I read a text by Varg Vikernes yesterday where he talked about his childhood and how his experiences in school made him into the Marxism hating Superaryan he is today. It's actually pretty interesting - turns out he spent part of his childhood in Iraq because his father was an engineer who got a job there and took his family with him. He had to go to Iraqi public school because the English school was full. (Is that true..? Does that mean he speaks Arabic..? I can't imagine that would have been possible otherwise?)
But he was only there for a while*, mostly the text was about his experiences back in Norway. Kindergarten was already Marxist far-left feminist HELL because you weren't allowed to be alone, you had to share all your toys (which probably, as in other hell-kindergärten, means 'If another kid takes away the toy you were playing with, you aren't allowed to complain'), it was boring, it was collectivist and so on. Same story in school, of course: He was finished with his tasks after five minutes and had to wait for the rest of the lesson until even the dumbest kid had finished. All because of this Marxist Socialist approach that everyone deserved help, everyone was supposed to reach the same level of attainment. He eventually started skipping school a lot and taught himself everything.
It's interesting to me because my own experiences were so similar, yet I came to completely different conclusions from that. It's just so clear to me that the real problem wasn't that the kids around Varg got too much help, it's that he got too little. I strongly believe that smart and talented kids are special needs kids too. They need extra help every bit as much as a deaf or dyslexic kid. Failing that, it's normal for them to become bored, frustrated, depressed or aggressive, just as he describes himself becoming, to even do badly in school despite being more than capable of keeping up.
Smart kids need exciting challenges, food for their minds, personal mentoring, help with the parts of life they are bad at (often social stuff). It's not a coincidence that the people who make a name for themselves as artists or intellectuals are usually from families of artists or intellectuals or otherwise come from an environment that encouraged and rewarded certain behaviours and interests, for example special schools or cultural hot spots that allowed talent to flourish. It's very hard to realize your potential when no one encourages it.
Varg eventually discovered the black metal scene of his day of course, but I wish he had grown up in a place that was even more "Marxist", even more about giving everyone the help they needed, a place that had evolved enough to realize that just because a kid is smart doesn't mean that it's okay to leave them to their own devices. It's basically neglect to just throw a gifted kid in with everyone else and not give them any help. The Marxist axiom "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability" comes to mind.
I actually agree that collectivism can keep a talented person down. Egalitarianism is often used as a virtuous excuse to make sure a clique will triumph over an individual. I think this is a problem that egalitarian and collectivist spaces generally have, I've even seen it in ethnographies about otherwise pretty paradisaical societies. But clearly this is a blatant waste of talent, and quite cruel. Societies that allow for positions like "shaman" have a better idea: this person gets special training, but in return they perform a service that few others could perform. That way, there's reciprocity. Isn't that the true Marxist way..?
--
\* It must have been at most a year - they went in 1979 and the 1st Gulf War started in 1980 - given that the text is about how he triumphed against adversity, I think he would have mentioned if he'd been there during that time
75 notes
·
View notes
it's like. louis attempted to tell this story to daniel the first time, broke down, and attacked him before he could finish it.
and then decades later he's convinced himself that it was leaving the story unresolved that's holding him back from living his life fully now. so he invites daniel back again. and louis is sitting poised and put together, confident in his ability to recite his history in a pretty, poignant, neat little narrative that will resolve all the guilt and yearning and emptiness inside of him. that if he can just tell a compelling, satisfying story, maybe it will actually be that, and not the life he lived through, with all the pitfalls of his own failures lurking inside.
and then season 1 ends with him once again being forced to confront that the story he wants to imagine and the life he actually lived aren't the same thing. the boundaries around his narrative are shredded and he's left exposed, and subsequently able to face his past for the first time since that original interview. and you think, you think, "well this is it. they've crossed the event horizon. there's no use hiding the truth anymore, not after it's come flooding out into the open like this"
and then season 2 opens. not only is it back to the original, practiced distance, we now have armand literally enforcing that distance. a man sitting at the table who's interjections must be disregarded, an intentional interruption to the flow of the story. he doesn't exist to aid or add detail, he exists to distract louis when he gets too deep in the story. the only time we do get louis allowing any deep truth to come out is when armand leaves the room.
it's like. louis wants a story that's true, and the truth is what he's convinced will leave him satisfied. armand wants a story that will satisfy louis, to the extent louis will accept it's true.
44 notes
·
View notes
thinking about how silver knew or suspected that thomas might be alive almost from the beginning of season 4 and still didn't tell flint like
Flint: Do I need to be concerned that you took almost two hours to tell me about it?
Silver: We are at our least rational... when we're at our most vulnerable. If nothing else, this is a good reminder that without a doubt she is the point at which I'm my most vulnerable. The thought of losing her...
I see.
Silver: If we assume... that we are on the verge of some impossible victory here, a truly significant thing... if we assume that is real and here for the taking... wouldn't you trade it all to have Thomas Hamilton back again?
Flint: I think if he knew how close we were to the victory he gave his life to achieve... he wouldn't want me to.
Silver: I see. Though, that wasn't really what I asked, was it? Assume his father was just as dark as you say, but... was unable to murder his own son, assume he found a way... to secret Thomas away from London...
Flint: He didn't.
Silver: Would you trade this war to make it so? It is some kind of hell to be forced to choose one irreplaceable thing over another.
LIKE PERHAPS THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED HE IS NOT TELLING YOU
Flint: I know what it's like... to have lost her. And then seeing a way to have her back. I understand what that must've felt like. You asked me once what I would do, what I would sacrifice if it meant having Thomas back again. I honestly don't know... what I would've done. I honestly couldn't say I wouldn't have done what you did. I told you I'd see you through this. Put things back together again so that we can move forward. I meant it.
And then again he still doesn't tell him because he can't, not until he's certain he won't have to use it-not until he's certain he'll have to End Flint because he doesn't want to but he knows (has known this whole time) that he will be the end of him so he hid this Massive Thing from him even after he knew what it was like to lose Madi he Still hid it (this is of course assuming that thomas is still alive and that wasn't just a lie to madi or a justification to himself and flint to make sending him (flint) away to live the rest of his life in chains doing labor seem like it wasn't so bad really (and also ignoring the fact that miranda who was arguably more a catalyst for flint's war than thomas was is still dead and not even silver can bring her back from the dead))
it's just really funny idk what to tell you
63 notes
·
View notes
The more I think about it the more annoyed I am by the amount of Deadwoman Sadmen in Fallout 4. Like @the head writer WHO THE FUCK HURT YOU???? @Todd Howard WHY did you approve SO many of the EXACT SAME character backstory for MULTIPLE characters in ONE GAME??
You know what? I WOULD rather a bitter divorced MacCready who nontheless is looking for a cure for his son because that's still his kid! I'd rather Kellog's wife?/gf? LEFT him because he was a piece of shit merc! Must it have been a wife dying for Deacon to feel bad and change his ways? why not some random community member or or a friend something? Time and time again this series uses women as plot devices rather than as characters and fallout 4 is the worst offender. Not only is it misogyny and showing a severe lack of anyone but the most generic cis white men they could pull off the street to sit in the writer's room but it's So. Lazy. Every. Time!!!!
Sexism aside are they not embarassed with their lack of imagination and hack storytelling?
9 notes
·
View notes