My favorite part is how, according to this guy, Christians made a point of destroying all the running water in Europe.
It's not entirely crazy! Gibbon also blamed Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire (and by extension, the breakdown of Roman sanitation systems).
My biggest complaint would be his interpretation of Renaissance art, and his insistence that the great painters of the age *rejected* Christianity, while the remaining Christian art was total crap. That's utter nonsense on both points. I believe Mr Vikernes is letting his own experiences within the Black Metal scene - where all the best artists DID reject Christianity, and those who remained Christian, sucked - cloud his judgement and compromise his objectivity.
I assure you, it's entirely crazy.
So you don't think Christianity was at least partially to blame for the fall of the Roman Empire?
His point about the resurgence of mythological imagery in Renaissance art is valid. It was even visible in Christian-themed artwork. Whether it was a coordinated act of subversion or simply an aesthetic trend is open to debate - probably a bit of both. There were definitely heavy elements of paganism and anti-Catholicism present in the secret societies of the day, culminating in Rosicrucianism about halfway through the Renaissance, and that's where artists exchanged ideas back then.
It's really hard to say whether Christianity is to blame, in part or in full. My very very uninformed opinion is, Christianity served as a unifying force for the empire in its last century (the Western empire's last century anyway), but it also introduced rigidity in political thought that probably didn't help in relations with the various barbarian tribes.
But to say whether Christianity helped or hurt, I'd have to be able to imagine Roman history without Christianity, and I can't.
Even if Christianity contributed to a premature end of the (Western) empire, it's a crazy leap to say that Christians went about destroying running water like this guy says. If aqueducts and etc. fell into ruin, it was that they fell into ruin, not that the Pope had an anti-running-water campaign.
Void - the problem is, Mr Vikernes is not talking about a "resurgence" in Pagan themes (which certainly happened; you'll get no argument from me there). Rather, Mr Vikernes specifically claims that the artists of teh era *rejected* Christianity, which is false. Most, if not all, of the great artists of the Renaissance were Christian. Many of them appreciated (Greco-Roman) Pagan culture, some of them had ongoing issues with the Catholic church - but I can't think of ANY who said "screw Jesus, I am a pagan now."
If Varg's theory is correct, then how does he explain the Sistine Chapel? The Last Supper? Hell, even Boticelli, whose work Varg favorably references twice over the course of this video, was an avowed Christian - so Christian, in fact, that he became one of Savonarola's fiercest supporters, and spent the latter part of his life as an SJW, censoring and burning pagan-influenced artwork, including his own! The fact of the matter is, most art produced during the Renaissance was Christian. Secular and pagan art gained a considerable share of the market during this time, but we can't retcon history and pretend like everybody was suddenly pagan, when in point of fact no-one was.
Bort - well, yes, if you interpret what Varg said as meaning that Christians ran around, physically destroying running water, then it IS a little crazy! But I don't think that's what he said, or what he meant - rather, he is blaming Christianity for the fall of (virtuous, pagan) Rome, and offering the loss of running water as a consequence.
Again, I am not saying Varg is 100% correct. In fact, I am not even saying Varg is 50% correct, or 30%. I am simply pointing out that he is "not entirely crazy" - there is precedent for many of the things he says, even if he goes a bit overboard at times (as with the art scene, for example).
|Monkey Napoleon |
Of COURSE he's into Thulean stuff now. Better known as the "scholarly" underpinnings of Nazi philosophy, it's steeped in kooky things "practicing magic" and people with "nordic aryan features" are the decendants of aliens. You know, from space.
As far as I know, he's always been into Thulean stuff - since the Mayhem days, or maybe his very early experiences in prison.
He gets offended if you call him a Nazi, though, so please do not do that.
|wtf japan |
This is the dumbest thing I've seen today.
|infinite zest |
Is this what Burzum sounds like now? Burning down churches isn't cool but I still liked the music.. I dunno about this jam though.
Yes. Burzum's just Varg and his keyboard; he does some chanting on other tracks, but it's all basically what you hear here.
If vikings didn't rape and pillage, that would make them the only colonially interested people in human history that didn't, including up to six seconds ago.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
There was a documentary on youtube a couple of years ago about how the evidence had been manufactured that Richard III had scoliosis, and it was all Tudor propaganda. The paintings had been touched up during the Tudor era to add the deformity, etc. Of course, what happened next was they found Richard's burial place, and his bones couldn't have clearer, a hunchback for sure!
I'm not really suggesting this applies to the current example, but it came to mind. It makes me wonder about the historians of the past. I don't think it ever occurred to me before that there amy be some examples of the record being corrected. Maybe the oldest sources aren't always the most reliable?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|