The Antichristian Phenomenon

When we talk about religion, we always see it as something cultural, even as a cultural phonomenon perhaps. Religion is however quite far from it, especially when we actually talk about religion and not so much about its practices (although we will get there too). Religion is first of all a political tool. Religion is used as a banner to divide or unite people, and it has been excused as a justification in warfare many times. Religion is also secondly a socio-political identity.

However, to understand what this means, we must first understand that religion in a political context is not always as much as believing or having faith in god(s), but merely faith in something, whether it be a divine being or not. The definition of religion is:

1. A belief or faith in something
2. Rituals
3. Rules

Suddenly the word religion gains a very broad meaning, and can span more than the world religions which be invoked in our thinking when the word religion is mentioned. As such, many of our current cultural phenomena can be seen as a religion. One of those can be the animal right activist groups. To be an animal rights activist, you should first of all share a belief that animals are equal to or better than humans, rituals might involve to not eat meat or consume any product taken from dead/living animals and lastly, rules that forbid you to say, eat meat. This is all put into an overarching system and also gives the animal right activist an identity with other animal right activists by following this agenda. Thus, to truly be an animal right activist means that you actually follow a religion of sorts, in a purely political context. The only reason why you or anyone else would declare yourself an animal right activist is only to politically prove you share the idea of these typical ethics and morals mentioned (animals are of equal or above equal worth compared to humans, you follow a vegetarian diet, you do not consider any form of research conducted on animals ethically correct etc), thus, declaring yourself an animal rights activist outside a political context is useless. Obviously, the idea also unites other animal rights activists under certain organizations such as WWF but also creates a we vs them mentality, let’s say, the evil factories that pollute the rivers and seas so fish will die.

It is also very evident that religion is also more strongly envoked upon when a political identity is needed. I saw a short three-part documentary called We Are All Neighbours today, conducted by anthropologist Tone Bringa in a small village in Bosnia. 1/3 of the population was Catholic, the remaining 2/3 Muslim. It is recorded during the early 90s, (1993) and the conflict between Croatians and Muslims over Bosnia has just begun. At first, the conflict can be heard because of gunshots and shelling, but it is only in a distance and remains so for quite a while. While the villagers are worried the war will break out and soldiers will invade their village, they still don’t understand much of the basic idea of the conflict, that different ethnical groups (Croats, Serbs, Muslims) struggle to gain politcal control over a country (Bosnia). Croats, Serbs and Muslims have lived peacefully in this village for quite some time, and they don’t understand why the fuss. Sure, some of them have different faiths (Catholics vs Muslims) but they still believe in the same god. They also openly declares they don’t understand how you can attack your own neighbour for belonging to a different ethnical group. However, as the violence draws closer it eventually escalates in a bloodbath, where neighbour stands against neighbour, and eventually the Catholics kill their Muslim neighbours when the Croatian soldiers arrive (Croatia is more strongly associated with Catholicism). We can clearly see as the violence draws closer the villagers also keep more and more to themselves; Muslims to Muslims and Catholics to Catholics, despite many of them being good friends before the war begun. They often excused their own newly gained animosity with that “they might consider me a spy” or equally farfetched reasonings. In a world of paranoia however, it doesn’t seem as impossible as it would have before the war.

Here, we can clearly see how one’s religious identity becomes more important to strengthen one’s national identity (Catholics associate themselves with Croatia and support the Croatian army, Muslims the Bosnians and Serbs). Thus, religion is merely a political construct, and when you openly declare you are this or that, you also openly declare a political stance. It might not sound very rational to claim, especially if we look at something such as Atheism.

However, Atheism maybe more than anything is a political construct and many ideas in Atheism support this. First of all, there is a “belief” in science, that at least science is more superior to any other way to view the world. Science is associated with a secular society, and in turn associated with freedom of thought. Here, we can slowly see how Atheism is taking upon more and more political leanings, since freedom of thought often reconciles with freedom of speech. Atheism also often stands for many other common ideas in secular societies, such as a more social welfare model as well as Liberalism (which has partly been mentioned with freedom of speech). Religion on the other hand, is often associated with Conservatism (in a political sense but also culturally) and then that religion’s internal structure (ie rules and rituals) will decide how a Conservative society will look like.

Of course, I am not going so far as saying it is always this way, this is merely shown to point out an example how many Atheists might actually consider themselves, and that at least in a political context, their lack of belief in a god will actually create such as strong socio-political identity that it can be considered a religion, and how the word religion in turn is merely there to express one’s raher ethical, moral and political views than actually your ideas of faith.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

Since Db0 was so kind to remind me of this in his post, it was hard for me not to reply to that, especially after learning about the Seed Theory originally created by Carol Delaney and her colleague whose name escapes me right now. There is actually a reason why females are considered inferior in the Abrahamic religions. To understand this, we must first of all understand what was before Christianity and Judaism. That’s right, many pagan religions where some were cheerishing the fertility of women, since good fertility means a good harvest. Fertility of course, is the very central theme in many agricultures, and why shouldn’t they, when it’s the very thing they rely upon to survive? Looking at this further, we can also see a notion where every god of fertility in pagan religions is depicted as woman. Coincidence? I think not. Thus, fertility as a whole is more strongly connected to the female gender rather than the male one, and in addition connected to the earth since the earth can be fertile. Women then, stand for the earthly. Is there any question too why it is the female who gives birth to the world in most mythology sagas? As a quick example, we don’t need to go further than Gaia, which is probably the most well-known of all world birthgivers.

However, when the Abrahamic religions came into the picture and turned the world upside down with its monotheism, there was suddenly no room for a fertility godess. As a matter of fact, god is so divine that it is the very opposite of what is earthly. Men, who never were considered fertile in the sense as women then, were seen as closer to god. Why is that women cannot even sometimes leave their own house during their periods, or if they pray their prayers will not be reached? Periods if anything, is the very physical evidence of female’s fertility. Men, who do not have periods, and thus are not connected to the earthly are more pure, and also stands closer to the divine.

It is also noted that men not only are more divine, they are the actors, while women are merely spectators. Why is that the most romantic sex would be where the woman is passive, lying down on her back? This is a very old notion in Western society of how sex should be performed. Men once again, are the actors. This in turn refers back to god, where god created the world, not the woman. We call god the creator and god plants the seed. Men too, plant the seed in women, not only because you plant a seed into the ground but also literary, in English and many other European languages is the semen of men sometimes known as seed.

Why then is the earthly considered so bad that women’s sexuality should even become prosecuted? I cannot honestly answer, more than it seems to be an attempt to demonize pagan religions.

This is an analysis I based on Fall From Grace in Genesis:

My own tack on Fall From Grace? It’s a way to make a claim between the earthly and the divine. You see, in the Abrahamic religions and also in many pagan ones, women in particular are often considered being more “earthly”, because of their difference in fertility. This is primarily based on the fact that women can have children and have periods. This sets women further away from god, since god is divine and not earthly. Don’t you for example think it’s funny it’s Eve who ate the fruit first, not Adam? A serpent is often symbolized with cycles, notice how this seem to fit nicely with periods? Furthermore, this is probably a way for the Abrahamic religions to taint the pagan religions in where female fertility was seen as a positive thing. In paganism too, a cyclist thinking is not that uncommon. So in such a sense, the woman represents nature and paganism, which in Christianity is so far apart as you can get from god. Notice also how it is Eve who later suggested Adam to eat the fruit. Thus all the blame was to be put on Eve. Adam did nothing wrong, after all he is the man, and is closer to god. Even if he did wrong he did less wrong because he doesn’t have periods.

In addition, it is also the child who inherits the sin from its mother, not its father, further explaining that women are tainted but men are not. So frankly, I have actually no idea how some Christians could reproduce with this idea in mind. Going further to not have sex before marriage could be a part where a man who has sex with an unmarried woman will become tainted. Among gypsies, the skirt closest to the body is tainted as well, and among some Muslims women’s underwear cannot be mixed with men’s underwear during washing, or the men’s clothing will be tainted.

I would one day like to see where men’s semen is considered as tainted too, although that will probably not happen. Most often periods are also a sign with lack of body control, and to keep oneself clean and pure. This can be traced even further back from Ancient Greece where there some there were ideals a human should adhere to show dignity. One of those was to keep oneself pure. Of course, this notion too, was constructed by men for men, women were not often considered and even if they were, there were other ideals for them to follow.

Hm, I realize I am too tired to really think more clearly about the matter right now, so I will just continue when more ideas arise. I guess I call this part 1, so if there are anything else to discuss, it will be in part 2. Maybe a more elaborate analysis of From From Grace perhaps?

This was originally posted in my last.fm journal here.

While skimming through a thread in the Intelligent Metal group, someone had posted quite an interesting thought that black metal and pagan metal (I rather refer it as folk metal as pagan metal is too much of an ambiguous term and pagan metal falls under the categories of folk and black metal in any case) are mere pastisches of lost societies. They were, in the author’s eyes, “inauthentic”.

While thinking more over the cause of this, some interesting ideas came to my mind, strongly associated when the author started to compare black and folk metal as equally fake as McDonalds, that he is indeed correct in his captivization, but it is not as easy as he puts it. Black and folk metal is is a journey to find one’s own identity, more than merely trying be a fake opposition. Is there actually in this light any question why Norway of all countries, came to be the mother of black metal? To understand this further, one must realize that Norway historically is a very new independent nation. Not until after the First World War did it manage to free itself from Swedish rule. Before that, Norway had either for a very long time been both a part of Sweden and Denmark. It is thus more than any other country one may argue, a country who for a long time had no real true national identity. Adding the sudden Americanzation which swept over the rest of the world shortly after the Second World War, no wonder Norwegians still struggle to define what is typically Norwegian! Why is it that Norway has a national day they celebrate each year (17th of May) but Swedes had to install such a national day because we previously didn’t have one?

Therefore, it can be easy to conclude that Norway in fact was the perfect home for black metal. It should not be further argued which band was the first one to release the first black metal album (some argue it was Bathory, others Venom, others once again Mayhem), nevertheless, today the Norwegian black metal scene is rather undisputed. Why then, one may ask, is it that the search of national identity has taken the expression in black metal in particular? To understand this, one must first understand the Norwegian black metal scene itself.

It can be argued whether it was Mayhem who started it, regardless, Mayhem’s place in black metal history holds a very important keyrole to develop the genre further. It should first of all be noted that Mayhem was not the first band to write about vikings, paganism and antichristianity, but one man should definitely be mentioned as a huge inspirational source in this matter: Bathory. No doubt he inspired many black metal bands which popped up during early 90s with his viking lyrics. It should also be noted that Bathory today is most commonly considered the father of folk metal as well, but more about this later.

To understand why vikings are so important in this, one must first understand that vikings are a major part in Scandinavian history. In fact, it is so deeply ingrained in our mentality that it is the very part of our national identity. Scandinavians are proud of their viking origin! There is not a single true Scandinavian who doesn’t feel a little sense of nationalism when vikings are mentioned. Despite having a bloody history, vikings formed who we are. We also know that vikings were one of the last to give in to Christianityin Europe. Here we get to an interesting topic of itself, where Christianity among other things have come to respresent the “evil commercial capitalism”. As we know, Christianity is the major religion in USA and their religion is deeply rooted in the society. Christianity thus represents the capitalism and Americanization (McDonalds do too but it would be silly to sing about how much you hate McDonalds). Faith itself, is considered to be of the color white, and in religion means “purity”. This is why white clothing is preferred during certain celebrations with Christian grounds, and why priests among other politically important figures wear white during work. Black then, is the very opposite of this, the epitome of paganism. There is of course a strong sense of irony in this as well, as despite attempting to break free of the contemporary society’s bonds, the revolt is still expressed in a language used in that society rather than actually referring to the society they are trying to mimic.

Returning back to national identity, I also find it interesting to note here that Norwegian is even preferred as the sung language in black metal. Once again the refusal to admit globalization and Americanization. Bands like Dimmu Borgir wrote all their lyrics in Norwegian in their early years, before releasing Enthroned Darkness Triumphant. In band names too, we can see a preference for Ancient German with the band Tyr. While originally from Faroe Islands, it was under a long time inhabited and controlled by vikings and even today, I think children of the Faraoe Islands must learn Danish in school. A rememberance when the islands were a part of Danish rule.

Additionally, there is no real metalhead who never encountered the world “true”, or “tr00″, or “trve” (spelt with a Latin u) which essentially, is particularly permeated around black metal. Along with this mentality often include poor recordings, the refusal to release any other types of music than demos if any demo is released at all and the refusal to sign to big labels unless it primarly focuses on black metal only, if the band by all means must sign at all. This too, is an expression against the Americanization and capitalism. To “be true” stands for the absolute opposite of commercialism. To become commercially successful is the greatest sin in metal. In addition there is often a correlation between commercialism and poor music quality that particularly people speaking for the “trueness” argue over. Instead, rather listening to a barely listenable black metal demo is preferred. Here too, we can see a correlation between poor sound quality vs good sound quality, since commercially successful bands have better studios available and thus good sound quality means you have enough money to afford such a studio, despite that with technological improvements, even cheap sound studios can offer good quality sound today.

Finally, we have corpse painting. To dress up or use makeup is hardly unusual in metal. KISS were one of the first together with Alice Cooper. Here we can see how important shock value is to gain attention. Would people today remember Kiss and Alice Cooper would they have performed without stage makeup and flashy shows? No doubt, Mayhem managed to very early make a name about themselves with the murder of Euronymous. Varg Vikernes got into jail and the murder itself became exeggerated and rumors began to spread. Here once again, we can see the ambivalent attitude black metal has against commercialism. Would we still have the black metal we have today would this not happened? I am not so sure. Definitely more bands were to follow, and while they were not as extreme, Mayhem did set up the level of public attention a black metal band should crave through controversial means. Of course, I can see why particularly folk metal bands rather refer corpse painting as battle paint, regardless, it is pretty much the same but with different colors. Folk metal bands too, are known to dress up in true LARP style.

Folk metal, often considered to be started by Bathory, rather put a focus on entertainment value, because while we shouldn’t forget that while music is art and can express many things, in the end, it is just that, entertainment. I doubt Quorton himself took his music that seriously. It is also here the main difference between folk metal and black metal is split: folk metal does not care so much about commercialism. In fact, many folk metal bands are commercially succesful (Ensiferum, Finntroll). While the folk metal genre is dominated with Scandinavian countries here too, folk metal is not so much about catching the essence of the Scandinavian nationality (in fact, I don’t think any folk metal band takes itself too seriously) but is more interested on doing a good “show”. This too, comes from older times of metal when we have bands such as once again, Kiss, Alice Cooper, GWAR and Manowar that also put a heavy emphasis on stage appearances more than doing just music. It is thus all about entertainment. Black metal then, with it’s “trueness”, is not free to entertain in the same way as folk metal can.

Can both genres then still try to deliver the same ideas through their lyrics and musical atmosphere? I would say that black metal has in general a far more serious undertone compared to folk metal and that black metal then, actually tries to find some sort of essence using modern means (once again, noticing the irony not trying to use the way how pagans could have done it) whereas folk metal is more about entertainment. It is, in a sense, Lord of the Rings, whether it may be about vikings or elves. While the lyrics themselves may hold some historical ground they are just that, stories, and should not be taken seriously or literary.

With this text, I hope I managed to give others some insight and an interesting point on the black and and folk metal movement. While I know I focused a lot on black metal, black metal today is also a far bigger scene than folk metal currently is, and has quite a controversial history which should be explored. However, I do think I managed to explain what I consider to be the reasons why particularly black metal as a movement started at all and why it more than any other metal genre holds such strong ideological grounds. I also think it further managed to explain why black metal and not folk metal took the expressional form with national socialism (nsbm). It is quite ironical too to note that black metal more than any other metal genre too is very similar to a religion in an anthropological sense. While most people would agree that a religion requires a deity or somesuch to be worshipped, religion is not only about worship but also about rituals and rules. Black metal more than any other genre has rules what to do and not to do (wear corpsepaint, be true, release poor quality demos, write about paganism, satanism, antichristianity and vikings etc) and many of the fans are more eager to advocate these ideals than fans of other metal genres advocate theirs. We can for example right now see a huge controversy within the genre with so called unblack metal, or christian black metal. As previously explained, Christianity is the very epitome religion black metal works against; coming out as a Christian black metal band then creates a huge controversy and other artists within the genre being non-Christians will automatically reject this band, thus forcing these bands to call themselves unblack metal, not only because they do not want to be associated with the antichristianity permeated in black metal but also because they are rejected by the genre itself.

I realize this is a huge subject and definitely worth looking into more, but for now, I hope you in this gr1m trve frostb177en text found some entertainment for a while