Paolo Coelho, Adolf Hitler, Scandinavians and Jante Law

**Paul Lasaro** · 25-08-2009, 11:51 AM

The famous writer Paolo Coelho, who is an intellectual authority for tens of millions readers in the whole world, has allowed himself to attack the conception of the Scandinavian world. What’s even more – he notices something that Hitler used to like in the standards of Scandinavian behaviour. In his book „Like a flowing river” he criticizes strictly the well-known Jantes law that is followed by many people in Scandinavia. On the basis of this law there is a thought by Danish writer Aksel Sandemose that nobody can think of himself being more intelligent, better or more important than others. In other words, nobody is something special, all are equal to each other. Coelho interprets it a bit differently and using more harsh words – „You aren’t worth a thing, nobody is interested in what you think, mediocrity and anonymity are your best bet. If you act in this way, you will never have any big problems in life.” ....

However, it must be said that Coelho, who calls himself a Knight of the Light, afforded to be emotional enough and at the same time also careless. He lacked the Scandinavian prudentials and patience to make sense of the right point of the Jante law and why this law seems to be so interesting for Scandinavians. It should be remembered that for millions of people in the world Scandinavia seems to be the country of the light, many admire their achievements, freedom, prosperity and stability. Already for many years Scandinavian countries are proud with reason of their extremely high level of democracy and standard of living, incredibly thin gap between the poor and the rich. Is it really possible to reach something like this in a society where as Coelho states terrible standards or norms rule everything?

Here it is advisable to look more carefully and in wider context. At first, the Jante law must be read very carefully and should be understood that it is only part of the sarcastic literary work. It is more likely to be interpreted as conditional Scandinavian philosophy and not like dogmatic commandments.

Wikipedia about Jante Law:

The ten rules are:
1. Don’t think that you are special.
2. Don’t think that you are of the same standing as us.
3. Don’t think that you are smarter than us.
4. Don’t fancy yourself as being better than us.
5. Don’t think that you know more than us.
6. Don’t think that you are more important than us.
7. Don’t think that you are good at anything.
8. Don’t laugh at us.
9. Don’t think that anyone of us cares about you.
10. Don’t think that you can teach us anything.

Further in the book: 11. Don’t think that there is something we don’t know about you.

It sounds bitter but not so awful as Coelho has explained it to millions of the readers. It must be understood that Scandinavian societies have been rather poor agricultural countries for centuries where people struggled with the wild nature and worked really hard. Especially in Norway, which Coelho talks about. Quite widespread was the ethics of Protestants where Arrogance, uppishness, flaunt were considered to be a dreadful sin. The principles of equality were respected which later turned even into the radical egalitarianism. As British explorer John Mole in his book „Mind your manners” points out – Scandinavians were pioneers in the compliance of national publicity principles – already in 1766 everybody, both Scandinavians and foreigners, had the right to check any shorthand record or document of authorities which were kept in an archives. Finland, that was relatively a part of Scandinavia, was the first country in Europe where already in 1906 women got their rights for voting.

Maintained for centuries high respect for equality, honesty and publicity is on the basis of it. Once it was the basis of survival in the rigorous climate, nowadays it has proved itself of being the basis for stability and prosperity. Now in the world the economic crisis rules everything, Nordic countries go through it comparatively easy and stably. It is surely because Scandinavians weren’t keen on the bright life at any price – deserved or not. Including a huge wasting on varnish. They also couldn’t have done it because luxury goods that symbolize varnish are liable to strict taxes. It must be under the influence of the Jantes law.

High taxes are necessary for society to reach as high as possible equality among all people. To get people agreed to pay such taxes it is necessary to have enormous state publicity about the application of the taxes. It is wrong to think that it’s only follow-on the nice principles. It could be too brilliant for pragmatic northerners. Finland is proud of one of the best educational systems in the world. The principle, on the basis of it, is that a good education has to be available for everybody, the same quality for the richest and the poorest. The main point is a pragmatic consideration that society must not lose not a single bright head, that everybody should be given equal possibilities to develop to the utmost his or her abilities and talents. In future an educated society will do good for everybody with a vengeance. No wonder that nowadays comparatively small Finland can take pride in having one of the most competitive economics in the world, it is also one of the most socially and ecologically stable countries in the world. It is not deniable that it’s partly because of follow-on the Jantes law. Only perfunctory observer will say that Finland’s only achievement is mighty Nokia. They have plenty of world-famous IT inventions, they build the biggest cruise ships in the world, create marvellous design works and architecture. Could it all be done by society depressed by glum and severe Jante law? Great achievements can’t be done by nations that are paddled by bright personalities. We can see similar achievements also in other Nordic countries – Denmark, Norway, Sweden.

It’s significant that Aksel Sandemose published the Jante law in 1933. It was very hard time for Scandinavian countries – in Sweden, Denmark, Norway about 30-40% of labour force were out of work. It was one of the highest unemployment rates in the world overtaken by the crisis. If the world’s economics is bad then Scandinavians are even worse. Approximately at that time Scandinavians united in mutual pacts between employers and employees, between farmers and workmen. They provided the principles of mutual consensus and equality and after the war they were on the basis of the famous model of „Scandinavian prosperity”. It also helped to avoid the destructive ideologies of Nazi and communists. It’s quite sure to assume that society’s common settlement was based also on general understanding of the Jante law.

It’s strange to read Coelho statement that follow-on the Jante law gave rein to Hitler:”Before starting the second world war, Hitler sent out several signals as to his intentions, and what encouraged him to go ahead was the knowledge that nobody would dare to defy him because of the Law of Jante.”

According to Scandinavian understanding Hitler would have been cut down to size in accordance with the Jante law. Hitler preached that one nation is higher, more intelligent than others. A significant example of Scandinavians’ attitude during the war is Christian’s X - a king of Denmark – legendary scornful attitude towards Hitler. He highlighted in a demonstrative way that all people are equal and he went bitterly against Nazi offences against Denmark’s Jews. He was a striking confirmation of Danish loyalty to the Jante law.

At the same time it has to be remembered that on the whole the history of Scandinavian countries has never been perfect and even today they do not think of themselves as being more special or intelligent than others. Even in spite of their creditable achievements. In accordance with the Jante law it is not a reason to become arrogant or proud. They had and have enough drawbacks that are worth thinking about, talking about and working carefully. Unwanted pride is a sin. Flaunting is nothing more than time taken away from work. Unnecessary wasting of money is a stealing of resources from the future investments. Can an extremely exclusive limousine compensate extra education possibilities for children? Can a needless fashionable villa compensate extra investments in the old people’s homes?

There is something more important that should be understood – the Jante law is a dual carriageway. It also serves as an excellent protection for bright personalities. If somebody fancies of oppressing the freethinkers then they for their own protection use the same ... Jante law.

Coelho should consider why exactly Scandinavian countries still stick by their own currency and haven’t joined to euro? Norway hasn’t even entered the European Union yet. Because they are not afraid of thinking differently. Politicians from Nordic countries were those who in the forums were not afraid to protest against the war in Iraq. Many famous Nordic politicians are significant global fighters for peace who consistently try to settle slaughterous conflicts in the whole world. It’s not a surprise that Finn Martti Ahtisaari got the Nobel prize last year. Not long ago on the BBC he said that he would address Obama so that he would take more active part in the peace-processes in the world. Ahtisaari on the BBC with his Finnish directness said clearly that the conflicts haven’t been settled for many years only because the big countries lack a will to solve them. Ahtisaari is only one of many Nordic politicians who has actively and gravely fought for peace in global level. In this context Coelho action is at least strange in invoking Hitler in accordance with the Jante law. It is an unfair reproach.

It’s significant that a few Scandinavians will think of reproaching Coelho, they’d rather discuss the Jante law again. Because they do not think that they are too special. However, it won’t hinder them from accepting the fact that speaking to millions of readers Coelho should be more careful. To be famous means to be extremely responsible too.
On the other hand they will understand the written texts by Coelho. A respectable knight has the right to protect his colleague – a writer and an admirer - his wife, a Norwegian princess. Coelho anger against the Jante law was caused by the statement of one Norwegian journalist that princess’s husband – writer was criticized by the press only because he had broken the Jante law. Before the wedding his works were friendly admitted, after – the criticism started. Coelho thought that these facts are correlated and the Jante law must be blamed for it.

To my mind, Norwegians and love do not separate people. All are equal to each other.

Have a nice Day and happy Birthday Paolo Coelho,
Paul Lasaro (www.paullasaro.com)

**Midas** · 25-08-2009, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Paul Lasaro

[ ... ]

Wikipedia about Jante Law:

The ten rules are:
1. Don’t think that you are special.
2. Don’t think that you are of the same standing as us.
3. Don’t think that you are smarter than us.
4. Don’t fancy yourself as being better than us.
5. Don’t think that you know more than us.
6. Don’t think that you are more important than us.
7. Don’t think that you are good at anything.
8. Don’t laugh at us.
9. Don’t think that anyone of us cares about you.
10. Don’t think that you can teach us anything.

Further in the book: 11. Don’t think that there is something we don’t know about you.

This sounds very much as if it could be applied to the more extreme ends of any political party of any belief, left or right, anywhere in the world!

High taxes are necessary for society to reach as high as possible equality among all people.......

I take a totally different view of the situation on this! High taxes limit innovation and growth, cause disaffection amongst the higher earners and cause significantly higher prices. If you read my latest blog entry, The Sad Road to Socialism, you'll see exactly what I mean and why. Granted there are some significant international companies such as Nokia, IKEA, Saab and Volvo based in Scandinavia (but if you examine their corporate structures, you'll see significant marketing and operational tax bases outside Scandinavia to avoid high taxes), however in comparison with most other European countries, collectively they're far less of an exporting block and are living much more of an economically isolated life, a very expensive life too in comparison with elsewhere in Europe, with some food and common commodity prices typically 50% or more higher than in the UK.

Your comment also neglects the very important fact that people are not equal and cannot be treated as equal without significant financial and social cost to the nation as a whole. Some people are more intelligent than others, some people have more drive and initiative than others, some people are born leaders whilst others are just followers...... What makes you, or anyone else, think that the mere act of bumping up taxes to take from those who do to 'redistribute' to those who can't or won't, makes for better equality or fairness? History shows otherwise with the high failure rate of all socialist states.

**Tantal** · 25-08-2009, 03:43 PM

Sounds like something The Borg would write........if we have any Star Trek fans here. I am of the belief that some people are exceptional and that others are idiots that are simply wasting perfectly good oxygen that could otherwise be utilized by a productive member of society. Under the U.S. system, all men are supposed to have been created equal, but that only applies to how they are treated by the law. Nobody actually thinks that all men ARE equal.

**Expounder** · 25-08-2009, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Midas

This sounds very much as if it could be applied to the more extreme ends of any political party of any belief, left or right, anywhere in the world!

I take a totally different view of the situation on this! High taxes limit innovation and growth, cause disaffection amongst the higher earners and cause significantly higher prices. If you read my latest blog entry, The Sad Road to Socialism,

The untouchables. We mustn't upset the "higher earners", spoken like a man with loads of money.

**Midas** · 25-08-2009, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Expounder

The untouchables. We mustn't upset the "higher earners", spoken like a man with loads of money.

I wasn't actually personalising it when I wrote that, but it's an indisputable fact that it's the top 20% of income earners who support and subsidise the remaining 80% by way of both the employment opportunities they create and the money they spend into the economy as a whole, all of which is taxable one way or the other, whether directly by way of income tax or indirectly by way of VAT and the plethora of other taxes and duties there are. Any government which upsets high earners does so at their peril.

LA · 25-08-2009, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Tantal

Sounds like something The Borg would write........if we have any Star Trek fans here. I am of the belief that some people are exceptional and that others are idiots that are simply wasting perfectly good oxygen that could otherwise be utilized by a productive member of society. Under the U.S. system, all men are supposed to have been created equal, but that only applies to how they are treated by the law. Nobody actually thinks that all men ARE equal.

Tantal, By any chance are you a Social Darwinist

**Expounder** · 26-08-2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Midas

I wasn't actually personalising it when I wrote that, but it's an indisputable fact that it's the top 20% of income earners who support and subsidise the remaining 80% by way of both the employment opportunities they create and the money they spend into the economy as a whole, all of which is taxable one way or the other, whether directly by way of income tax or indirectly by way of VAT and the plethora of other taxes and duties there are. Any government which upsets high earners does so at their peril.

By the process of gambling with investments and getting lucky without getting their hands dirty, non productive leeches have the cheek to say they are subsidising a manual worker who by the sweat of his efforts helps to keep the country and economy working, with respect I note a degree of arrogance here.

People like yourself Midas are being subsidised by the people who create actual wealth. Wealth isn't the money you have in the bank which in fact represents workers efforts and world resources. Wealth is what is created by workers at the sharp end whatever work they do. The rest are manipulative gamblers, who then take control,of peoples lives gambling and spending the wealth created by the minions the world over.

**Midas** · 26-08-2009, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Expounder

By the process of gambling with investments and getting lucky without getting their hands dirty, non productive leeches have the cheek to say they are subsidising a manual worker who by the sweat of his efforts helps to keep the country and economy working, with respect I note a degree of arrogance here.

Yes, there are a very few people who have started with virtually nothing and made a great deal of money from nothing but investments, however of those other people within the top 20% of income earners who invest in the various exchange and commodities markets do so using money which has frequently been very hard-earned. It's rubbish to say that "...non productive leeches have the cheek to say they are subsidising a manual worker ..."; where do you think that the money which is used to invest comes from? It comes from people who have taken very considerable risks to build up businesses which employ millions of people in this country alone. Where do you think those same manual workers, who all agree to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, would be if there weren't people around prepared to take the investment risks necessary to employ them in the first place?

People like yourself Midas are being subsidised by the people who create actual wealth. Wealth isn't the money you have in the bank which in fact represents workers efforts and world resources. Wealth is what is created by workers at the sharp end whatever work they do. The rest are manipulative gamblers, who then take control,of peoples lives gambling and spending the wealth created by the minions the world over.

That I absolutely deny! Yes, the money my partner and I earned from our own business whilst we were running it came from our workers' efforts, however those self-same workers were all paid a very fair, sometimes well above average, wage for their efforts. You'd have rather they weren't employed at all, or perhaps you'd rather they'd held out their hands for a greater share without having done any more than their day's work to earn it? It was my partner and I who took all the risks in starting and running the business, no-one else, so it's only right that we should have taken the lion's share.

I accept that since we sold the business, most of the capital growth and income I've achieved from my share of the sale proceeds has been through investments in things like commodities and foreign exchange. But you yourself know that doing this is hardly risk-free, and whilst I mightn't have employed people directly, I wouldn't care to guess how many in total were employed by the companies and brokers and agents and all the other sundry organisations who've been involved in those investment chains if you follow them right back to source. Without investors like myself, those people would not have their jobs, again for which they are paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.

Another point to consider is that the money earned by investment doesn't just sit in the bank, it either gets reinvested, creating more wealth right the way down the employment chain, or it gets spent into the wider economy, earning money for every single person who works in the shops and stores and warehouses and factories which make the good bought. That's to say nothing of the large amounts of tax the government grab from every single person in that chain.

If the socialists would have their way there'd be no-one around to take any investment risks, so there'd be no money in the government coffers to reinvest in any industry or in any housing, and we'd ultimately end up just like those bankrupt countries in Eastern Europe who eventually saw the error of their socialist ways.

**Expounder** · 26-08-2009, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Midas

Yes, there are a very few people who have started with virtually nothing and made a great deal of money from nothing but investments, however of those other people within the top 20% of income earners who invest in the various exchange and commodities markets do so using money which has frequently been very hard-earned. It's rubbish to say that "...non productive leeches have the cheek to say they are subsidising a manual worker ..."; where do you think that the money which is used to invest comes from? It comes from people who have taken very considerable risks to build up businesses which employ millions of people in this country alone. Where do you think those same manual workers, who all agree to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, would be if there weren't people around prepared to take the investment risks necessary to employ them in the first place?

Where do you think the wealth [money] came from in the first place? Its by applying labour to the earths resources. All wealth comes from labour.

That I absolutely deny! Yes, the money my partner and I earned from our own business whilst we were running it came from our workers' efforts, however those self-same workers were all paid a very fair, sometimes well above average, wage for their efforts. You'd have rather they weren't employed at all, or perhaps you'd rather they'd held out their hands for a greater share without having done any more than their day's work to earn it? It was my partner and I who took all the risks in starting and running the business, no-one else, so it's only right that we should have taken the lion's share.

"Your workers" are part of the 80% you say high earners subsidise, how can you be subsidising them while they are making you money? They have made you money and you've given some of it back.You eventually to get enough which which could keep you for life without working how are you subsidising them?

I accept that since we sold the business, most of the capital growth and income I've achieved from my share of the sale proceeds has been through investments in things like commodities and foreign exchange. But you yourself know that doing this is hardly risk-free, and whilst I mightn't have employed people directly, I wouldn't care to guess how many in total were employed by the companies and brokers and agents and all the other sundry organisations who've been involved in those investment chains if you follow them right back to source. Without investors like myself, those people would not have their jobs, again for which they are paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.

Another point to consider is that the money earned by investment doesn't just sit in the bank, it either gets reinvested, creating more wealth right the way down the employment chain, or it gets spent into the wider economy, earning money for every single person who works in the shops and stores and warehouses and factories which make the good bought. That's to say nothing of the large amounts of tax the government grab from every single person in that chain.

If the socialists would have their way there'd be no-one around to take any investment risks, so there'd be no money in the government coffers to reinvest in any industry or in any housing, and we'd ultimately end up just like those bankrupt countries in Eastern Europe who eventually saw the error of their socialist ways.

Don't go banging on about socialists, I'm accept that capitalism [as flawed as it is] is the best we've got. What annoys me is that is people like yourself making your money out the people working for you and you saying that you subsidise them

I was just correcting your paternalistic erroneous statement that "20% of the high earners subsidise the 80% of the rest. All wealth is created by raw materials and applied labour.I'm not questioning the fact that people run successful business, but to say that that they subsidise 80% of the rest of the country is ridiculous

LA · 26-08-2009, 07:51 PM

Expounder it is a cycle.
The rich need the workers to sustain their wealth or increase it
Whilst the workers need the rich so they can work -_-

**Midas** · 26-08-2009, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Expounder

Where do you think the wealth [money] came from in the first place? Its by applying labour to the earths resources. All wealth comes from labour.

Indeed, from people applying their labour for payment made by those people who took the risks to employ them and market what they produced.

"Your workers" are part of the 80% you say high earners subsidise, how can you be subsidising them while they are making you money? They have made you money and you've given some of it back.You eventually to get enough which which could keep you for life without working how are you subsidising them?

By the very act of paying them for their labour!

Don't go banging on about socialists, I'm accept that capitalism [as flawed as it is] is the best we've got. What annoys me is that is people like yourself making your money out the people working for you and you saying that you subsidise them

But it's a fact; without "people like me" those people wouldn't have jobs unless they decided to work for themselves.

I was just correcting your paternalistic erroneous statement that "20% of the high earners subsidise the 80% of the rest. All wealth is created by raw materials and applied labour.I'm not questioning the fact that people run successful business, but to say that that they subsidise 80% of the rest of the country is ridiculous

You're just arguing about semantics really; the fact remains that if it wasn't for the 20%, the 80% would have a very hard time of it.

**Expounder** · 27-08-2009, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Midas

Indeed, from people applying their labour for payment made by those people who took the risks to employ them and market what they produced.

By the very act of paying them for their labour!

But the money you are paying came from their labour.

But it's a fact; without "people like me" those people wouldn't have jobs unless they decided to work for themselves.

You're just arguing about semantics really; the fact remains that if it wasn't for the 20%, the 80% would have a very hard time of it.

Your statement that 20% of high earners are subsidising the rest of the 80% because they employ them is complete deluded nonsense. It would be more correct to say that because of the 80% the 20% are enjoying the good life.

**Expounder** · 30-08-2009, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Expounder

But the money you are paying came from their labour.

Your statement that 20% of high earners are subsidising the rest of the 80% because they employ them is complete deluded nonsense. It would be more correct to say that because of the 80% the 20% are enjoying the good life.

The workers are wealth creators, the rich are the wealth apropriators and hoarders.

Which came first the chicken or the egg. How was the first wealth created in order that a minority could become rich? The rich weren't dropped in by parachute.

Most governments don't rule countries, the rich do.

Be wise, and cut the city down to size.

read the link.

It's not too late for you to cut the City down to size, Mr Brown | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer

LA · 30-08-2009, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Expounder

The workers are wealth creators, the rich are the wealth apropriators and hoarders.

Which came first the chicken or the egg. How was the first wealth created in order that a minority could become rich? The rich weren't dropped in by parachute.

Most governments don't rule countries, the rich do.

Be wise, and cut the city down to size.

read the link.

It's not too late for you to cut the City down to size, Mr Brown | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer

It is pretty obvious that the egg came first...