Wednesday, May 7, 2014

... on a Theory of Neanderthals by "Scandinavian V." alias Varg Vikernes

Was already adressed to himself in the comments under his video:

The Neanderthal Theory + a taste of the next Burzum album*

First of all you are guilty of Pagan Ancestor worship!

Odin may be our ancestor, as much as Charlemagne is that of Germans, (North) French and Beneluxians. But he was not God and did wrong to claim so.

Holy Olaf of Norway, who turned away from the worship of your wicked ancestor to adhere to the true God, the White Christ, pray for us!

Second of all, it is very racist of you to think that Neanderthals are a different species from Cro Magnon or Grimaldi (all of these Europeans, btw, but even when it comes to non-European men we all descend from Adam and Eve, and we all descend from Noah and his sons and daughters in law).

Third, I do congratulate your wife to showing a relationship genetically between Neanderthals and modern Europeans (I would say especially Alpine and East Baltic race types, maybe Oriental one or part of it as well). This refutes the Darwinist nonsense of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens being two different species.

Also do congratulate her on the good idea of looking at conclusions and at data behind them and diagnosing a misinterpretation. Experts are more likely to have data at hand, but their likelihood to interpret them correctly is limited by ideology.

Fourth, on a more humdrum level, I am neither racist nor immigrationist.

I do not want to throw out all immigrants we already have, nor to get in more and more of them.

I think there might be a peaceful solution in enclaves, at least for some while.

And no, I do not want to uproot European culture, I very much want to preserve it, and preserve its Christian roots.

That can be done without violence to those already settled here, perhaps? Or is it too late? I would hate that scenario.


Thulean Perspective responded :

[I take the liberty to give his comments in reverse order to suit the logic of his last one starting with « first of all »]

First of all; you are guilty of treason and worship of a Jewish idol.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl As a Judeo-Christian you are an agent working to destroy everything Europe, and you don't seem to know so yourself. Read this:

Thulean Perspective
For Blood & Soil
About Apologists
Posted on 11/02/2011 by Varg Vikernes

And this:

The Roots of Europe
Posted on 11/02/2011 by Varg Vikernes

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Why should I care if reality is racist or not? I relate to reality, not politically correct nonsense.

You have a Judeo-Christian perception of our own religion (i. e. Paganism), and your view is coloured by the ignorance of that perception.

You worship a Jewish false god, a Jewish idol, and you don't seem to understand what Óðinn is.

You should read the posts on the Thulean Perspective blog. You can start with this:

[Ibid.] : Why the European Religion?
Posted on 11/02/2011 by Varg Vikernes

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Christianity has its roots in Judaism, ergo in the Jewish race and Asia, and not in Europe or any European people.

Our roots are Pagan.

I replied :


Oh no. If you were baptised you are a traitor to Christ. If you were not, your parents are. If they were not baptised either their parents were (same if only one was baptised for the other's parents).

Our Nations have all accepted Christ as the true God. Defecting to either Judaism or Paganism is treason.

That said, yours is a bit more colourful than that of certain atheists.

When you said "if reality is racist" I suppose you meant Neanderthals being a distinct species is reality.

No, you have just proven that is not so. By stating it survived in European race types (or, according to your theory, all of them). These mean Neanderthals and Cro Magnon were interfertile and so of same species. You see, Cro Magnon is also very clearly an European race type.

Funny, though, racists like you call me politically correct, and politically correct like the Spiegel call me racist.

And yes, I know the word was invented by Trotsky. That does not mean the concept was. Darwinism and Gobineau led to racialism - which was the old word for it - and when Trotsky had same objections as certain Christians, he did not know or care to know of them (he was prejudiced against Christians, as you know, he was a Jew), and he invented a new word for it.

[Responding to his links]

+ThuleanPerspective "In Rîgsþula we learn that Heimdallr taught the art of sorcery and war to Jarl’s kin"

You translate seid as sorcery. I have a certain hunch the most basic seid was not necessarily involving the activity of demons, but can simply have been hypnosis.

Not saying it was free from sorcery either.

Odin was probably a good hypnotist and our poor Gylfi had never heard of it, thus he became a believer through hypnotic arts.

You do not deny, at least, that Odin was in Uppsala, reigned after Gylfe, was ancestor or step father to ancestor of Ynglings?

I mean, that much of the Pagan Tales even a Christian like me or St Olaf (to name a better man than me) can believe. So it would be bad for a Pagan not to be able to do so.

As for "Why the European religion?" I have already read it. Along with "Why Odalism?"

Here is my answer:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Refuting Vikernes on Odalism and European Religion

"Christianity has its roots in Judaism,"

Or rather in the pre-Judaistic OT religion. Yes.

"ergo in the Jewish race"

which is racially one branchoff of common humanity, like ours, and also not so far from ours.

"and Asia,"

Like the Æsir, unless Snorre is wrong on where they came from.

"and not in Europe or any European people."

Truth was - this a Pagan should understand - revealed to one particular people in opne particular place favoured by God. That means other places and races can have other favours, but not that of being the scene of God's Manhood. Even if Odin tried to pretend that for Sweden. Not far from Lake Mælar.

"Our roots are Pagan."

Our roots are Gentile. Not all of them were Pagan. Beowulf may have stood aloof from Paganism, one man of Rolf Kraki called Odin a traitor. Paganism was a fluctuating infection with comes and goes, what is most healthy about Gentiles before they received Christ is not the most Pagan.

Besides, Pagan is for immediate roots, but beyond that, at the Tower of Babel, it was Paganism that was unrooting the real roots - to which especially Hebrews were however faithful. Despite Nimrod and Ninus.

Varg again :

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Everything you assume is wrong, everything you think you know is wrong.** So why should I bother discussing this with you?**

My word :

Feel free not to.

Update, discussion was relanced by one "Hermann Cherusci":

You're guilty of jew worship Hans. Your usurious circumcision god Yahweh is a false god and his supposed son if a bullshit story. Contrived by the Catholic Church to control. You'll see when you die, oh wait you have to wait to jesus comes back to Earth before he takes your soul to his jew heaven filled with the repentant evil Christian creature who can live a life without honor and get all 'sin' washed away. have fun up there with the dregs


" Contrived by the Catholic Church to control."

OK, if the Catholic Church was NOT already there, how did it contrive the story?

If it was, it was so with the story from the first. How did it get its origins wrong?

That is not usual for human societies. OK, some people have said Caesar and Augustus had less to do with founding Holy Roman Empire of Germanic Nation than Arminius Cheruscus had, but that is an afterthought and an inidividual choice of opinion. NOT foundational to HRE of GN. And I have not heard very many dispute that US rightly considers George Washington along with other founding fathers as having originated a "nation" distinct from the British one.

Hermann Cherusci:

Gospels were written decades after this supposed messiahs death. Edited by church officials at the Council of Nicaea, interspersed with similarities of Mithras and Horus, pagan deities. Some gospels are entirely excluded, it was contrived for a purpose; to control people. Christianity was nothing but a political tool.


"Gospels were written decades after this supposed messiahs death."

Up to. First Gospel, St Matthew, was written less than a decade after the Death and Resurrection of Our Lord. The other two synoptics were traditionally written later but before the destruction of Jerusalem.

This can be confirmed by the fact that in them - and also in nearly all the words of Christ in St John's Gospel - "Jews" is used as an ethnonym. BUT in St John's Gospel one word of Christ, to Pilate, and all uses of the word by the narrator (even when Christ is not yet using it so) make "Jews" synonym to what synoptics refer to as Pharisees and Sadducees, Priests and Scribes, Herodians and the Multitude. That is, only in the last Gospel does the narrator use the word "Jews" as meaning enemies of Christ.

BUT he recalls that Christ himself was not used to using the word like that. Notably chapter four or six, the one with the Samaritan woman.

"Edited by church officials at the Council of Nicaea"

Written by Church officials like original Apostles Sts Matthew and John and Disciples of Apostles (also serving as bishops, at least St Mark) like Sts Mark and Luke.

Why would the Church officials at the Council of Nicea have tampered even a bit with that?

"interspersed with similarities of Mithras and Horus, pagan deities."

Interspersed with similarities with TOO MANY Pagan deities to be a Pagan deity. Those tend to be more specialised - He covers all their licit and laudable fields.

Hercules got Alcestis back from the dead they say? I would call that a plagiarism of the miracle of Elijah, but both Elijah and Jesus Christ show how it is done, and it is not a question of wrestling matches.

Dionysus turned water into wine? Jesus' first miracle was that.

Shamash sent wheat down on to the Arc of Utnapishtim? Our Lord multiplied bread and fishes in the desert.

Odin plucked out an eye "to gain wisdom" and Tew got his arm bitten off by the Fenris Wolf? Our Lord said one was justified nin plucking out one's eye or cutting off one's hadn if it was to offense to oneself, to an overmighty temptation. Not sure if that was praise or criticism of the AEsir - those were otherwise criticable for pretending before the poor Swedes they were gods - I would rather say it was criticism. So Christ knew about that crew too.

And His comment about the family situation of the Samaritan woman comes in handy as a comment on a theme in Mahabharata, doesn't it?

What Pagan deity ever made such a pretense of covering all the rest? And on top of that in a culture that was very cut off from Paganism?

"Some gospels are entirely excluded,"

Some gospels were faked by enemies of Christianity. Therefore they were excluded by officials of the Christian Church.

I mean, even Prussia is not very exemplary in Christian virtue (ok, compared to modern standards, perhaps even Prussia was so), but it had the wisdom to expose and punish the Captain of Köpenick - a scam who committed his crimes (in Köpenick) by pretending to be a Prussian army officer.

"it was contrived for a purpose; to control people. Christianity was nothing but a political tool"

By whom? If you say "by the Catholic Church" you miss (like so many Protestants) that it was the original and originally persecuted Church of the Christians.

One can understand a thing like some entity already existing manipulating another entity into existence for sake of control. One can speculate if Queen Victoria consciously took advantage of Asiatics worshipping her as a goddess. But the British Empire was distinct from that cult. One can speculate if Al Qaida was created by CIA. But one cannot say Al Qaida was created by a CIA that from the first was identic and openly so to Al Qaida.

That is the kind of idiocy you are into by your claim.

Which brings us back to my question which you did not answer:

OK, if the Catholic Church was NOT already there, how did it contrive the story?

If it was, it was so with the story from the first. How did it get its origins wrong?

That is not usual for human societies.

Vikernes bumps in (it is his channel of course):

You are so fucking deluded. I have never seen so much blindness and ignorance in a person before.

Try this:


Oh, you believe the fable about the Dark Ages?

Try Régine Pernoud. "Pour en finir avec le Moyen Âge" and "La Femme aux temps des cathédrales" at least. If you don't read French at least your wife does!


I have less of a problem with French than I do with absolute nonsense.

Take you delusions and fanatic Zionism elsewhere.

Why don't you move to Israel, by the way, if you think so highly of their culture and so badly of the European cultures? 


+ThuleanPerspective a) I am not a Zionist. Much less a fanatic one.

b) Régine Pernoud is not I.

c) I think highly of the European cultures that have been Christianised. I do not think highly of rabbinic culture. Except in certain details, such as preserving the Torah or Pentateuch or with some possibility also this thing about the Bible Code.

Did you know one of the pesons healed by "last-minute-convert" Isaac Kaduri thanks to the miraculous survival could confess his crimes against Palestinians?


+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are an agent working for hateful criminals from Judea, serving only their interests, at the expense of Europe. Get the fuck out, traitor! Go live with your "chosen people".




+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, agent. By kneeling for their false god, their tribal idol, you work for them. 


Now, when it comes to gods being someone's and being true or false, are you aware that:

  • Rabbis accuse us of worshipping a false god
  • we at least suspect that by denying Holy Trinity and Incarnation they have after rejecting Christ come to worship a false god, a parody of the God of the Scriptures ...

... or were you totally unaware of that?


+Hans-Georg Lundahl No, but it's just a charade, to keep you serving their interest. And you do. 


I think YOU are the one serving illicit Jewish interests.

How so?

Some Jews say that Christianity is wrong because it is Monotheism for Goim. They seem to think Goim have some kind of lesser nature and are so to speak created for being Pagans. And you have given them exactly what they want on that account.

Claiming "it is just a charade" is either an insult to my honesty or a pointless point if I am supposed to be "taken in".

If I am part of a charade, consciously, it is obviously an insult to my honesty. If I am supposed to be taken in, you have shown a total disregard for what I am feeling in calling it a charade.

If on some level it were a charade - and I have been given no realistic scenario how it could so have originated - that does not account for the fact that I am honestly against Rabbinic Judaism on points mentioned. And lost [=lots] of others are too.


+Hans-Georg Lundahl You can not be Christian, honest and intelligent at the same time.

If you are Christian and honest, then you are not smart.

If you are Christian and smart, then you are not honest.

If you are honest and smart, then you are not Christian.

Now, get lost and leave my YouTube channel to people who are at least both honest and smart.


I was answering someone who talked to me.

But thank you for showing off your antagonism.

+Hermann Cherusci
"Your usurious circumcision god"

God is not usurious. He forbade usury from everyone in the region excepting Canaaneans ... who through bad behaviour deserved it.

[Deuteronomy 23]

[19] Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury, nor corn, nor any other thing: [20] But to the stranger. To thy brother thou shalt lend that which he wanteth, without usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thy works in the land, which thou shalt go in to possess.

Right before it was said that Edomites and Egyptians ARE brothers of the Israelite (wonder if the usurers take that into account when charging interest of gipsies, who, if originating from India are nevertheless probably adoopted Copts). But Chanaaneans (I will for now spare you the list of their iniquities) were strangers and so were Moabites and Ammonites:

[1] An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord. [2] A mamzer, that is to say, one born of a prostitute, shall not enter into the church of the Lord, until the tenth generation. [3] The Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever: [4] Because they would not meet you with bread and water in the way, when you came out of Egypt: hand because they hired against thee Balaam, the son of Beer, from Mesopotamia in Syria, to curse thee. [5] And the Lord thy God would not hear Balaam, and he turned his cursing into thy blessing, because he loved thee.

Douay Rheims Bible Online : Deuteronomy 23

* Musical footnote: the "Hail Óðinn" part of the text reminds me of the Ej Uchniem part of the Volga Barge Haulers:

The Song of the Volga Boatmen

It is fitting in several ways. For one, hauling boats is heavy, and so is Odinist Paganism. Christ said His yoke is sweet and His burden is light. For another thing, Varg has given a probably bad explanation of the Trojeborgar of Sweden and maybe Norway too. And for the third thing, an Odinid fleeing from Uppsala was into felling trees after his father had become a traitor. I introduced Olaf Trételgja, after whom was later named St Olaf./HGL

** This intellectual laziness is pretty typical of Scandinavian (probably lower) bourgeoisie, whether Swedish or Norwegian. That one can debate on questions of what assumptions are more likely is pretty above the general culture in these countries. Which is why I was doing a favour by doing that kind of discussion, before I was forced to leave my last home and also left Sweden./HGL

No comments: