Whistleblower In Custody Claims UK Nuclear Programme Is a “Disaster Waiting To Happen”

For many decades now, the UK’s nuclear weapons have been housed at Faslane Naval base in Scotland. The Trident programme has been a divisive issue in the UK as a whole for some time, but this week Able Seaman William McNeilly, 25 (who according to Wikileaks has been in contact with them since the beginning of May) released a dossier online detailing his concerns that the Trident programme was a“disaster waiting to happen” and then promptly went on the run before being apprehended at Edinburgh airport although many mainstream media outlets are reporting that he “handed himself in to Royal Navy police”. I don’t know what actually happened but if I was on the run and in an airport I would probably not be there to hand myself in, I’d probably do that a police station. But that’s just conjecture on my part.

So what is the Trident programme? It comes from the US actually. Fromscraptrident.org:

“The UK’s nuclear arsenal is a version of the US Trident.  The missiles used in the system are so accurate that they can be used as a “first-strike” weapon. This means they can be used to attack enemy installations in the hope of preventing a counter strike.  This makes the system more dangerous since it – theoretically – could be used without the absolute guarantee of destructive retaliation, so gaining – theoretically – a strategic advantage.

Each warhead is around 8 times as powerful as the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima and each missile can deliver a number of these warheads. They are designed to attack cities and cause enormous loss of life and hideous suffering for survivors.”

That sounds just great for someone like me who lives quite near this facility.

So what are the concerns that McNeilly (engineering technician submariner who was on patrol with HMS Victorious this year) had that he felt he needed to share? Well for a start there is the security issue. The dossier he wrote refers to a shocking lack of security in the base, take this quote for example:

“I’m sure all the Strategic Weapon System (SWS) personnel are scratching their heads and wondering how I’m writing this on my personnel laptop and referencing a book [CB8890: The instructions for the safety and security of the Trident II D5 strategic weapon system] which is contained within a safe in the Missile Control Centre (MCC). The MCC is the compartment used to control the launch of the nuclear missiles. It can only be accessed by people on the access list, and no personnel electronics are allowed. I was on the access list but how could I have gotten a copy of every single chapter on to my phone? A hidden camera? No. Smuggled the book out then filmed it? No. What I did was walk into a room were no recording devices are allowed. I sat down; took my Samsung Galaxy SII (white) out of my pocket, and recorded the entire book word for word. I held the phone still, about a foot in front of my face and anyone who looked at the screen or used common sense, would’ve seen I was recording. There were other SWS personnel in the room; in the video you can see a SWS JR about 3 feet in front of me talking to another SWS JR sitting right beside me. You probably think that’s impossible but I’ve got the evidence to prove it. The complete lack of concern for security worries me. The fact is it would’ve been even easier for me to cause a nuclear catastrophe than to gather that information, and gathering that information was actually quite simple, due to the amount of ignorance.”

Unfortunately it doesn’t get any better, McNeilly also brings up the issue with official ID’s going missing frequently :

“At a Base security brief we were told that thousands of Royal Navy IDs go missing every year. A terrorist can use them, or create counterfeits with them and easily gain access down the submarine. Considering most of the guards barely look at them from a few metres (couple of feet if their the rare ones) away the fakes wouldn’t have to be too perfect. I’ve shown a room card or nothing, at least once at every check point.”

Now, while I don’t exactly buy into the mainstream media’s terrorist over exaggerations, this is still a very worrying quote.

But not quite as bad as this one:

“If you’ve been through airport security after 9/11 you’ll have seen how thorough the security is nowadays. If airport security and Nuclear weapon security were both compared to prisons, the airport would be Alcatraz and Base security would be house arrest.”

So if he is telling the truth then airport security is more stringent than security at naval bases which house nuclear subs!?! Seriously?

McNeilly also detailed horrendous failings in safety onboard the subs:

“The crew was getting ready to sail; I was assisting with storing the supplies on the boat. This day gave a good indication as to how the patrol was going to be; disorganised and a risk to health. Nobody took charge of storing ship. Most of the crew that was supposed to be helping us left early, there was food on the ground, food thrown in skip/bin, with wrappers busted and people throwing food at personnel on the casing and a lot of food to still waiting to get brought onboard. We had started in the morning and it wasn’t until the night that the PO came out to take charge. He ordered us to bring onboard the meat which was laying on the floor and in the bin for a good part of the day. There was meat which had dirt on it because the wrapper was busted; it was still brought onboard for us to eat on patrol. The firefighting equipment was brought on board at the last minute and stowed away in a rush by BSQs (non submarine qualified personnel); most of them didn’t know where to put the gear. If the suits were stored incorrectly it could dramatically affect the response time to an incident. I also don’t like the idea of removing a lot of the firefighting equipment from the submarine whilst in harbour. Their reasoning is, it’s for re-entering the submarine from the casing if there’s a fire. How about having sets onboard and sets at the fire dump for re-entry, so the other PPI Gold teams have the option of getting dressed anywhere onboard or from the casing. I said that to a PO and his response was”it’s a good point, they probably don’t do it for money reasons.” Considering the Billions that’s poured into these submarines, I doubt and hope it’s not for money reasons.”

As if that isn’t a health and safety nightmare then how bad is the fact that McNeilly claims that even alarms were muted:

“I could sometimes here alarms on the missiles Control and Monitoring Position (CAMP) while laying in bed. I later found out that I would’ve been hearing them more frequently if they didn’t mute the console; just to avoid listening to the alarms This is the position that monitors the condition of the missiles, and they muted the alarms. One of the watch keepers told me and laughed about how they would deal with any issues; they would deviate from set procedures because the procedures can be “long and winding.” He said “sometimes you just know that you can adjust a valve slightly and that would solve the problem. Following the procedures might take you down a long and winding path.” You might think that’s no big deal, just an engineer using his engineering skills; if he was caught doing this kind of action on an American submarine it would cost him his job and possibly his freedom. If you work on the Strategic Weapon System you must follow the procedures, mistakes can be catastrophic.”

I actually thought I was horrified enough before I read the claims that submarines could easily ‘be lost':

“A Fire Control Supervisor seen my interest in submarine disasters, so he gave me a book that contained detailed information about Submarine accidents. A lot of submarines have been lost due to simple accidents. If one simple mistake is made it can be all other. You can find some of the information online but most of it is covered up. It’s only a matter of time before one of the Trident submarines are lost. HMS Vanguard a Trident submarine makes an appearance in the book for the deep depth incident. The submarine exceeded 300 meters (safe depth is 65meters). They under estimated the weight of the submarine and didn’t have enough speed for the Aft-planes to create raise. The further the submarine descented the more the weight of the submarine increased due to pressure. The rate of weight increase was greater than the rate that they were pumping out water. The submarine was extremely close to being lost:A Fire Control Supervisor seen my interest in submarine disasters, so he gave me a book that contained detailed information about Submarine accidents. A lot of submarines have been lost due to simple accidents. If one simple mistake is made it can be all other. You can find some of the information online but most of it is covered up. It’s only a matter of time before one of the Trident submarines are lost. HMS Vanguard a Trident submarine makes an appearance in the book for the deep depth incident. The submarine exceeded 300 meters (safe depth is 65meters). They under estimated the weight of the submarine and didn’t have enough speed for the Aft-planes to create raise. The further the submarine descented the more the weight of the submarine increased due to pressure. The rate of weight increase was greater than the rate that they were pumping out water. The submarine was extremely close to being lost.”

Now there is more to this document but I think this is bad enough. There is also a political element to this which may affect some media coverage though. During the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 the issue of Trident came up with the ruling party of the limited (by the London-based Westminster parliament) Scottish parliament the Scottish National Party (SNP) who oppose Trident in Scotland (but still want to remain part of NATO) who were pro-independence and the other main political parties (Labour, Conservatives) who were anti-independence and want to keep the Trident programme as a ‘deterrent’. The major media organs in the UK were almost all anti-Scottish independence and pro-fear-mongering about Scottish independence. So it was interesting when a Guardian article in 2013 suggested that the nukes couldn’t be moved out of Scotland to England.

A spokesman also said the navy “completely disagreed” with Mr McNeilly’s report, claiming that it “contains a number of unsubstantiated personal views, made by a very junior sailor” however if something went wrong at Faslane Naval Base, it wouldn’t be the Navy spokesman who would have to worry, it will be people who live near it, like me.

An online petition calling on the MoD and Crown Prosecution Service to grant McNeilly clemency has so far attracted more than 2,700 signatories.

Originally published at Blacklistednews.com

Something Sinister Is About To Happen To Scotland's Children

While the people of the UK are spending their time obsessing over which party will win the general election on May 7^th and who they might have to do dodgy deals with to actually secure power there is something more sinister and Orwellian taking place in the Scottish parliament.

The ranks of the Scottish National Party (SNP) who are in power in the limited Scottish parliament have swelled since the Scottish independence referendum last year and there has been much evidence of them being the most authoritarian party in Britain. But for me (and many others I know) their scariest plan is their Named Person scheme.

In the words of the Scottish governments own website “The Getting it right approach includes making a Named Person available for every child, from birth until their 18^th birthday (or beyond, if they are still in school)”. Sure it sounds innocuous enough, almost as if they want to say “the friendly state will provide someone to look out for your child during their young lives”. That is absolutely the way that some see it in this country but (especially with the No2NP) movement gathering steam most are seeing through this scheme for the Orwellian nonsense that it really is.

So what's exactly wrong with it? Well if you look closely a lot of things. For one it undermines the family and this is a very important point. Many families and carers simply don't need someone from the state snooping into how they raise their children, they have been capable of doing this themselves for a very long time. I wonder personally what kind of questions these state “Named Persons” may ask kids. “What do Mummy and Daddy do in the evening?” for example, “How much do they drink?”, “How clean is your house?” and I think before you know it good parents who maybe have a flaw or two are having their houses inspected by the state and the possibility of their children being taken from them for no good reason at all. It may even be that the states named person takes issue with certain parents because of their lifestyle habits or political or philosophical beliefs and then that child could end up lost in the system for no good reason. But that's my concern, there are many more learned people than me who are equally (if not more horrified) by this scheme.

For example the Faculty of Advocates (who are a body of independent lawyers in Scotland) described the Named Person proposals as as a plan which “undermines family autonomy”, “dilutes the legal role of parents”, and could provide a platform for interference with private and family life.

The Church of Scotland criticises the Named Person proposals because of the potential for a “general diminishing of parental responsibilities” and warns that the scheme may in fact be “counterproductive” to helping the children who need it most (para. 7). It is here we hit on another point. It's clear the Scottish government don't trust us to take care of our kids properly but with constant state intervention into parenting then it encourages (in my view) people to sit back and let daddy government swan in when things start to get a bit rough. There is no doubt that this legislation could actually be more harmful to the well being of children. The British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) in their submission to the Education and Culture Committee highlighted that the universality of the Named Person provision “may get in the way of ensuring that those who really need support actually receive it” (para. 9).

The concerns I have brought up so far are real and very worrying but there is also a legal challenge to this Named Person scheme too. On No2NP.org we can read: It may be in breach of European Convention rights to privacy and family life: Leading QC Aidan O’Neill says the policy: “may not be lawful on the basis that the blanket nature of this provision constitutes a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the right to respect for individual families’ private and family life and home.”

The other legal problem is confidentiality. I find it hilarious that during the Scottish independence referendum the SNP were big on Scotland being independent from England, Wales and Northern Ireland politically but staying in the European Union (EU). So, to the SNP is makes sense to leave one government saying it interferes too much in Scotland's affairs but stay in a larger one that interferes so much it's actually quite hard to figure how many UK laws are made in Brussels (between 5% and 50% is the best I could find because it seems that everyone defines 'law' differently), ah classic political logic. But it also seems that their Named Person scheme could in fact breach EU law on data confidentiality, you see the legislation makes it easier to lower the threshold for officials to pass around confidential data, like kids medical records!

It's not hard to see how damaging a scheme like this could be for generations of young people and it may only be just being tested here in this small country of only about five million. I am not a Christian but the Christian group CARE in their evidence to the Education and Culture committee summed it up nicely for me when they noted that the Named Person provision “reflects an ideological view which denies the primacy of parental authority in relation to child rearing” and expressed concern that children are viewed “essentially as the property of the state” (para. 11). So if you feel like your kids are property of the state then “yay!” for you. You must be so pleased, however if you think that the state should butt right out of your family life then you can only be but opposed to this Orwellian state control of the most vulnerable in society.

http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

Why Political Libertarianism Doesn’t Stand A Chance In the UK

I don’t vote anymore. I did for many years with a sincere belief that democracy was the best way for human civilisations to organize themselves. I even looked down on – and argued with – non-voters with derivations of the old “People fought for your right to vote” drivel that people now say to me. I now describe myself as a libertarian and a market anarchist.

 

So you can imagine how uninterested I was when the UK government called a general election on May 7^th of this year. However, while talking to a minarchist friend of mine in the US he asked me the question “If you had to vote in this election then who would it be for?” I was kind of struck dumb for a second because while the Libertarian Party in the US may be a big party (although it seems to make absolutely no real impact as far as I understand it) there is nothing comparable to said party in this country.

 

So instead of picking a party I found myself beginning to explain how a libertarian political option just simply cannot exist right now in the UK. Yes, there is a libertarian party here but they are small, stand no candidates and many libertarians I know in the UK have more of an anarchist leaning and simply aren’t interested in them. So why can’t a strong libertarian party exist in the UK right now?

One of the first problems in the UK is that while the Labour Party pretend to be ‘centre-left’ and the Conservative Party pretend to be ‘centre-right’ the fact is that neither party has a strong ideology anymore and in reality there isn’t one on the left and one on the right, they’re bang in the middle practically embracing each other in this mixed economic mess where we have a sort of freeish market where business is taxed and regulated by government on one hand and massive state programs like our socialised health care system (the NHS) exist on the other (that would be the left hand presumably).

So you have this problem that when people like me advocate real capitalism – by which I mean an unregulated free market which the government has no involvement in many mistake the system we find ourselves under to be the capitalism I am describing and of course think I am advocating the current system, which I am not.

 

So right away we have a problem, most don’t make a distinction between capitalism and corporatism – where the government can control business through regulation and taxation and make it harder for people to enter the market place by placing so many hurdles in their way and are basically able to pick winners and losers. But when I try to explain this to my anti-capitalist friends they can’t seem to understand that things that enrage them about what they call capitalism, such as governments bailing out banks is not what real free market capitalism is all about.

 

The idea that evil capitalists always exploit workers has pretty much been debunked (primarily by Hans-Herman Hoppe) we’re not going to go into it in too much depth but as a basic example, if I set up a company and hire three guys to make my product I am putting off my share of the money till the products sell (which they might not) whereas the workers I hire get paid every month regardless. It’s the same thing as putting off £10 today for £100 (that you may not get) in a month (my apologies to Mr Hoppe for my over simplification).

 

That’s the most basic and important point for me. The idea of what capitalism is is distorted badly in this country and it doesn’t help when you have high-profile clowns like Russell Brand adding to the distortion (although at least we agree on the not voting thing). The reason this is important is because it leads into many of the other problems of trying to have political libertarianism become popular in this country. Problems like “what about the National Health Service?”

 

The National Health Service (NHS) is the system of socialised medicine in the UK. The mainstream media very often liken it to the “closest thing to a national religion”. Yes, unfortunately when it comes to the NHS the rose tinted glasses are firmly on many of the population, I have spent more time than I would like in NHS hospitals and I can’t understand all the love it gets personally. Like when people defend the government building and maintaining public roads when they’re clearly in a mess.

 

Now, the problem for any would-be political party in the UK is that if you don’t pander to the NHS then every other party and the mainstream media will all attack you can call you heartless and cold and before you know it the phone has stopped ringing and you are irrelevant.

 

We have actually seen this in action with the UK Independence party (UKIP). Now some libertarians were (and some still are) excited in these parts about UKIP. My understanding is that they came from a more libertarian place originally. I even recall their leader Nigel Farage on BBC’s “Question Time” show years ago talking about the need to move to a more insurance based healthcare system – a statement which he would definitely not make now. But if you look at UKIP’s manifesto these days you will see that they too are pandering to the NHS (some think specifically to target older, disillusioned Labour voters).

 

But that’s just how it is. Even though the NHS is wildly inefficient and increasingly expensive there is a weird attitude here to it almost like “Look how enlightened we are to have our benevolent medical system that everyone can access”. Now you can look at a previous article of mine or anywhere you like for arguments against socialised medicine, that’s not the point right now. The point here is that a libertarian party would surely be running on a campaign of cutting government spending to as low as it possibly can get. You can’t do that with a huge socialised healthcare beast.

So if our fictional libertarian party opposed the NHS then, as I said they would be attacked viciously by the other parties, mainstream media and other political and religious groups. On the other hand if they wanted to keep the NHS (and not vastly reduce it, a move that would have the same vicious reaction from all the same players) then how could they be called a libertarian party? And what libertarians would actually vote for them?

 

Even though it is deeply flawed and cuts off all actual choice of healthcare the strength of emotional feeling towards the NHS at this time is simply far too strong for a party to run on a platform of ending or even reducing it. It would be a non-starter and not just the NHS, a libertarian party would presumably cut many things people get ‘free’ here (replace free in your mind with my money stolen through taxation) and people just love their ‘free’ stuff.

 

Of course, while the NHS and all the rest of these social programs are not free for me since I’m paying for it through high taxation for many people here it is free. Thanks to the massive welfare state in the UK there are whole generations of families even, who have never worked a day in their lives and live at the expense of everyone who does work.

 

I recall watching a documentary with my wife about ordinary life in communist East Germany. We were absolutely shocked by the amount of people (it wasn’t that many but we thought one was too many) who said that they would prefer to be living back in East Germany as opposed to modern Germany. It wasn’t until we heard their reasons that it started to click for us. Many common reasons were guaranteed jobs and child care and it got us thinking how many people view the state as a kind of benevolent father figure who takes care of them. I know so many people who’s lives would shatter if the state went away because the state gave them a house (and sends people out for ‘free’ to fix anything that may need it), money every week and free school for the kids. All things they badly need.

 

So again, I will presume that our fictitious libertarian party in the UK, being libertarian would again have to opt for very minimal government spending so the massive welfare state that exists would have to be properly cut back. If you listen closely enough you can almost hear the other politicians, mainstream media, religious groups, social groups all grabbing their pitchforks and heading for Twitter screaming “You don’t care about the poor you evil bastards!” As in our previous case the reverse is also true, if a libertarian party only wanted a very modest cut in welfare or no cut at all then a) how are they a libertarian party? and b) what self respecting libertarians would actually vote for them?

 

So, while I identify as an anarchist and don’t believe that a minimal government can be sustained. It’s easy to see the reason why there is no strong libertarian party on the sidelines with a little representation and a chance of more (like the Green Party or UKIP) is this odd cultural problem. It’s not cool to talk up capitalism and when you do the term is often confused with the corporatism that we live under as opposed to free market capitalism. The NHS is unfortunately a sacred cow that no politician dare suggest we even shave never mind kill. Opposing the NHS is the kiss of death in the media in the UK currently and until it crashes it will keep it’s appeal. Then we have state infantilization of the people on a mass scale via the magic of the almighty welfare state that so many complain about but no one actually wants to cut in any real way.

 

So what would be needed would be a full-on cultural change that involves a large section of the public and at least a portion of the mainstream media – especially the mainstream media because despite all the great alternative media that is now available old school mainstream media scare tactics still work here and they work well. The mainstream media in the UK always try to shut down any kind of radical change, that’s why the ‘yes’ side was demonized by almost every newspaper and TV station (with the notable exception of the Glasgow Herald) during the Scottish independence referendum that is also why they are going so hard after UKIP right now. So this kind of extreme change could take a generation or two to come along would, in my opinion have to occur before we could see fertile ground for political libertarianism to take root in the UK.

 

I’m done with politics anyway personally and I choose to disengage as much as I can from the state in my ordinary life, not try to play them at their own game. Oh and my answer to the voting question my friend in the US asked “I would draw a little box, write my dogs name ‘Barney’ and vote for him.”

A Message from A State Hospital

The 4am face of the lady behind the thick glass begins to talk to me,
it never changes every time I come in.

“Who is your doctor?
Why are you bothering us at this time?
We’ll get you seen in like an hour,
go sit down.”

The red metal seats with the holes in them in a row,
I sit in one as far away from everyone else as I can
you see I want to actually get this over with.

But it is not that simple,
for there are people with blood dripping from their heads
oozing onto the shirts of their favourite football teams
the porters keep them separate
for now.

The extreme end of one side is fascism
then extreme end of the other is state socialism
sure we can bring politics into sport
as long as there is politics.


They are in Scotland arguing over a divided Ireland
IRA this
UVF that
I hate the back and forth so much that I want to smash their heads together with a hard crack.
The thought satisfies me a little as I lurch my head back and look at the now-yellow ceiling tiles.

What I know is useless to them,
So I refrain from jumping in and stay in my red metal seat,
the men continue to shout as I listen intently.

“Fuck the queen!”
from one side
“Fuck the pope”
from the other.

I become angry because they are distracted
they are being played off against one another
their anger erupting in the form of glass bottles
cracking against heads outside damp pubs
screaming the clichéd words of their fathers.

I am unsure whether its the fact that they are indoctrinated
or whether it’s that they don’t think for themselves that upsets my balance
“What about no fucking state!?”
Keeps going through my mind
but I won’t shout that
besides they are now shouting so loud that I can’t concentrate on my own resentments
never mind theirs.

I am struck all of a sudden by their similarities
“My state management ideas are better than yours!”
“My religious upbringing is the right one!”

I don’t care whether their parental figure is the pope, the queen or Willy fucking Wonka
I think as I wish I was anywhere else.
It’s a blind nationalism that makes you feel comfortable,
Everyone else believes in it, so why not?

The men behind the curtain just sit back and watch you idiots rip each other apart
based on flawed theories of history and economics
while they bleed you dry
you fight each other over sport for sport.

Morrissey, Government and A Craving For Power

So Morrissey has cancelled a gig in Iceland because the venue refused to comply with his demand that all meat be removed from the building (he’s done this before also) and it seems that he demands this from all the venues where he performs. Now I liked The Smiths and some of Morrissey’s solo stuff but as soon as I heard about these insane demands he makes, it immediately made me think of those statists on the left and the right who just love having things banned that they disagree with – without realising how dangerous this really is.

How many times have you heard “There should be a law against that type of thing!” or “If I was in charge that would be banned!” or something similar? I don’t care whether you are on the left demanding that certain words and smoking in public be banned or are on the right screaming for drugs or gay marriage to be made (or remain depending on where you are) illegal. We should not be asking governments to ban things just because we don’t like them, that is very dangerous.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that people should just do whatever they want. There are things like murder, rape and theft (in all it’s forms) that must have some kind of consequences for the perpetrator. However, if I use marijuana at home for recreational purposes who am I harming? You might say that I am the victim, well so what? If my smoking marijuana were to lead to some form of physical ailment then it’s only myself that I am hurting – that is my choice and mine alone. Or you could take the case of smoking cigarettes in public places, you might say that the victims are all the people who inhale the second hand smoke. Well then don’t go to those places, there is a market for establishments for all smoking, all non-smoking and sections for both. These matters should not be for governments to decide they should be for the owners of the property (I use property here not only to refer to one’s justly acquired buildings, possessions etc. but one’s own body also) and their decision alone. By letting a bunch of people that a percentage (not all) of the public voted for make these decisions is basically handing all your power and liberty to someone else to manage for you and saying “We unwashed masses cannot be trusted to do things on our own. But you, our wise government sages should choose what is legal and illegal.” When you ask a government to ban something you are giving away some of the control you have over your life to these elected gangsters and playing right into their hands. You have less control and they have more and that’s just how they like it.

The funny thing is that prohibition never actually works. Murray Rothbard remarked in “For A New Liberty” about gambling prohibition that “If every time Jim and Jack made a quiet bet on a football game, or on an election, or on virtually anything else, this were illegal, an enormous multimillion-man gestapo would be required to enforce such a law and to spy on everyone and ferret out every bet¹ .” You can also look at when alcohol was banned in the US in the 1920’s and early 30’s, all that served to do was give gangsters like Al Capone a lucrative market. Many drugs are banned here in the UK officially but are freely available on many street corners and as a result of the prohibition are much more expensive than they would be if people could produce them legally which leads to more crime, which Walter Block explained in his 1976 book “Defending the Undefendable”. Black market drugs are also more dangerous because the suppliers are unaccountable and can mix in whatever crap they like with their drugs. Can you imagine if a public company sold intentionally bad ecstasy that killed hundreds of people? The proprietors would go out of business, be charged with murder and possibly lynched.

How is Morrissey being harmed in any way, shape or form if I eat a burger somewhere in the sea of people at one of his gigs? It would be unlikely he could even see, hear or smell me unless I was right in front of him. We’re back to the property rights thing here, those arenas are someone else’s property and in my view an outsider like Morrissey has no right telling them what they can and cannot do on their own property. Sure, Morrissey has a right to refuse to be there (which he has) but I’m sure there are many other venues that would love to have him play and would pander to his vegetarian impulses. The vegetarian stuff actually doesn’t bother me (I was one for about a year) it’s this idea that people who like his music have to agree with his ethical stance. It just strikes me as the type of thing politicians do when they don’t like something and there is any kind of appetite in the public to ban said thing. It becomes an opportunity not only for more control but also to push one persons world view coercively onto others. What right does anyone have to tell consenting adults who are not harming anyone what they can and can’t do? None whatsoever.

If we continue allowing governments to ban things that are not actual crimes with actual victims then it will continue to grow out of control and become more invasive in everyone’s life. If we just respected the property rights of others and stopped worrying about what consenting adults who are hurting no-one do (no matter how much we disapprove) then we could stop giving government the increased control it craves.

Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of stuff I really don’t like and don’t want to be around but as long as it’s not coercive or harmful to be or anyone else I really don’t care. I will choose to be somewhere else more to my taste. I would never go appealing to government to take away some of your freedom because I don’t like your activities or lifestyle choices and I hope you wouldn’t do the same to me. If we keep banning things then I shudder to think of the state of liberty in twenty years.

¹ Murray Rothbard “For A New Liberty” Second Edition Pg. 134

Aleister Crowley, Being Present and Clear Thinking

I don't really recall when I first heard of Aleister Crowley, I can remember him being talked about by people as an 'evil' man around the house when I was younger but not really knowing who he was or exactly what it was he did. It was really in my teen years when a combination of me listening to a lot of Led Zeppelin (Jimmy Page is an admirer of Crowley's work) and going on a school trip where we hiked what is known in Scotland as the “Great Glen Way”. In this region lies the infamous Boleskine house (which Page once owned) where Crowley once lived and worked. I remember going into a shop and finding a biography of Crowley which, nowadays I would recommend to no-one (although it still sits staring at me on the bookcase even at this very moment). I later bought a couple of his books from an occult shop and after reading – but not really understanding them - through I lost interest really until in my twenties when I began reading him again and engaging in some of the spiritual practices he recommended. This led me to a brief affiliation with the Ordo Templi Orientis of which Crowley was once the Grand Master and I had the opportunity to converse with many intelligent people about Crowley and his philosophy known as Thelema.

This piece however is not going to be about Crowley's life or an explanation of Thelema, there are many more intelligent people than myself who have written extensively on these subjects and I will provide links to their work for anyone who would like more background.

Crowley is someone who divided opinion during his lifetime and indeed still does until this day and before we go any further I will mention that I am not defending Crowley's deeds or lifestyle choices because I feel that to get bogged down in that will miss the point of what I am trying to convey. Crowley has been a controversial figure for over a hundred years now and some writers would rather talk about things he did in his life rather than the philosophical ideas he espoused. I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I am not a Crowley expert and many will read this and feel that I am misinterpreting him in some ways or that I am missing the point of a certain quote. So let me clear this up right at the beginning: my aim here is to show how my own interpretation of Crowley's work has shaped my thinking and to show that if the controversy that still surrounds him to this day (chiefly among Christians and certain conspiracy theorists) is put to one side and we look deeper there is a lot that can be learned from the work of this fascinating man.

Who Is This Crowley Fellow?

As I have said this is not a biography, there have been many good and bad ones written about him (I will link some of the good ones below). Thelemapedia.org describes Crowley as:

Aleister Crowley (Oct. 12, 1875-Dec. 1, 1947) — however one judges him — was a fascinating man who lived an amazing life. He is best known as being an infamous occultist and the scribe of The Book of the Law, which introduced Thelema to the world. Crowley was an influential member in several occult organizations, including the Golden Dawn, the A.'.A.'., and Ordo Templi Orientis. He was a prolific writer and poet, a world traveller, mountaineer, chess master, artist, yogi, social provocateur, drug addict and sexual libertine. The press loved to demonize him and dubbed Crowley “The wickedest man in the world.”

So already you can see that from that short description how many books could (and have) been written about his life and ideas. I will note here that not only did Crowley's face appear on the front cover of the Beatles “Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band” but he was also voted the 73rd in the “100 Greatest Britons of All Time” program which was broadcast by the BBC in 2002. One of the problems with describing Crowley's life is trying to separate the man from the myth – a task which can be very difficult. I have no doubt however that Crowley did indeed treat many people badly (in my opinion) and did many things that I would never condone. But that is where I will leave that, I am fed up of reading pieces about Crowley that focus on the controversies of his life instead of focusing on the philosophical ideas he came to understand and espouse.

Also, in case you've just looked Crowley up or you have read certain things about him and instantly think “how could such a wicked man be called 'spiritual'! Why should we listen to someone like him.” I will say this, it is a fallacy to dismiss someone's work and ideas just because you disagree with how they lived their life. To use a very extreme example it's like if someone found a cure for cancer but also murdered several people, you wouldn't discard their work because of their terrible actions. I touched upon this in my piece “Black Metal and European Identity” where I focused on the musical achievements and philosophical underpinnings of the Norwegian black metal scene of the early nineties instead of dwelling on the murders and church burnings that took place at the time as so many have done. That being said, enough of the man, what can his work teach us about clear thinking?

Mind Chatter, Being Present and Mainstream Media

There is a truth that has been espoused in Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and many schools of thought even up to the modern 'new age' material with figures like Eckhart Tolle. This truth is that there is no such thing as a past or a future, those terms are simply mental abstractions and all there really is is the present moment. If you think about it nothing ever happened to you in the past, let's use an example to illustrate this point. Say you tell me that you visited Iceland in the past. Fair enough, when you were in Iceland however that was the present moment (the 'now' if you will) and it's the same with the future, if you say I will meet my friend at a restaurant in the future when it happens it will be the present moment. No-one is ever in a state of past or future, all that really exists is an eternal present moment. Sure, we can speak about things having happened in the past or what may happen in the future but the point is that when they did or will happen it will be in the present moment. As I have said this is an old idea and one that Crowley understood and when you internalize this ancient truth then life seems a whole lot different.

You see, before you can appreciate the eternal present you have to deal with the chattering in your head. Most of us spend all day mentally talking to ourselves, dwelling on things that have happened or worrying about things that may happen in the future and all the while we completely miss the only real thing we have – the present moment. Also, if we want to think or study something clearly then we have to be able to turn off the constant noise that is running like a computer program in the background of our minds, otherwise concentration becomes incredibly difficult. Try reading someone like Nietzsche or whoever while your egoic mind brings up some stupid thing you said to someone last week, or what mood your partner may be in when they get home. Without a clear mind thinking becomes harder than it needs to be.

But we're talking Crowley here, right? Indeed we are, the two thinkers of the twentieth century who helped me to really understand this truth were Aleister Crowley and Alan Watts. But this is about Crowley.

Crowley was a great practitioner of yoga and one only has to read “Eight Lectures on Yoga” to see this. In these lectures Crowley states:

“Sit still. Stop thinking. Shut up. Get out! The first two of these instructions comprise the whole of the technique of Yoga. The last two are of a sublimity which it would be improper to expound in this present elementary stage.”

Now, in many cases when westerners hear the word 'yoga' they imagine a bunch of people in sports gear in a gym or community centre stretching. You can call that yoga but in fact real yoga is a complex spiritual discipline (which we wont pursue in too much depth here because we will risk missing the point). In fact there are many types of yoga, for example karma yoga is the practice of achieving perfection in action and Bhakti yoga is a more devotional practice. Now that is wildly over simplified but I only mention it to illustrate that yoga isn't all just stretching. If we take something like Raja yoga, which is basically what many in the west would just call meditation (there is obviously more to it), this is an extremely important practice because by sitting quietly (with your back straight) and allowing whatever thoughts come into your mind to be and let them pass (almost like your thoughts are a river and you are sitting on the bank just watching things float by) you can understand what is going on in your subconscious mind that you may not be aware of day to day. You may not think it but these thoughts that run in the background can have a profound effect on your mood throughout the day and identifying, say negative thoughts and acknowledging them before they snowball in your mind and ruin your (and maybe someone else's) day, or life. It is my belief that in order to live in the present the majority of people need a practice like yoga or meditation because it is in that quiet space where you can begin to understand yourself. As Crowley remarked in 'Diary of a Drug Fiend': “Having to talk destroys the symphony of silence.”

So what's so great about focusing on the present moment anyway? Well when you are not talking to yourself all day as Crowley remarked:

“The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter.”¹

If we simply go about our day in a kind of daze, then you can fall prey to one of two problems. The first is always using the present moment as something to get through, just a stage to pass until 'life happens' (like when you are somewhere but spend the whole time either dreaming about being somewhere else or some future time when things will 'be better') then we miss the actual life that is happening all around us (John Lennon even got this when he said “Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans”). The other problem is one which we all have experienced at one point or another where we spend our day mentally bullying ourselves over something that we feel that we shouldn't have done or said or even something that we feel that we should do and it is this attitude that can have you sleepwalking through your life and missing the beauty of reality because you can't stop thinking.

Now, I just used the word 'thinking' but idle brain chatter without purpose (and by 'purpose' I mean if you are thinking deeply about a project or a problem that needs to be solved or something that will enrich your life) then - especially in this age of mass information bombarding the brain at every turn - you are more likely to internalize what you read, hear or see automatically. Crowley puts the problem like this:

“To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worth while. The natural laziness of the mind tempts one to eschew authors who demand a continuous effort of intelligence. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter.
People tell me that they must read the papers so as to know what is going on. In the first place, they could hardly find a worse guide. Most of what is printed turns out to be false, sooner or later. Even when there is no deliberate deception, the account must, from the nature of the case, be presented without adequate reflection and must seem to possess an importance which time shows to be absurdly exaggerated; or vice versa. No event can be fairly judged without background and perspective.”²

You can easily see how we could apply the newspaper mentions to the internet in our own times. Why pick up a book by say a Murray Rothbard or a Ludwig Von Mises on economics when you can look at talking heads going round in circles on TV with the same old schemes that never seem to work in practice. I confess that this was once me, I found economics hard to understand and as a result I bought into whatever the mainstream media told me about the subject, it wasn't until I learned how to focus my mind on a challenging text that I began to understand the world in a whole different way and, even though the quote above is old is it not completely true that many headlines in newspapers, on TV and on websites are either untrue or coming at you from a certain angle? True, everyone is coming at you from an angle (even me) but I am still surprised when I meet many adults who do not see through the varied agenda's of the mainstream (and some of the alternative) media. Without understanding the spin an author or broadcaster is putting on a subject you cannot analyse it for yourself and you become stuck in this mode of adopting opinions that you have heard from other people and not thought through.

Political and Personal Mind Chatter

Crowley also recognised how the constant talking to ourselves and others with little quiet time for real thinking can have a damaging effect. Take the quote:

“People think that talking is a sign of thinking. It isn't, for the most part' on the contrary, it's a mechanical dodge of the body to relieve oneself of the strain of thinking, just as exercising the muscles helps the body to become temporarily unconscious of its weight, its pain, its weariness, and the foreknowledge of its doom.”³

How many times have you seen a politician asked a straight forward 'yes' or 'no' question and instead of one of those words they break off into a ramble that normally starts off like “Well, we have said as a party...” and five minutes later we still don't know whether the answer is 'yes' or 'no'. It's the same with political speeches, the unthinking masses can watch a skilled politician stand on a stage with lots of nice lighting and basically say nothing for an hour. Almost every leaders' speech at party conferences is like that. Buzz phrases that sound good but mean fuck all in reality are the norm. All a politician really has to do is throw around phrases like “social justice”, “green agenda”, “growth”, “equality” or “fairness” (I'm sure you can think of many others for yourself also). I have watched whole speeches and realised that absolutely nothing of any substance is being said but when your mind is chattering and some politician mentions “social justice” it's easy to think of, say a loved one who is not very well off and what a government of thier involvement and their mates could do for that person (with other people's money, but that's a whole other essay) and before you know it, the speech has moved on but you are left with the idea that this politician really cares about people with low incomes. It is a magic trick and it works.

Since I'm enjoying quoting Crowley, I would love to be face to face with one of our dear leaders and quote Crowley in Moonchild:

“Don't talk for five minutes, there's a good chap! I've a strange feeling come over me--almost as if I were going to think!”

What is interesting here is that we can expand this outward also. Let's leave those political leeches alone and think about our interactions with others. How many times have you been in a conversation with someone and instead of really listening to what they have to say you spend the time that they are talking chatting internally to yourself about what you will say next? You might think that this is a good example of thinking but not really in my opinion. Here's why; instead of really taking in what is being said to you in the present moment (all there actually is) you are mentally in the future planning a response to something that hasn't even been verbalised yet. Don't get me wrong, I fall into this trap all the time but it's not falling into it that's bad, it's falling into it and not realising it.

Conclusion

For me this is really about conscious living, or put more simply just paying attention to life. I suppose what I am trying to get at here is the notion that many of us spend most of our time talking to ourselves and each other so incessantly that there is very little time for real thought to take place. I am a believer in the notion that without philosophical thinking or the 'examined life' as it has been called, then life is not being well lived. It's easy to imagine a future when you will be 'happy' when certain hypothetical conditions are met in your mind, however they only exist in your mind. The fact is that if you can't be happy right now then when can you? Money, fame or whatever it is will not fix your mind and in my opinion neither will an external force however you imagine it. I am not any kind of enlightened master but I do know that the only person that can focus my life and my thinking is me. As I see it, the real joy in life is attempting to understand yourself and the world you find yourself in and what Crowley taught me is that with practice (I am still way off where I would like to be) of clearing the mind and embracing the present moment then it becomes easier to see the code of the matrix if you will and look through the social programming. Let us conclude with what Crowley said in Magick: Liber ABA: Book 4:

“The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.”

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News

http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

Notes

¹ The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography

² Ch. 23. The Confessions of Aleister Crowley 1929

³Aleister Crowley, Diary of a Drug Fiend

Black Metal and European Identity

My wife Caity and I recently released a podcast (inspired by the 2009 documentary film “Until The Light Takes Us”) where we spoke about the early Norwegian black metal scene. While I encourage you to listen to the show (and watch the film). I have been digging a little deeper and I feel like there is more to this story that deserves it's own article. I also want to mention right at the start that I don't know any of the people I am discussing here nor do I speak for them in any capacity. This is my own impressions of their work.

Normally if you mention Norwegian black metal to your average non-metalhead (and indeed to some metalheads) they look at you with a kind of blank stare. Fair enough, take it one step further and play your average person some of said black metal and they think you're fucking nuts for listening to “that noise”. True, black metal as a genre is really not for everyone (nor was it intended to be) but to dismiss this genre (in it's original form) as simple “noise” vastly misses the philosophical backdrop to the music itself.
 

Before I go any further I feel that I should mention that I am going to be addressing the specific Norwegian black metal scene of the early 90's. Like all kinds of musical movements black metal has spawned many bands who either don't know about the original philosophical underpinnings, don't hold the same view as the specific artists that I am discussing in this article or simply don't care and just want to dress up and look all scary. Not that all black metal bands since the early 90's are shit, far from it. But I will be talking specifically about early Norwegian black metal.
 

Caity and I first watched “Until The Light Takes Us” a few years ago when I came across it by accident. I had listened to my fair share of black metal (much of it when I was in my late teens and early twenties) by the time I came across the film, Caity however had not. She agreed to watch the film with me (presumably because I wouldn't shut up about it until we did). When we had actually sat down to watch the film she found herself becoming more fascinated not by the music, (to this day Caity does not care for the genre) but by the philosophic underpinnings to the music and the scene that formed around it.

The Music
 

I have provided links below of some of my favourite black metal albums so you can listen for yourself if you like. Many black metal bands were inspired by European metal bands like Bathory, Venom, Black Sabbath and Celtic Frost. When I describe black metal to people I usually say “if you hear a tune and the guitars sound like chainsaws, the double bass drums are thundering rapidly like a machine gun firing and the vocals are like a tortured soul crying out for someone to listen then it's likely black metal that you're listening to. But while the music is a part of this article I will focus more on the philosophies of some of the original people involved.

 

The film's main subjects are Gylve Fenris Nagell (hereafter referred to as “Fenriz” as he is better known) who is one half of the band Darkthrone and Varg Vikernes (also known as “Count Grishnackh”) who founded the one-man music project Burzum and also played bass at one point with Mayhem and guitar with death metal band Old Funeral. I am focusing on these two men specifically not just because they are the two subjects of the film that made me want to dig deeper into this scene but, as Vikernes put it in a 1993 interview “I really don't care about the scene in Norway! I know only two black metal acts in Norway: Darkthrone and Mayhem!” I had listened extensively to the music made by these men but had never heard them speak or read any interviews with them really (I have now) and given Vikernes' previous deeds most of what I thought I knew about him wasn't exactly accurate (more on that later).

Something I realised from reading about our two main subjects (Fenriz and Vikernes) was the difference in their focus. Fenriz strikes me as someone who was more focused on the music than the politics or philosophy. In a 2012 interview he said “as we grew up with archetypal heathen bands, and then more and more satanic throughout the 80s, the same happened with us, and then when getting older it’s mixed with more heathenism again – but musical always had me. A VERY big part of me. So this is my main drive, my main obsession, my main possession; so it is my religion.” Indeed to this day Fenriz is a promoter of underground bands through his Band of the Week blog. Interestingly he likes to keep Darkthrone out of the spotlight, for example in 2004 he turned down a nomination for a Norwegian Alarm award, saying that Darkthrone had "no interest in being part of the glitter and showbiz side of the music industry".

From listening to an reading accounts of many in the scene I instantly drew parallels in my mind with elements of the early punk scene. Some aspects are obvious like how both styles are loud aggressive music and their proponents are angry about real issues. I can also see the DIY ethic that so characterises real punk music present in black metal. Øystein Aarseth or “Euronymous” was running a record label and a small record shop that dealt in extreme metal music for example (more on him later). I also thought of this when, in a scene in the movie Fenriz is talking about how the recorder he used to record riffs broke so he went looking for a new one, a guy he know offered him an expensive recorder for something like two thousand kroner but (that not being what he wanted) he found one he liked for fifty kroner that recorded but didn't play back and bought that one instead.

It's also an interesting note that Vikernes mentions that when making the first Burzum album he intentionally used the worst mic he could find (which ended up being a headset) and the worst amp he could find also and the effect is plain for those who have ears to hear in the album. Although while Fenriz's focus seems to be on music, Vikernes' seems to be more on philosophy and Fenriz would not be involved in some of the extreme behaviour shown by that of some other bands.
 

Murder, Suicide and Church Burning

On 16 May 1994, Vikernes was sentenced to 21 years in prison (Norway's maximum penalty) for the murder of Øystein Aarseth or “Euronymous” (the guitarist of the band Mayhem, he was also founder and owner of the extreme metal record label Deathlike Silence Productions and record shop Helvete) the arson of three churches, the attempted arson of a fourth church, and for the theft and storage of 150 kg of explosives. However, he only confessed to the latter. Vikernes maintains (as far as I have read) that the murder was self-defence and that he was not responsible for the church burnings (although he supported them).

Now, as I have said above what interested me about this scene so much was the philosophy that inspired the music. I am not going to dwell on whether Vikernes' crimes were self-defense or not, I wasn't there so I don't know. However, what is important is to illustrate the extreme nature of this scene as it's quite unlike any other I am familiar with. There is another member of Mayhem who met an unfortunate end that I feel I should mention before going any further.

One of Mayhem's lead singers Per Yngve Ohlin or “Dead” was another example of the extreme nature of the scene. He is known for his stage antics and presence. Mayhem's drummer Jan Axel Blomberg or “Hellhammer” described him as the first black metal musician to wear corpse paint, he would also bury his clothes before shows and dig them up to wear on stage and cut himself with a knife while performing shows. Dead committed suicide on 8 April 1991 and, again (to show the extreme nature of this scene) Euronymous took some pictures of his dead body and one of the images appeared on the cover of the bootleg live album “Dawn of the Black Hearts”.

I recount these stories, not to titillate or talk up these actions and certainly not to defend anyone. I bring them up rather to illustrate the fact that this is an incredibly unique musical environment with a high degree of violent behavior. But then we have to ask the question; what was the motivation for this violent music?

Philosophical Underpinnings

Although there are many uses of satanic imagery in black metal I was interested to find out that many of it's proponents were in fact far from being satanists. Many of the people in the black metal scene were actually more interested in pre-christian European religion and values and in quite a few cases the word “heathen” is probably more accurate than “satanist”. In fact some of the main themes that came up in my reading of interviews were anger at the christianization and also the americanization of Europe. Of course I am not going to detail all the history of the christianization of Europe in this article as a full examination of this topic is very complex and could fill several books.

So what about the belief that many of these folks were satanists? Vikernes* explains on Burzum.org in his own words that there were no “devil worshippers” in Europe and what Judeo-Christians call “satanism” is really pre-christian (pagan) European religion. In the film Vikerenes also mentions that later church burnings were done by young copycats who sprayed satanic graffiti at the sites “thinking that's what it was about”. I personally flirted with Satanism in my teen years and much of my interest in it came through being horrified by my roman catholic upbringing and wanting to run to what I thought of as the opposite of christianity (I didn't realise that by running to satanism I was still within the judeo-christian (or abrahamic) mindset and a truer rebellion would be to reject the whole thing completely) I had been brought up with and here we must draw a distinction. There are two forms of satanism. The more popular form of “LaVeyan satanism” espoused by Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple do not believe in a literal being called Satan. Rather they see Satan as the ultimate symbol of rebellion throughout history. This differs from “theistic” Satanism, proponents of which supposedly hold that there is such a being as Satan and worships him accordingly (although I have spoken with LaVeyan satanists I have never spoke with anyone involved with or read anything about theistic satanism.).

But with those definitions aside it seems quite reasonable, given the anti-christian sentiment that runs throughout black metal music that satanic imagery would be employed. The real point of a black mass is to mock christianity for example. The fact that satan is a major figure of rebellion in history (as I have mentioned) and the fact that black metal music is (for the most part) a rebellion against christianization and also the shock factor to the average person present in satanic ceremonies and black metal gigs makes them (in my mind) a perfect match. Because when you think about it they are standing in contrast to the christian norms of society, they are tapping into the rebellion that satan has embodied for over a thousand years and still does to this day. Try walking up to an average person on the street and saying “Hello, I am a satanist. Would you like a pamphlet about satanism?” Or even just try bringing up satanism in the average work place (I have tried this, and it is hilarious if you don't mind people thinking you're a bit weird). But if we put satanism to one side for the moment and move back on to the topic of the christianization of Europe.

As I have said a full explanation is so far beyond the scope of this article. However this is a subject that has always fascinated me. Despite (as I have mentioned) being brought up in a roman catholic household I was taken to certain ancient megalithic sites in Ireland as a child and this instilled in me an interest in Celtic, then Norse mythology. I spent quite a while (and still do) wondering why so many people who called themselves traditionalists were also christians. I can recall many instances when I would bring up the fact that there were traditonal folk religions (pagan if you like) that were particular to this part of the world before christianity spread from the Middle East outwards. Now, before you run to the comments section to scream “NAZI!” Let me explain that I am not racist and that I am not someone who harbours national socialist views (I know there are many into these subjects that are like that but I am not one of them) I identify as a libertarian politically and am I certainly not someone who wants an all-white Europe.

I found myself wondering why the christians I knew thought that polytheism (belief in many gods) was ridiculous and just fairytales but monotheism (belief in just one god) somehow was a very different, serious thing. I began to ponder the question; what makes your one god more real than say the many Celtic or Norse or even Egyptian pantheons of gods? Well nothing really, sure many christians proclaim to have had religious experiences but so have many non-christians. When I stepped back and really spent time thinking about it I realised that you could make the argument that the 'old' gods of our ancestors are more real because they were reflections of aspects of nature itself and even if you live as far away from countryside as you can get in a huge city you are still an integral part of nature. It makes me think of an old Alan Watts lecture I once listened to where he described the differences between a lot of western art styles compared with the Chinese style of say a Taoist painter. He said (and I am paraphrasing here) you could have a painting called “poet by moonlight” and in the western style the poet would be in the foreground dominating the picture (like this more modern western notion of man dominating nature) whereas the Chinese Taoist artist would have painted a huge landscape and you would have to really look to find the poet (almost like a “Where's Wally?” or “Waldo” for my North American friends). The point being that the Chinese painter has painted the poet – the man as being part of nature not dominating it. Many in modern life have bought into this very view that nature is somehow something to be conquered by man, however nature and humanity are two sides of the same coin.

So if we look at what we know of pre-christian (northern) European religon we can see that it is firmly rooted in nature. The sun was worshipped, solstices and equinoxes were celebrated (they still are in a way, christianity just imposed their own holidays over the existing 'pagan' ones e.g Christmas instead of Yule in Scandinavia, Hallow e'en instead of celtic Samhain). Sure you might say, why bother with this nature and harvest shit, we live in modern times. We do indeed live in a completely unrecognisable world from that of our ancestors but does the sun not still give life to everything? Do we still not rely on crops for food? Of course we do, it's just that in our modern technological age we seem to forget these things. I must say that I am no technophobe, I use the internet daily to spread my work and consume the work of others but just because some things change that doesn't mean that some things don't stay the same.

Just as the christians had covered over the traditional pre-christian feast days with their own invented holidays they also did this with many ancient sites sacred to to pre-christian peoples. They built large churches over many of these sites and this (as I understand) was the main motivation for the church burnings. It was seen (by some) as taking the very land back from people they considered to be invaders.

To bring us back to black metal for a bit, one of the things Vikernes brings up in the film in question is that not only was the European culture transformed by christianity – it was almost completely deleted. When christianity gained control in Europe many of the old texts (few though they were as many teachings were passed oraly) were either destroyed or christianized. I have mentioned how the traditional feast days were christianized above and this was really all part of a cunning strategy known as “interpretatio christiana” and this basically consisted of adapting elements of the beliefs, culture and history of a people to the worldview of christianity. It has been practiced world wide and when you think about it it is a clever and devious way to convert a people, you just let them keep elements of what they previously believed or practised and covertly mix it with the new christian doctrine and there you go. It's basically just a gradual move from one belief system to another done in quite a clever but devious way.

Now, I mentioned corpse paint above and how it was worn by these bands. Granted, I don't know exactly what was going through their own minds (this is my interpretation) but with the corpse paint and the vocals which sounded like a tortured spirit I can't listen to black metal without hearing the screaming of the ghosts of a past that is now gone forever.

But you might be thinking that this happened so long ago any why bother anyway. When I listen to black metal I can hear a frustration that I have expressed in a musical form. I hear an anger that an important link to our past was just about deleted from history. Sure it could have been a worse culture but how are we ever to know? It was decided that that pagan shit was all to be swept away and frankly some of my anger comes from the fact that we are not permitted to know our history, we have been robbed of the knowledge of how we came to be and the lessons we could have potentially learned from it.

I feel why the americanization thing comes up with the christianization thing is because it could be seen as another artificial culture being imposed upon people. I kind of understand the use of the term americanization, I think it's because the US is the global superpower culturally and to those of us who fear a one world government (which has been proposed by many different people and groups over history) it seems almost like (if I could don my trusty tinfoil hat for a second) that spreading a world culture is part of that move. The only country in the world that would be able to do that is clearly the US.

On the point of Europe I should point out that since the early days of Norwegian black metal the European Union has done what all governments do and swollen to become a massive collectivist, bureaucratic nightmare that only benefits those on the gravy train. But that is another topic I covered in my article “A Spectre Is Haunting Europe...”

So why am I bothered enough to write a lengthy article about all this? Well I don't want to live in a world with one culture or one government (or any government but that's a whole other thing). I am not xenophobic and I have friends and relations in many other parts of the world. I just think there is value in being aware of the history and mythology of where you (and indeed others) come from. I have found in black metal music an expression of not only the cold isolation of northern Europe but also a message of defiance against abrahamic religion hell-bent on converting the world to it's view of history and morality and distorting and deleting whichever elements of the previous cultures that existed before it that those elite in charge saw fit, removing not only ancient spiritual practices and festivals but also destroying much of the mythology. But what importance does mythology even have? As American mythologist, writer and lecturer Joseph Campbell said better than I ever could in his 1949 book “A Hero With A Thousand Faces” - “It has always been the prime function of mythology and rite to supply the symbols that carry the human spirit forward, in counteraction to those that tend to tie it back. In fact it may very well be that the very high incidence of neuroticism among ourselves follows the decline among us of such effective spiritual aid. We remain fixated to the unexorcised images of our infancy, and hence disinclined to the necessary passages of our adulthood”

Greening Out - Podcasts, Writings and News
http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

Some Black Metal Albums

Mayhem - Deathcrush
Mayhem - De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas
Darkthrone - A Blaze In The Northern Sky
Burzum - Det Som Engang Var

*Please bear in mind that I do not agree with Vikernes' politics.