Serbian.

A fairly objective news report  has arrived from Norway in relation to the process.

If you by any chance don’t know Norwegian you can always try Google translate.

As stated in the news report I did not want to comment, but I was allowed to read through it and point out errors, which Mr. Skjærli, the journalist, kindly removed.

PS. I am sorry for troubling you with these annoying egocentric and non-mythology related posts, but since I am under attack I use whatever legal means I have available to defend myself. Bear with me. Better times will come.

Paris, the 17th of October 2013:

First some music… 

As explained here and here, our forebears believed in reincarnation and the eternal existence of the honourable man. There was no “punishment” for the bad, and no “reward” for the good, other than rebirth – here on Earth, in the kin – for the honourable.

What they believed was that when you died your body went to Hel (“hidden”), i. e. the burial mound/grave. This was a cold, dark and damp place, but it was really just a name for the grave. Our dead bodies return to earth, as simple as that. Your mind (called “soul” by the Judeo-Christians) was sent to heaven to be purified by the fire of the Sun. Again, like with Hel, there was no ‘punishment’ or ‘suffering’ involved. You just had to remove the bad parts with cleansing fire, to make sure they did not return when you were reborn into a new body.

The amount of ‘you’ to be reborn was equal to the ‘amount of your mind’ that would be left after the cleansing fire had removed the bad parts. Thus the truly honourable could be reborn ‘in full’, so to speak. Others had only small fragments of their minds reborn, and of course yet others – the thoroughly rotten – were simply removed. They ceased to be, they ceased to exist. They passed into oblivion.

The most honourable dead were buried in beautiful graves, and when the children grew old enough they could chose themselves whom they were to be reborn as. The more honour a dead person had, the more children would be interested in being reborn as him.

Men often chose to bring their most valuable possessions with them into the graves when they died, to make sure that they could keep them in the next life as well – and possibly also to entice children to chose to be reborn as them, if their honour was not enough. So the more honour and the more wealth a dead person had, the greater the probability that a child would choose to be reborn as him.

If a dead person was never chosen by a child, then he would never be reborn. So the honour itself was not enough: the honourable dead had to be chosen by a child as well, in order to be reborn. There was no automatic rebirth even for the most honourable.

European Pagans also let the fire purify in life:

You might argue that there is no evidence to support the belief in reincarnation. You might claim that there is no such thing. Ok, but as I see it we will be better off if we live in societies where people believe in reincarnation than we are in societies where people believe in either nothing (atheists) or in some fictional “Heavenly Paradise” (Judeo-Christianity). It doesn’t matter if it is real or not: what matters is that people who believe that they are to be reborn here on Earth, in the same society, will do their best to ensure the happiness and health of their descendants!

Will you catch all the fish in the ocean, kill all game in the forest, chop down all the trees or pump up all the oil and use it all in your lifetime, if you believe that you will be reborn here on Earth? Will you leave nothing for your future reborn self? Of course not. You will instead try to preserve all that is good, to create more good, and try to pass it on to those who come after you – to yourself in future lives.

I care not if I actually am to be reborn or not, if reincarnation is real or not, but I see the value of such a belief system for my species, and understand that only such a belief system will ensure the survival of all that is good and just. Only such a belief system will enable the betterment of our species. No matter what you think, say or feel; all the alternatives are worse in all respects, because whether we like it or not: man is an egotistical creature. Rather than try to suppress man’s ego, we should use it to cultivate great societies.

HailaR WôðanaR!

The purifying fire of the Sun:

Serbian.

If you care to, click this link to enjoy some press about nearby rural France’s relationship to Varg…

Norwegian is not a very well known language, not even in Norway, where most people speak only a horribly dumbed down version of it, so if you don’t speak Norwegian I can only suggest that you right click on the text and try Google translate.

PS. If I can correct our mayor a bit: I do not play black metal…

These facts about Vikernes and his case are published here to counter the lies of the many media institutions.

-Born in Bergen 1973 as Kristian Vikernes. Is not baptized.

-Changed name officially to Varg Vikernes in March 1993.

-Has never had either of the middle names Larsson, Larssøn, Kvisling or Quisling as claimed by many media institutions.

-Is not a “self-declared Neo-Nazi” as claimed by many media institutions. Vikernes is an Óðalist. 

-Stopped playing so-called ‘black metal’ in early 1993. Has recorded three bardic metal albums since then, but is no longer even a metal musician. Vikernes plays electronic music. 

-Convicted in 1994 for first degree murder, but claims himself that he killed in self defence (in August 1993), and explained himself in complete accordance with all technical evidence. Aarseth was killed because he panicked and attacked Vikernes when Vikernes approached him to tell him to stay away from him. According to many witnesses, Øystein Aarseth had plans to knock out Varg Vikernes with a stun gun, tie him up, put him in the trunk of a car, drive him into the forest, tie him to a tree and torture him to death, whilst filming it. Vikernes knew about these plans as Aarseth told about them on the phone to a friend of his, who let Vikernes listen to it all. The ‘Norwegian’ court (and the media…) still claimed that “Varg Vikernes had no clear or understandable motive for killing Øystein Aarseth”. All of Aarseth’s friends of course knew better, as proven by this letter (from Anders Odden). 

-Øystein Aarseth was not a “band collegue” of Vikernes, but an acquaintance and a business associate: Aarseth owned the label that released the first album of Vikernes’ band, Burzum. The relation Vikernes had with Aarseth’s band, Mayhem, was that he helped as a studio musician in 1992 by recording the bass track on one of their albums – and this happened about 1 year before Aarseth was killed. Vikernes was not a member of that band.

-Convicted in 1994 for having set fire to 4 churches, solely because one single witness for each case (and 2 in one of the cases) gave false testimony against him in court. The witnesses were ‘big surprise’ all friends of Øystein Aarseth, some of them outspoken enemies of Vikernes, and they were also the ones who actually set fire to these churches (they too were convicted for this, but were given more leninent treatment because of their false testimonies against Vikernes). One of these witnesses (Bård G. Eithun) admitted in 1998, under oath in a court of law, that he had given false testimony against Varg Vikernes, and that he had done so because the Norwegian police had asked him to do so (“to get back at Vikernes for killing Aarseth” and to get a more lenient treatment himself, when going to court for his own crimes).

-Varg Vikernes was also found not guilty of having set fire to Fantoft stave church. I stress this, because there seems to be a general understanding that Vikernes set fire to the Fantoft stave church.

-Was in 1994 defended by a lawyer who according to medical examinations was 100% unfit for work during the whole process. Vikernes was given no opportunity to test his guilt again, in a court of law. He was not allowed to appeal to a higher court, save in relation to the length of the sentence.

-Vikernes stated clearly in all contexts where he was allowed to express himself that he was a nationalist and an Odinist (his preferred term for Pagan at the time), but was consequently presented as a “devil worshiper” or a “satanist” by the media. Not one single media institution in Norway diverged from this practice until 1995, when Dagbladet finally admitted that Vikernes was not a Satanist.

-Went through meticulous psychiatric examinations in 2002, concluding that Vikernes is not a psychopath and has no indications of psychopathy (“personality disorders”) or any other mental illnesses or deficiencies either.

-Was in 2003 convicted to 14 months in prison, after having not returned from a leave, for having hi-jacked a car during an escape from armed men in the Norwegian mountains. The Norwegian police claimed never to have been there, and the judge wrote in the verdict that Vikernes had encountered hunters with ski-masks, automatic rifles and German shepherd dogs, who blocked the only escape route Vikernes had from his cabin by parking a huge SUV sideways in the middle of the road. The SUV was by chance (according to Norwegian former FSK soldiers Vikernes has spoken to) identical to the one(s) used by FSK, the Norwegian Special Forces, a military unit with police authority (…). Vikernes drove his hijacked car to Oslo, in order to give himself up to the police in a place where there would be many witnesses (…). Vikernes claims to have escaped in the mountains only because he by chance spotted the armed men before they spotted him. Vikernes was himself unarmed. Odd Einar Dørum was minister of justice in Norway at the time (please Google translate the Norwegian entry: the English entry is very deficient).

-In 2002 the Norwegian government changed the law stating that prisoners with a 21 year sentence should serve only 12 years in prison to a law that stated that prisoners with a 21 year sentence should instead serve 14 years (2/3 of the full sentence). This law was in relation to Vikernes (but not in relation to several other prisoners…) made retroactive, in violation of both the Norwegian constitution and international law. When Vikernes had served 14 years the department of justice turned down his applications for a release on parole on grounds that Vikernes now had served for so long that he needed to be ‘better prepared for a life in freedom’, and that they had not been given the time to do so yet (…). So Vikernes had to serve another 2 years before he was finally released after just under 16 years in prison.

-The wardens in all the prisons Vikernes served in (when this question was discussed) and even the Norwegian secret police wanted Vikernes to be released after 12 years in prison, but politicians in Oslo still turned all his applications for a release on parole down, until the media (VG and Dagbladet) put so much pressure on them that they finally released him. According to the lawyer John Christian Elden, Vikernes was released after heated debate in Oslo, and with only one single vote tipping the scale in his favour.

-In 2008 Vikernes officially changed his name to Louis Cachet: Louis after a great uncle and Cachet being the surname of his wife. He did with help of the Norwegian secret police, who advised him to do so, and also because the name “Varg Vikernes” was very impractical in Norway at the time. Vikernes experienced that solely because of the name “Varg Vikernes” he was e. g. not allowed to order plane tickets, rent cars, order train tickets, rent a room in a hotel, open up a bank account, etc., either because the person taking to him though he was joking or more often because ‘good citizens’ didn’t want life to be easy for a person falsely declared by the media to be a “self-declared Neo-Nazi”. Vikernes still uses the name Varg Vikernes in everyday life, and only uses the name Louis Cachet when he has to (i. e. for signing things, legal documents etc.).

-Had in 2010 according to the Norwegian secret police more than 350 impersonators, pretending to be Vikernes, on Facebook alone.

-Moved in 2010 to Bretagne, later the same year to Auvergne and in 2012 to Corrèze – all in France.

-Arrested in 2013 by DCRI accused of “terrorism or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism”. False evidence was produced and presented to a judge to make him sign papers giving DCRI the right to arrest Vikernes and his wife in the most gentle way possible. No information about any children in the house was given to the judge. Nor was any information given to the judge about the fact that Vikernes’ wife was pregnant at the time. DCRI shot their front door open and smashed the window and did not even identify themselves as policemen until after they had entered our home. The evidence used as an excuse to arrest Vikernes and his wife was an e-mail address claimed by an anonymous source to be Vikernes’. Apparently a copy of Mr. Breivik’s manifest had been sent to this address (as if that would be a good reason to arrest even the rightful owner of the e-mail address).

Our front door after DCRI had been there:

-DCRI already knew that the e-mail address used as an excuse to arrest Vikernes and his wife was not his (they have means to find such things out, fast and easily), so they were satisfied with an investigation into the matter consisting of a single question to Vikernes/his wife: “Is this your/Vikernes’ e-mail address”. Vikernes and his wife replied: “No”, and that was it (…).

-All charges for terrorism were dropped, and Vikernes and his wife were released from custody after two and three days respectively. The names of Vikernes and his wife were cleared by the police (but certainly not by the media). The police found that Vikernes and his wife had done nothing illegal whatsoever.

-Vikernes’ wife had purchased and owned 4 hunting weapons (a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, a .22 LR lever-action rifle, one 12 Gauge side-by-side shotgun and a .223 Remington bolt-action rifle). These weapons were bought legally over a time period of several months, and not all at once or in a very short time, as claimed by most media institutions. The firearms were purchased by Vikernes’ wife, because she was in a rifle club and wanted a hunting licence to be able to hunt medium and small game later on, something she believed was important in relation to survivalism.

-Mr. Manuel Valls was at the time the head of the department responsible for the arrest.

-In 2013 politicians (and not at all the [secret] police…) tried to have Vikernes expelled from France, on grounds that he was a risk to national security. Three different judges in Brive declared that there was no reason whatsoever to expel Vikernes.

-Vikernes and his wife work in France, and pays taxes normally like others working and living in France do.

-In 2013 Vikernes had to go to court in Paris accused of “racism, Antisemitism and apology of war crimes and crimes against humanity”, but his defense lawyer was not allowed to see the ‘evidence’, made up of 900 pages of mainly print-screens, until a few days before the trial, so it was postponed until the 3^rd of June 2014….

And that’s where we are now…

As some of you know, yesterday I was in a court of law in Paris, and was under attack from the prosecutor, the lawyer of LICRA (“International League against Racism and Antisemitism”) and the lawyer of SOS Racism in France, who all referred to different print-screens, attributed to me and my blog. My lawyer informed them about the fact that a print screen is not sufficient evidence in a court of law.

The Thulean Perspective blog is a standard free blog from WordPress, that anybody can dublicate in a few minutes (using the same standard blog, with the same setup, and by copying and using the images used in my blog), and then by using cut and paste replace their own address with that of my website – and then make a print screen of it. It is thus very easy to make false articles seemingly written by me on my blog.

Which one is real? You tell me… (look at the website addresses). 

My lawyer the moved on to prove beyond all doubt that there are many out there who wish me no good, so to speak, and that there are hundreds of individuals who claim to be Varg Vikernes and several of websites who claim to be official Varg Vikernes-websites, and who produce material in my name – most often material that I don’t agree with.

I can not take action against them though, because I have unfortunately legally changed my name to Louis Cachet, and thus I have no papers confirming that I am Varg Vikernes.

If the evidence used against me yesterday proves to be enough for a conviction, something it by the way has of course not been in any previous cases here in France, then it opens up for a world very different from the one we live in today, and a world very far removed from justice: a world where anybody can just pretend to be anybody else, write something in their name, publish it and have the person they pretended to be pay for it – legally, socially or in other ways.

***

I wish to thank my lawyer, Julien Freyssinet, who did a very good job pointing at the facts, when the opposition spent all their time focusing on emotions, thoughts, theories, wishful thinking and false evidence.

Also, I wish to thank the several good men who helped me out in Paris, before and after the trial, and who courageously spend so much of their time fighting for Justice and Truth – in a system that seems to be losing more and more of both. I will not name any of you this time, because some of you got in trouble after the last time you helped me out. You know who you are, and so do I. Thank you very much!

Further, I wish to thank the Gendarmerie in Paris, who kindly helped me avoid the harassment of the journalists and photographers who refused to stop taking pictures and who followed us wherever we went, even after I had talked to those of them who were not only there to produce lies and slander.

Finally, but not least, I wish to thank all those who came to show their support, for whatever reason.

Many have asked me questions about how the French legal system actually works, and have reacted in many cases very strongly to the fact that SOS Racism and LICRA were there as third parties able to argue in favour of my conviction and able ask the judge for economic compensation directly to them from me, if I am found guilty.

This apparently sounds completely absurd to some, and is difficult to understand, but Frenchmen I have spoken to have explained to me that these organisations work that way, and are allowed to work that way, to ensure that everybody who oppose them and their agenda will not only be destroyed financially, but also be forced to finance their organisations. The ‘racism’ of Frenchmen (or others they get the opportunity to sue) has thus according to the Frenchmen I have spoken to become a source of income to them, and they use this for all it is worth.

Nobody in France (or elsewhere for that sake) filed a complaint against the Thulean Perspective blog, and the case against me was started solely on the initiative of politicians in Paris, and came after and as a result of their illegal arrest of my wife and me in July last year. When LICRA and SOS Racism heard of this, they jumped on the opportunity to go to court and ask for compensation from me, for according to them having sabotagued their effort to race mix the French people.

Yes, you probably didn’t misunderstand anything of what I said above: the lawyer representing LICRA (“International League against Racism and Antisemitism”) said in court the 3^rd of June, as I and others present there too understood it, that the organisation he represents is working to completely race mix the French population, something they aim to have achieved in 50 years from now, and my work, with my according to him ‘very effective weapon’, the Thulean Perspective blog, had made this work so much more difficult for them. He also argued that I made money from spreading ‘racism’ with my blog (although in reality I have a dramatically lower income now compared to what I had before I started the blog, something the court knows). According to him, because of me they had to spend more money and more time to achieve their goal. Ergo I had to pay them 5000 EUROs, as some sort compensation…. and another 5000 EUROs to SOS Racism, in addition to the 5000 EUROs the prosecutor argued that I should pay to the French state, as part of the punishment – if found guilty.

I will not discuss why organisations whose common agenda is as I understand it to expose the French people to what International law define as genocide (see in particular c below, but also b and d) are allowed to even exist (in France itself!). Nor will I discuss why there seems to be a consensus that their work is legitimate. Nor will I discuss who are behind these organisations, but I encourage you to investagate the matter yourself.

According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II, genocide is:

…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

As explained here, the evidence used against me is made up of print screens, but I can add that the evidence is also made up of some other fabricated evidence, where real posts from Thulean Persepctive have been modified by ‘anonymous’ individuals, and have then been presented as real TP posts to the prosecutor (and presented in court as print-screens…).

Cui bono?

Related video here and here.

Related post here.

Serbian.

Our forebears believed that the honourable dead could be reborn, by entering the burial mound and collecting the life force of the dead inside. In the Stone Age they collected the thigh bone (the life force) and the skull (the mind) of the dead, to become them. When they left the burial mound with these totem items, as the Sun rose, they were seen as reborn. The dead had returned from the realm of death!

If you believe that a life force can be collected like that, then the idea of taking the life force of another creature, and put it outside your own as protection, to become invulnerable or at least much stronger, is not too far fetched. The same can be said about the idea of hiding your own life force away somewhere, and then use another creature’s life force instead, meaning that if you are harmed, it is not you, but the creature whose life force you use that is harmed.

So one thing we often hear about in fairy tales and myths, is the invulnerable hero. Nothing can harm him, because he has been dipped into the river Styx (Achilles), because he wears the skin of the Nemean lion (Herakles) or because he wears the skin of a bear, a wolf or a boar (“berserks”). Others are invulnerable because their life force has been protected (BalðuR) or hidden away somewhere else (the trolls of fairy tales).

To make the hero (or troll) vulnerable you have to first find his life force, or find the spot where he is vulnerable. E. g. Achilles is vulnerable only where he mother held him, when she dipped him into the river Styx; BalðuR can only be harmed by the mistletoe (which is actually his life force) and the trolls can only be harmed by destroying their life force.

***

Today we might laugh when we see such ‘superstitions’, but at the same time we are still completely dominated by the same ‘superstitions’. The same totemic ideas penetrate all layers of society. We live by the idea that we gain some sort of life force, protective force, or other force, from using or surrounding ourselves with certain brands, symbols or even bits and pieces of others whom we think highly of.

By driving a car of a certain brand you gain some sort of force: by wearing the clothes of a certain brand you gain some sort of force: by wearing a certain symbol you gain some sort of force: by putting on a t-shirt with a certain band name on it, you gain some sort of force, etc. You somehow feel that you become what the brand is associated with, you gain the force symbolized by the symbol, you become a part of the band whose shirt you wear, etc.

The Sorcerer, as we often see him:

You can always ridicule others who do this, who buy expensive cars of certain brands because they feel better in them, who need to wear clothes of this or that brand, who wears a Thor’s hammer or a crucifix around the neck, who want the signature from artists they appreciate, etc., but the truth is: on some level we all do this. This is how we are built. This is what we are. This is deeply rooted in our human nature. And there is nothing wrong with our nature!

Whether we like to admit it or not, we all believe in sorcery. We don’t always understand that we do, but we do. Rather than fight, ignore or ridicule this ‘sorcery’, we should embrace and celebrate it, and try to learn more about it, for the betterment of our species.

Related post here and here.

HailaR WôðanaR!

Serbian. Spanish.

Scholars today often fail to see the continuity of the belief system of our forebears through the ages, and thus often claim every new thing that seems to appear is a result of some alien influence, usually an invasion by some fictional people or even a complete replacement of the former population.

One might wonder if they claim this because they have a sinister agenda, or perhaps only because they have been programmed to behave in a certain (politically correct) manner, and especially so in relation to European cultures.

What we should do though, when we approach our own culture, is to understand that there is a thin red line through all of it, through all ages and all European cultures. Everything is basically the same, but there are four different ways of seeing it.

The key to the oldest sources is to know that in the most ancient of times our forebears were hunter-gatherers and believed in spirits (sorcery). After that we see the introduction of both agriculture and deities (religion) as we know them today. Not all hunter-gatherers became agriculturalists though, and not all agriculturalists replaced their belief in spirits with a belief in deities.

So there were four different cultures based around the same original culture: a hunter-gatherer sorcery culture, a hunter-gatherer religious culture, an agricultural sorcery culture and an agricultural religious culture.

Further, these cultures didn’t or didn’t always replace the older dominating culture, but often existed alongside each other — often at the same place.

Although simplified, it works well to define these four like this:

Seiðr (belief in spirits/sorcery) + Veiðr (hunter-gatherer) = The old tradition

Seiðr (belief in spirits/sorcery) + Byggjandi (agriculturalist) = The tradition

Ásatrú (belief in deities/religion) + Veiðr (hunter-gatherer) = The old religion

Ásatrú (belief in deities/religion) + Byggjandi (agriculturalist) = The religion

When we do that we can look at the high festivals, myths and other traditions and make so much more sense of them.

Knowing this it e. g. makes sense that the spirit of the forest is pictured as an elk in Scandinavian rock carvings, but is described as a deity, Víðarr (“wood”, “forest”), some thousand years later. We know they are the same, simply by looking at other names for Víðarr: he was known also as Elgr, which of course means “elk”.

Norwegian: Elg

Norse: Elgr

Proto-nordic: *AlgiR

Proto-Germanic: *Algiz

Proto-Indo-European: *Alci-

(PS. Latin: Alcis)

Even today we call the elk “the king of the forest” in Scandinavia. Well, now you know why…

So when you see petroglyphs with images of elks in Scandinavia, they are Bronze- or Stone Age depictions of Víðarr, the silent god of the forest. Or if you like: when you read myths about Víðarr, you read about the elk in the petroglyphs. What you know about one of these ages can be transferred to the other.

When you possess this key you might be able to see a large four-dimensional picture, rather than just tiny two-dimensional fragments of it.

HailaR WôðanaR!

Serbian. Spanish.

We some times spend much time here talking about the work of our enemies, of their slander and guile, and their genocidal agenda, but the world we live in is also made up of loyalty, kindness, strength, persistence, courage, skill, intelligence, honour, beauty and talent. Many of us often fail to see this, but at least I can tell that I see this often.

What am I talking about? Well, the probability that I am actually talking about you is quite big. You see: when I am in trouble – and I am every now and then, thanks to our Resistance – I see others standing up for me, supporting me, defending me, trying their best to get in between me and the danger I am facing, racing to be the first to help. On all levels, and often when I least expect it, I see this generosity of heart and mind, and it lights up my life every single day.

My social skills are not the best, and I am not very good at expressing gratitude in real life, and I even have less time available for this than I would want to have, but in any case; I just wish to say thank you, to all those who know themselves that this post is about them. Whatever you did or said in support; it mattered to me, I noticed, and I am grateful to you.

Bulgarian. Serbian.
Yes, it is in French.

Procès de Varg Vikernes du 3 juin 2014… par agenceinfolibre

Photo from the same case, but in October 2013. ‘Some adventures seem to never have an end’…

Serbian.

One of the things that I find the most annoying in relation to the modern perception of Vikings, is the widespread rumour about Vikings ‘raping’ in Judeo-Christian Europe. Some even claim they raped the monks too, just to make them sound even worse.

In reality, there is not one single contemporary source even accusing the ‘Vikings’ of raping anybody. Yes: not one single source.

You can always argue that such rumours don’t come from nowhere, and you are right: about one century after the Viking Age, monks started for the first time to accuse the ‘Vikings’ of rape. In other words: about 100 years after the Viking Age had ended…

So in reality we can assume that they didn’t rape. Why would they? Yes, think about that for a minute: why would they? (…) I know that I at least would not rape anybody, for whatever reason, and I am a Pagan, just like my ‘Viking’ forebears. If they indeed did rape, then why would Judeo-Christian Europe wait 100 years before they started saying so?

Early Gaulish ‘Vikings’, doing the same as the later Scandinavian ‘Vikings’ did: defending their homeland against internationalist aggression

The ‘Vikings’ fought a defensive war against overwhelming odds. Their homelands had been infiltrated by Judeo-Christians, who sowed strife amongst the different Scandinavian tribes, and from abroad the threat from France grew bigger and drew closer. When the Saxons fell they had enough, and (finally?) started to fight back: burning missionary centers (mainly monasteries), killing monks and doing their best to weaken the aggressive enemy.

The ‘Vikings’ lost the war, and it ended up in chaos and the loss of Scandinavia to the Judeo-Christian aggressors. And only then, after the war was lost, did the ‘Vikings’ all of a sudden get that negative characteristic: rapists!

You should remember that when you see others call the ‘Vikings’ rapists. Tell them the truth about this, and don’t let the lies of the Judeo-Christians prevail.

Also, when you know this, you should think twice before you believe in the other lies of the victors. This was the case then, and it still is the case: history is written by the victors. Be sceptical to what those in power says. Be very sceptical.

Related post here and here.

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

(N. Bonaparte)

Bulgarian.

One thing that is rather odd, is that Christians seems to think that they have some sort of monopoly on morals and good behaviour, that the Europeans before the Christianisation were just a bunch of amoral lunatics, raping, killing, pillaging, drinking and having no moral attitudes or self discipline whatsoever. They are often Christians because they are good and moral themselves (they are Europeans in blood after all), and wrongly believe that they need to take the consequence of that and therefore become or remain Christians. They know no other good and moral alternative.

Many modern so-called Pagans seems to think the same, and mistake Heathendom with Hedonism, and use their cartoonish mock-Paganism as an excuse to be amoral and live what the Christians would call ‘a life in sin’ – and what a real Pagan would call ‘a life without Honour’.

Well, I have no problems with what is perceived as traditional ‘Christian’ values and morals: loyalty, family values, kindness, honesty, self discipline (or ‘moderation’) etc.. But let me be perfectly clear: these are not ‘Christian’ values! These are values the Christians adopted from Paganism – or rather kept – when they were Christianized. You can even argue that these are values they kept in spite of the Christianisation: these are the European values the Judeo-Christians failed to eradicate, when they created the Christian cult to destroy Rome (and later the rest of Europe).

As a Pagan European I am not the opposite of Christian Europeans. My problem with them is not their morals, but their embrace of an international and racist religion bent on mixing all races and destroying all cultures and religions on this planet – and replace them all with just ‘Christians’ (of any race or any mix) and Judeo-Christian culture. They have done their best to destroy our European culture for more than a thousand years, and they still try to complete this task.

When you meet Europeans who identify themselves as ‘Christians’, remember this: they don’t need Christianity to justify being moral. The exact same good values and morals are embraced in our European religion too. Paganism is not a excuse to sleep around, drink, take drugs or in other ways behave like a complete idiot. Paganism is the foundation on which all good traditions and morals stand! And unlike Christianity, Paganism is without dangerous alien influence, or even alien control, from some non-European tribe not at all friendly towards Europe and European culture. And unlike Christianity, Paganism is friendly towards all other non-aggressive and non-expansionist religions and cultures on this planet, and seek not to destroy them and replace them with the worship of one non-European tribe and their self-proclaimed right to destroy and enslave all others.

All Christian Europeans who seriously want to ensure the survival of Europe as a biological entity should open their eyes to this, cast the anti-European and racist Christianity aside like a wet towel, and become real Europeans again. Only a Pagan European is ‘a European mind in a European body’. 

Related post here and here.

Hail the European Gods! Hail and Joy!

“In hoc signo vinces” 

Serbian.

We all know that Egypt is located in Africa, but DNA research tells us that at least the first Egyptian dynasties were ruled by Europeans. We assume that the last dynasty had a black pharao, and we know that in the few dynasties before that the royalty struggled to find royal mates. They even preferred to import princes and princesses from enemy kingdoms, rather than marry one from their own population. In fact, they even preferred to marry their own siblings, rather than marry anyone from the ordinary Egyptian population. We also know that finally, when they ran out of ‘good marriage material’ the Egyptian kingdom fell (during the black dynasty).

Egyptian Queen Nerfertiti

.

The Egypt we know today is of course different from Ancient Egypt. First the Africans (blacks) took over, then the Greeks conquerred the falling Ancient Egypt (and as we know, the amazingly beautiful Cleopatra of Ancient Egypt was of Greek origin), then the Romans took over, and then the Arabs took over, as late as in the 7^th century. Today’s Egyptians are probably a mix of all these groups: Ancient Egyptians, Africans, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and slaves of all ‘nearby’ races.

The Egyptian mythology though, is of course of European origin, and is therefore in accordance with the other European mythologies – all of them, from Ireland to India. Not only that: it is one of the oldest European mythologies, and can because of that be seen by us Europeans as one of the most valuable ones.

PS. There is a hypothesis, stating that the last of the eventually rather racially mixed lower nobility and less racially mixed upper nobility left Egypt for Ireland, and was assimilated by the natives there, and that would of course explain the presence of so much red and other dark hair in Ireland and the rest of the British Isleas, and also the many myths about snakes in Ireland (there are no snakes in Ireland), but whether or not this is true is still unknown.  

Serbian.

How many times have you not heard praise of ‘civilization’ and the ‘civilized’ man? These city-builders and city-dwellers are universally praised as the most advanced of men. But are they? But were they really?

The first known (…) civilizations on this planet were all built not by Neanderthals, not by racially pure Europeans; not by the Nordic man most European racists today think so highly of. No! They were built by mongrel populations; in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in Persia and in the Indus Valley. Later the Greeks built cities too, but only after they had been sufficiently racially mixed not to look like Nordics anymore. Later the Romans too built cities, but only after they too had been sufficiently racially mixed not to look like Nordics anymore.

The civilization we have in Europe today too was built by ‘mongrels’: the Romans. Yes, if you are in doubt, know that all cities, all civilization, in Europe, is based on and stems directly from Roman and Judeo-Christian civilisation. The racially pure Europe was barbarian and uncivilized. Britannia. Gaul. Germania. Scandinavia. Baltica. Slavia. Dacia. Aquitania. Suomi. Scythia. Sarmatia. Illyria. Thracia. Etc.

If you think I am wrong, then think about this for a minute. First of all, take a look at cities today: who are drawn to them? Compare them to the countryside and then tell me: where do you find the most mongrels? Exactly: you find them almost exclusively in the cities. And if they can choose, almost all of them go live in the cities. Why? Because that is the natural habitat of the mongrel. The natural habitat of the racially pure individual on the other hand is the pristine nature; un-touched, un-soiled, un-polluted, wild, dangerous and beautiful. You find close to no mongrels there, and if you do you probably do because some racially pure individual has dragged them along.

Civilizations are horribly self-destructive: with time they all eventually fall. They all go down in tragedy and leave the citizens dead or dying, eliminated by their own decadence, crime, stupidity and the degenerative life-style of the city, and not least by epidemics. The few who escape these death traps quickly die in nature, because they are no longer naturally fit for life, after living for generations in ‘cities’.

The ones who are the most likely to survive the collapse of a civilization are those who do not live in cities: the commonly much more racially pure individuals living in the countryside, as close as they can get to their natural habitat: the pristine nature…

PS. You live in the city, and you hate it? Well, maybe because you are not meant to live there.

So why do you?… 

First some music…. 

Today we need technology to survive, not least because groups hostile to us and bent on destroying us are equipping themselves with all the technology they can get their hands on. Also, we have to achknowledge the fact that we do need some technology no matter what, even in an ideal world. I mean; even a javelin and a knife used for hunting is a type of technology.

Before I continue I wish to separate between technology that is necessary and not detrimental to either the environment or man himself, and technology that is not necessary and is detrimental to the environment and man himself. For the sake of simplicity, I will call these ‘good’ and ‘bad’ technologies respectively.

A serious problem with bad technology is that is interferes with the positive natural selection, and even promotes the decay of man. The man without any natural abilities suddenly is given an opportunity not only to survive, but to survive at the expense of those better than him.

E. g. the hunter no longer needs skill or courage, but can just shoot any creature from a safe distance and location, with some rifles up to 2 km away. In fact, industrial farming even makes hunting obsolete, and has removed man so much from the natural processes (even the process of feeding himself) that he has completely lost all healthy and normal links to nature – and the man with no such links to nature will easily destroy everything natural. So the modern man does: in his environment and in himself.

In the long run this bad technology ruins mankind, and the once creative, skilled, brave, healthy and sane man slowly but surely turns into a terrible and sub-human creature, suffering from all sorts of ills – both physically and mentally. At one point mankind will become so degenerated that it will not even be able to uphold the high tech society it has created for itself, and what will then happen?… Yes, man will eventually become so degenerated that he will not be physically able to change even a simple light bulb, or even understand how to do so.

Survivors?

In the long run this bad technology also ruins the environment mankind needs to survive. Forests formerly full of herbs and game are turned into fields producing genetically modified crops, all owned by a tiny corrupt, cruel, cynical, greedy, dishonest and sinister ‘elite’. Lakes and oceans formely boiling with fish are turned into huge dumps for garbage and chemical waste. Only the cities grow, and accelerate the decay of man even further. More bad technology is hailed as the solution to the problems created by bad technology, and there seems to be no way out of it other than through disaster…

The world depending on bad technology to uphold itself is very vulnerable to the whims of nature as well: solar storms, earthquakes, vulcano eruptions, returning Ice Ages and also just bad weather can destroy it. So even if we never run out of the energy needed to uphold the modern world, and even if man does not have the time to be ruined so much that he is no longer able to uphold world he lives in, this modern world will at some point fall into ruins.

One might wonder: how can an intelligent species willingly place itself in a situation where it will be destroyed? It is just a matter of time before this happens, and it can happen in so many ways!

Until the day comes when the modern high tech world comes crashing down, I will use bad technology to promote the dream of a simpler life, of life in ‘good tech’ societies cultivating the healthy man and his healthy relationship to the nature he lives in and is a part of. When the day comes I will be ready and able not to depend on bad technology for the survival of my kin, and so will many others.

The fall of the ‘bad tech’ modern world will not be a disaster for ‘mankind’ though, but mainly for those who did not have the wits to escape this death trap – something they fairly easily could have done by returning to a simpler life. Mankind will in fact profit from such a ‘disaster’, as it will be purified and have its ‘cancer cells’ removed. Both Mother Earth and mankind will be rejuvenated by such a ‘disaster’. Mother Nature will reclaim what has been taken from her by the ‘civilized’ man. Earth will once again grow green and rich with life. Time will remove all traces of the bad tech world, and mankind will enter a (new?) long period when bad technology will no longer be seen as something good. Perhaps even universal rules will be made, and followed, to ensure that it will take very long time before any bad technology is invented again: before man (once again?) enters a period of decline…

Survivors!

It is some times said that “there is nothing new, only what has been forgotten”, and perhaps much of it was intentionally forgotten, because some were wise enough to understand that it was bad technology.

A Simpler Life

The Coming Darkness

7 Examples of ‘good’ Technology:

Clay pots

Clothes made from natural fabrics and fur

Magnifying glasses made from quartz (… yeah, you didn’t know they had that in the Stone Age, did you? [They were used to make fire quickly])

Yurt-like tents

Accoustic musical instruments

Herbal medicine

Wax candles

7 Examples of ‘bad’ Technology:

Cars

Planes

Industrial farming (and in fact: farming itself….the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is superior to the agricultural lifestyle in all ways)

Firearms

Paved roads

Modern medicine

Electricity (in fact: everything that needs electricity to work)

Serbian.

Scholars and laymen alike seem to think of the pre-Christian religion as some sort of ferility cult, and everything is always interpreted in this light, as if fertility was all they ever worried about. All female symbols are thus seen as ‘feritlity symbols’, and even women themselves are portrayed as symbols of fertility.

You might ask yourself a simple control question that will smash all these hypotheses and theories though: “was fertility a problem to the Ancient European?” Well, why on Earth would it be? Just about all the fertility problems we have today are related to the modern lifestyle and a type of pollution they didn’t even have back then. The only fertility-related problem they might have had that we still have today would be those caused by race mixing (e. g. making the male hybrid hypersexual [to compensate for his reduced ferility he will seek to mate a lot]).

However, even when the proto-Europeans (i. e. homo neanderthalensis) first mixed with the proto-Africans (i. e. homo sapiens), probably during the Ice Age, when some of the proto-Europeans went to live in North- and East-Africa, reduced fertility was hardly a real problem. The male (but not the female) offspring of such mixes is often entirely sterile and unable to procreate, but there was no large scale mixing, and they only mixed sporadically, meaning that almost all the men would be proto-Europeans anyhow, with no fertility problems, and even the female hybrids (by the way, known to us today as “Cro Magnon”) were still fertile.

When these tribes returned to Europe, a little bit mixed, the main and most serious adverse effect of this (in a feritlity context!) was mainly a reduced survivability of the pregnant woman. Getting the women pregnant was not a problem, as it most of the time still is even today, but having the woman survive the pregnancy and not least giving birth was often a challenge, and when there was some admixture this often became a major challenge.

Women have hips designed to give birth to children who are from a racial point of view identical to themselves, so if a man of another race impregnates her and the child inherits the father’s skull shape (and the child will [statistically] 50% of the time), then that will be a major problem for the woman when she gives birth to the child. We see the same today, when African women marry European men; they have so many problems giving birth to these children that doctors often automatically (!) wants to give them a Caesarean section, to ensure the survival of both the child and the mother. Giving birth is difficult enough as it is: trying to squeeze a huge skull of another race through your hips severely increases not only the chance for your own and your child’s death, but also for brain injury to the child.

When Siegmund Freud made up his absurd, ignorant and outright delusional theories regarding the “incestous desire” of girls towards their fathers, he simply failed to understand that women are not attracted to their fathers, and don’t seek men who look like their fathers because they are. Instead they are attracted to men who look like their fathers because that will increase the chance for them to survive giving birth to that man’s children: if her mate looks like her father chances are that he will have a skull perfectly matching the shape of her hips.

When the admixture started the differences between the proto-Europeans and proto-Africans were rather big, and only a very few of the hybrid children (and their mothers) survived birth. Those children who did survive were probably almost exclusively those who inherited not the much larger European skull from their fathers, but the smaller African skulls from their mothers. Of course, it is not that simple, but by and large this was the case. So, the Cro Magnon, the direct result of this admixture, has a larger brain and skull than those found in the proto-African, but still smaller than the ones found in the proto-European. As other known mongrel creatures, the Cro Magnon also suffered from a series of problems, such as abnormal growth, bad teeth, often quite severe skeletal defects etc.

Thankfully the mixing of species was only sporadic, and with time the problems caused by this were reduced in both frequency and strength. The proto-African genes were more and more evenly distributed in the proto-European population, who for most of the time didn’t mix with them. The hybridization did change the European population though, and caused many adverse effects, but fertility was never a problem. Surviving birth remained a serious challenge for women though, as it in fact still is today – because we on average in Europe are only 99,7% European.

Related video: The Neanderthal Theory

Serbian.

The by scholars and laymen assumed ‘fertility cults’ of our forebears not only deal with human fertility, but also with the fertility of the crops. They portray ‘the goddess’ as some sort of fertility-spreading being, ensuring the fertility of the fields.

All the old Scandinavian spells (‘sorcerous songs’) I know of though deal with waking up the fields (after winter) (i. e. they deal with the planting of seeds), and then protecting the fields (from ‘bad spirits’), and not a word is said about the fertility of the fields. And again, a simple control question can crush the official theory: was the fertility of the fields ever a problem? And why on Earth would it be? Was nature under some sort of harmful influence back then, that we don’t know of today? Or did somebody sell them GMO or hybrid seeds, that would only produce one single harvest and no fertile seeds to enable them to plant again the next year (a problem we have today)? The only problems they had in this context was too much or lack of sunshine and rain, and of course parasites, crop diseases, birds eating the seeds, animals eating the produce, etc., all explained as the influence of ‘bad spirits’.

The deities generally understood as ‘fertility deities’ are actually never such. They are deities of love, of friendship, of sorcery (‘waking up’ or protecting the fields) and – most commonly and perhaps also most importantly – of youthful health and beauty (actually; two sides of the same coin).

Yes, fertility was generally speaking not a concern in any context, but having good health often was. Most commonly, this was of major importance for the women giving birth. Getting pregnant was not a challenge whatsoever, but to survive childbirth they – and their children – needed to have a good health. Commonly this was also of major importance to the field: only good health could protect it from the ‘bad spirits’, that I talk about above. So the goddesses of good health blessed them, to strengthen their health and protect them.

We then move on to the symbol of good health in pre-Christian Europe, namely the cup (often cauldron) of the Earth goddess. Today we best know this symbol from perverted and Christianized Pagan myths about ‘The Holy Grail’, but as you can understand, the cup was an attribute of the goddess of good health. Very simply put: whoever drank from it would become more healthy. Yes, drinking from this cup would remove the effect of poisons, cure diseases, heal wounds and increase the chance for pregnant women to survive childbirth.

If I may remind you of the importance of rain and sunshine for the crops, the attributes of the sky god becomes more understandable too: his scepter (originally a stone and then a stone hammer or axe) caused the thunder in the sky (like stones on the ground hit against each other produce sparks, and can be used to kindle a fire); his sword was the lightning striking from the sky as a result of this (transferring the power of the sky [the sun] to Earth), and his crown (halo) was the sun itself, shining behind him.

Together the Earth goddess and the Sky god mastered all they needed for the crops to grow: sunshine and rainfall, and good health. The attribute of the Earth goddess was also very useful for (already) pregnant women, who wanted to have enough health to survive giving birth. The attributed of the Sky god was also very useful for champions, who – when the Sky god transferred the power of the sun by placing the sword on their shoulders – became even stronger, or even invincible!

So was there really a fertility cult in Europe? Well, I at least see no traces of such a thing. And such a cult would make no sense either. 

But why do all scholars and laymen alike talk so much of this ‘fertility cult’, of the importance of fertility for the ancient man, etc.? Why on Earth do they? You can explain away much of it with mere ignorance, even more by prevailing feminist ideas, but much of it must be simply slander of the Ancient Man. It is an attempt to make us think of him as some sort of degenerate (‘he was so infertile’), as some sort of pervert (‘his entire religion revolved around having sex as much as he could’), and not least an attempt to strip the religion of our forebears of all metaphysical meaning, of course done to make it less attractive for men today.

If you want to know more about the metaphysical meaning of the European religion you can read the posts linked to in this post. 

PS. I have of course included the ‘features’ discussed in this post in the sorcery and religion of MYFAROG. :-) 

French. Serbian.

Today we laugh when we think about our forebears, who believed in religious nonsense and the people behind it. Let me tell those who come after me then, that I at least did not believed in the religious nonsense of my own age, or the people behind it. Instead I see that what we call ‘science’ today is mainly (yes: mainly, not exclusively) just a new foreign religion, created for the same purpose as the old foreign religion: to enslave the minds of men, and to ensure that they don’t think for themselves, and under no circumstances ask questions. Instead they are to accept the new religious theories as axioms. “How can you even question these theories?!” They tell us that the Moon is gray, even when we all can see that it is white, and we still believe in them!

Rather than think you can always:

Big Bang = God’s Creation

Evolution = The 7 days of Creation

Moon rocks = Religious Relics (a piece of some Saint or even of Jesus himself)

Man/robots on the Moon/Mars! = Miracles!

Scientifically proven = ‘God wills it’ (Deus vult)

Scientific theories = Bible

Scientific method = Religious tradition/rites

Diploma = Decree from the Pope

Nobel prize winners = Saints

Layman = Heretic

Lectures = Mass

Scientist = Priest

Albert Einstein = Jesus/God

Dissident (alias a person questioning the official theories) = Infidel

Disbeliever = possessed by the devil

Taxes = Church taxes

The average man in the street = believer

In the past they were not allowed to choose their religion: there was only one option for them: Christianity or death! Today we only have one science to choose too. There are no other alternatives for anybody who wish to be anything. It’s science or ridicule, shame, poverty and scorn.

To those who believe in Moon rocks, or that Man walked on the Moon or robots on Mars, I can ask you a few simple questions, before you start to ridicule and attack me: do you know if these rocks really come from the Moon? Do you know that man walked on the Moon or robots have been on Mars? Or do you just trust that the evidence some scientists (priests) have provided to us about this is real? If so, what is the difference from this faith and the faith your forebears had in angels, miracles and ‘God’?

If you still think you know, then all hope is lost for you. Your descendants will laugh at you and your ignorance.

Question everything. Trust your gut feeling more than the easily fabricated evidence presented by others. Ask questions also about things you thought you knew. Think for yourself.

What most people think they see:

What they actually see:

For a relevant documentary (on Daily Motions) click here.

Related post here

“I know that I know nothing”

(Socrates)

.