had some quite sensible things to say, giving me a far better impression of both of them than I had before reading this book. Not all they said was that intelligent, but most of it, and at least they sound like people who think things over from time to time, and at the same time are able to draw some sensible conclusions. In addition I should mention that Bård G. Eithun is not that lying and hostile towards me today as he was when interviewed in the book. I am sure he would tell the truth today.
I know it is likely that I react more negatively, to the errors and lies than others do. People tend to remember what they want. They believe what they want to believe in. In Lords of Chaos everybody can strengthen their own opinions, no matter what opinions they have. That is okay I guess. All in all. Still, I hope people take these points seriously and that the errors will be corrected. I see no reason to capitulate, and let the lies prevail – even though I understand that I am losing that battle. Everybody seems to prefer the lies.
I am damn tired of being compared to these second-generation "Satanists". They might read LaVey, they might read Crowley, they might worship skulls (like S.Midgaard wrote about) and whatever, but what the hell has that got to do with me? It is like writing about the Waffen-SS and comparing them to the neo-nazis of USA today, without separating the groups, without making it perfectly clear the two groups are very different from each other. It is sad to see the book sometimes values sensation more than truth. I think the book would not have sold any less if the speculations and their origin (i.e. many of the interviews) had been dropped and instead it stuck only to facts and truth.
I feel like everything I do is pointless when the truth is twisted like this. It is like I "throw pearls for swine" wherever I go, whenever I say something, wherever I do anything. I sacrifice everything I have and everything I could have had in the future, only to face a wall of lies and sinister statements, by people who know nothing about the subject. What is it people want from me? Do you all want me to stop my struggle? Is that it? I never will, but if for sure seems like that is what people want me to. No support to find anywhere beyond my closest Kameraden. If only people knew.