THE HYPOCRISY LOOP OF ENGLISH HERITAGE BLACK METAL

“Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right.”

So said George Orwell in one of a series of fascinating essays designed to separate patriotism – which he defines as a love of your country as it is, as it constantly changes and evolves – and nationalism – the longing for an imagined country rooted in the past. They're a brilliant read, especially in the current climate – beyond music, obviously – where a right wing conspiracy theory about a liberal agenda steadily chipping away at 'Britishness' insidiously enforces a dichotomy between patriotism and liberalism that's all too easy to buy into.

Against this backdrop, the rise of English Heritage Black Metal as a homegrown metal media darling has become a vehicle for the sort of views that would be vigorously questioned were they coming from any other band, from any other background. There's obviously an inherent regressive component to English Heritage Black Metal – which is based upon a yearning for some anachronistic set of imagined values, usually associated with Anglo-Saxon Britain. Comparable to any number of 'Viking' bands, it'd be a horrendous libel to suggest that all of these po-faced beat combos were effectively marching bands for the English Defence League, because they're not – they're merely using history as another theme to explore like zombies, pirates and infantile sadism – but there are bands with a right wing agenda, and with it comes an endless feedback loop of hypocrisy and opinion policing from all corners –  the labels want to keep their bands in magazines, magazines want to keep their support from labels, and the bands want to be popular, and simultaneously keep their message alive.

Part of the problem is that black metal thrives on subjects seen as taboo and many completely apolitical bands won't actually come out and unequivocally confirm or deny their beliefs – preferring to leave plenty of fertile ground for speculation and interpretation in case it kills off their mystique and they have to come out as just being dysfunctional manchildren like the rest of us. Again the genuinely right wing will frequently out themselves far more clearly in doing this, complaining about “cultural Marxism” in the media, the old phantom of “political correctness”, and any other combinations of frothing BNP forum screed.

The arbitrary cherrypicking of history, and their inflexibility in discussing it is the most direct proof of Orwell's patriotism/nationalism divide. English Heritage Black Metal bands most likely to be giving allegory to their ethnonationalism will focus on one specific era of English history, usually Anglo-Saxon Britain as the birth of all that is English, and the exclusion of all that came later – it's sometimes as clean cut as the bands who focus on nature having no obvious politics, and the bands who focus on history – or at least their distorted edition of it – being very much the opposite. Aside from the irony of using an wedge of immigrant communities (these Angles, Saxons, Jutes and the like were loosely related, but disparate and divided into numerous kingdoms and tribes)  that displaced the indigenous Britons and Celts, brought its own faiths, cultural traditions and funny smelling cooking, as a thinly veiled metaphor for criticising the imagined threat those noble Anglo-Saxon descendants face from the evils 20th and 21st Century immigration with their own faiths, cultural traditions and funny smelling cooking, it's the very dictionary definition of Orwell's unchanging, unflinching fantasy view of a nation.

Lyrically you don't have to go too far to find evidence of xeno/Islamaphobia, one band promise “Children of the Crescent moon, your desert god isn't welcome here” (the claim it's aimed at all monotheistic religions is a pretty weak defence when it refers to only one, Islam, by name) and another pledge to “defend the land from the thieving hands of the infidel” (their defence is that it's a historical verse, but so is the Horst-Wessel-Lied and still they made the choice to have that song say something about them). Aside from the aforementioned cringing attempts to dismiss the issue, the most often uttered protestation is to point out how many black metal bands are allowed to criticise Christianity, and surely, they reason, isn't it fair for us to critise other faiths? While there's no doubt that's a more than played out trope in extreme metal, Britain is nominally a culturally Christian society - not an Islamic one as the Daily Express would have you believe - one which it's fair to assume the various band members are a product of, and it's no way the moral equivalent to target Islam in such unflinching, militant terms, just as it would be if these predominantly white, heterosexual bands were to write songs about saving Britain from gay people, black people or gypsies.

The biggest indicator of any sort of extreme agenda lurking beneath these tales of swords thwacking on shield is in how much they're prepared to have a dialogue about it, and what they say in that dialogue. Nobody wants to be branded a Nazi, but the genuinely far right ethnonationalists want to balance maintaining that cosy relationship with the people who'll ensure they get their 9/10 reviews, and remaining honest about their beliefs (because as Orwell observed they're utterly convinced of being in the “right”). That tightrope walk between denial and confession leads to some amazingly transparent statements that all parties can project their own meanings onto, and can be easily be deciphered.

One of the best “I'm not racist, but...” statements is “You use the words 'blood and soil' in a sentence and people instantly assume you're one of the Nazi brigade”, which was even flagged up as a pullquote in a mainsteam metal magazine. Anyone looking to instantly dismiss the whole thing can just go, 'Look, they said they're not Nazis – you're just over-reacting', an act of deliberate, wilful ignorance given it's almost a provocation to see just how much of a brazen Sieg Heil they can sneak into their own defence. Of course using the words 'blood and soil' in a sentence makes you look like a Nazi, 'blood and soil' was a Nazi theory, and is shorthand for ethnonationalism. It's almost like a little shout-out to the Far Right following they've claimed to have no control over.

It's not what they believe that's the problem – people are more than welcome to believe whatever they like, its people's reluctance to confront it, engage with it, talk about it and debate it. And this is true for every medium, how many more interviews have you seen with fantasy author China Mivéille being probed on his left-wing beliefs compared to Frank Miller's right-wing libertarian ones? Similarly music magazines are more than happy to probe bands on their Christianity, their evangelical vegan straight edge, or their socialism, but a sniff of ambiguous nationalism and they start to sweat. It's fine if a band go so far as to actually come out as pantomime Nazis, like Varg Vikernes of played out woodland elevator music outfit Burzum, because there's no sweeping that under the carpet and no danger of inadvertently opening up some unwanted controversy, but when it comes down to either advertising bucks and a quiet life, or good journalism that provides readers with a genuine service, the former always wins.

If you really believe you're right and that you're free hold whatever beliefs you like, why not share them? And if you really believe you're any sort of journalist, why not ask the questions and hold up bullshit for what it is?