Quite often I use the argument that eye- and hair-color are good indicators of racial purity for Europeans. Those are recessive traits, and if your phenotype is recessive, then of course your genotype is too. If you look Nordic, you are Nordic! And yes: the Nordic look is the original European look: for all Europeans! Naturally, if you have some non-European traits, like dark brown or even black hair, and brown eyes, then you obviously have some non-European admixture. Not much, necessarily, but some, yes. If you are European though, you probably still are overwhelmingly Nordic, but those dominant non-European traits overshadow your “Nordic core”.

Now, the reaction when I say these things is often that “Vrag claims albino Africans with blonde hair and blue eyes are Europeans”, or something like that. This is obviously a strawman: I am talking about Europeans. And non-Europeans, i. e. individuals who clearly are not Europeans, who in spite of that have European features (fair skin, blue eyes or blonde hair) are obviously still not Europeans, but actually non-Europeans with some (!) European features. They clearly have European admixture though. And perhaps ironically, often more so than very dark individuals with European passports.

There are other features than the three mentioned above, that make you European. Skeletal shape, not least skull shape, is perhaps the most important. I only use those three as examples, because they are the most obvious, the most visible, and therefore very easy to measure.

The topic I wish to discuss here though, is one argument often made, when I talk about this. You see, many claim that I omit to talk about “what really matters”, and they list IQ as a determining factor for racial purity.

Really?

I could destroy their argument by simply stating an obvious fact: There are individuals with very high IQ in all races, so no, IQ in itself is not a determining factor for racial purity for Europeans. But I will say more…

Since the start of agriculture, in the late Stone Age, Europeans have developed from being a very homogeneous group (and yeah: I am also talking about IQ here) to splitting up into different… classes. Civilization naturally accelerated this dramatically. Instead of a race of nobles, our race developed into a race of nobles, middle class people and workers.

One group became lords (“distributers of bread) and ladies (“bread bakers”), another group assisted them, and a third group did all the manual labor. The need for high IQ was high in one group, not so high in the other, and low in the third.

When before the individuals with low or even just medium intelligence had perished, because life as a hunter-gatherer in Europe (!) demanded the ability to find quick and good solutions, plan ahead and make preparations for winter, and because the tradition of that time weeded them out (I will talk more about that another time), they now were able to survive. Even thrive, by doing manual labor for their lords. They not only survived; they multiplied, and made up an increasingly larger portion of the populations.

Note: in Europe they were (most places) all of the exact same race…

With time, the lords and ladies remained highly intelligent, because they still had to be, in order to manage the administration of society, and they could cherry pick when they married. The less desirable nobles would fall into the middle class. The more desirable middle class individuals would be adopted into the nobility. The less desirable middle class individuals would become workers. The more desirable workers would become middle class. The rest of them would remain workers. Quite simply. Quite logically.

And no: they did not have strict rules for inter-class marriage. This came later on, when the nobility became increasingly scarce, and the workers too numerous, and indeed when they started taking slaves (workers) from other races – which indeed happened in the border regions of Europe. And yes, this explains the non-European admixture in even ancient European peoples living on the edges of Europe (that I started talking about in this post).

The most extreme example of this is of course Ancient Egypt, where the royals only were of European descent, and the rest of the population was not. In the end, the royals even married their own siblings, in order to “keep” the high intelligence and race, but of course ended up horribly inbred. Ultimately they died out (or perhaps emigrated to Ireland), and Ancient Egypt as a civilization collapsed.

Today the average IQ in Europe is about 100, give or take a bit, depending on where in Europe we travel. This is the average though. The median value for working class Europeans is probably only around 80, for middle class people around 110 and for upper class people around 130. They are all perfectly European though. So no, you cannot use IQ as a determining factor, for racial purity. You can use eye-, hair- and skin-color for this though, when coupled with skeletal shape of course.

The average IQ is around 100 though, simply because the most of the time perfectly European low IQ workers are more numerous.

Yeah, all of this means that most Europeans have an IQ of less than 100!

And to make it perfectly clear: median values and averages like this, do not mean there are no exceptions, in each and every social class! But when this happens, they tend to move up or down on this class ladder. Stupid people sometimes have children smarter than themselves. Smart people some times have kids dumber than them. Nothing is fixed or perfectly predictable in this context. When this happens, the kid will move up, or move down, on the class ladder.

The problem today is the same as when agriculture was introduced: society stimulates the dumb to have more kids than the smart, and also enables them to survive regardless. So the trend continues: we see more and more stupid people in society, and fewer intelligent people. Agriculture and civilization leads to idiocracy, unless perhaps strict eugenic rules are implemented.

Note though, that more and more stupid people are produced by this type of society also because they are needed. In order to keep the wheels running, you need people stupid enough to tolerate doing boring tasks, over and over again, without losing their minds. The low IQ workers are incredibly useful! The more, the merrier, for those in power! These low IQ workers will do all the tedious tasks, and be happy if you only throw them a little entertainment at the end of the day. First of all football and TV, but other things too – games, shopping, vacations etc. etc. etc.

No! If you are highly intelligent, and placed in the shoes of a worker, a bus driver, a cashier, a factory worker, a taxi driver, or whatever, you will be miserable. You will probably end up killing yourself. Society needs people with low IQ to fill those roles!

This is perhaps a digression, but if you read “Hitler´s Tabletalks”, you will also see that Hitler too was fully aware of this, but he was massively pro-civilization, so he encouraged those low IQ Europeans to breed: the more the merrier. He even handed out medals to the working class women who produced many low IQ children! He wanted more stupid workers and more stupid soldiers! Of course: they are the pre-requisites for a civilization to function!

When I talk about blue eyes and blond hair being determining factors for race, I am not discussing intelligence or class-related issues at all. I am not talking about civilization either. Those are separate issues, and I am fully aware of the fact that we need more intelligent Europeans, first and foremost. But no: intelligence in itself is not a factor for determining racial purity.

It should be, and I hope it will be, again, but it is not.

The essential point I wish to make here is that before we focus on IQ, we need to determine what group of people are actually our own, to begin with. When we have, we can work to improve the IQ in our group. The swarthy features (dark brown hair, black hair, brown eyes etc.) in our own group are there because of non-European admixture, and yes, we should work to remove them, over time (with eugenics etc.). And yes, the low IQ in our group is there because of agriculture and civilization, and hybridization too, and we should of course work to raise the average IQ as well. The ideal is a purely Nordic race made up of only nobles with a high IQ.

Dixi.

We know of several mystery cults from the Classical world; the most famous being the Eleusian Mysteries and Mithraism. What was common to them all was that they all included an initiation using sacred objects and a mystery chamber. Another thing they had in common was that they all appeared in the civilized parts of the world.

Here I will explain what they were all about, why they appeared where and when they did, and also what the “barbarian” equivalent was – and also what the roots to all these cults were. I will also show examples of cults deriving from this that still exist today.

The first thing we need to understand in order to comprehend anything in this context, is that all the ancients believed in reincarnation, and that this was the focus of their traditions. This was the purpose of their religious efforts. When we see caves from tens of thousands of years ago, here in Europe, with petroglyphs and the footprints of 7 year-old children in the sand, we need to understand that this is the Stone Age equivalent of a mystery chamber! Inside you would find a priestess or a priest, a gate keeper, whose purpose was to test you. Not just in the “are you worthy” sense, but also in the “is it really you” sense.

The sacred objects, presented to you in this mystery chamber, had a twofold meaning: “Can you recognize the right sacred object?” (to prove it is really you!), and “Find back to yourself!” (if it is truly you, and you identify the right object). You would enter the chamber, be presented several objects, and only if you identified the right one, you would be allowed to proceed to the next chamber. A priestess or a priest would also ask you a question, that you would need to answer correctly. The ultimate question would be a sacred password, that only “the right one” would know. And yes, that password would be… your own name. You true secret name, that you possessed in a previous life, and that you told to the priestess or priest, for her or him to keep it secret until you returned.

The sacred objects would be the items you had been buried with, mixed up with several other similar items, to ensure that no “trespassers” would enter and claim your spirit. If it was really you, only you would be able to identify them correctly! Imposters would not be able to do that!

In our own day and age, a part of this ancient tradition is still partly in existence in Hinduism and Buddhism: the Dalai Lama and the Kumari are both found using this tradition.

Like I said, this tradition stems from the Stone Age. The origin lies in our Neanderthal forebears. We see clear archaeological evidence that they did the exact same, as our forebears did in pre-Christian historical Europe. Not just in Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome, but all over Europe.

A Druid, a Celtic “midwife of the mind”, with his sacred objects:

We even have some of the riddles presented to the reincarnating dead, in the Eddas, in Alvíssmál as well as Hárbarðsljóð. In fact, it is likely that most of the Edda poems were actually such riddles, but these two are absolutely obviously that. The dwarf in Alvíssmál wants to marry Thórs daughter (i. e. a mythological way of saying you want to be reborn), and has to win in a knowledge contest, but fails. Then in Hárbarðsljóð we have Thór himself who wants to cross a river (i. e. a mythological way of saying you either die or want to be re-born), and faces a ferryman challenging him to a wisdom contest.

This is how it was done: you would enter the mystery chamber, be presented with one true and several false sacred object, and if you picked the right one, you would be presented with some riddles, that you needed to solve in order to continue to the next chamber. Then you would be presented with more items, and again you had to pick the right one, and answer more riddles, before you could continue. You would only be reincarnated and be able to claim all the sacred objects as your own if you picked only the right items every time and also were able to solve all the riddles, as well as know the ultimate secret password at the end: your true name, that only the priestess or priest would know!

This was done at the age of 7, and the victorious child would ultimately leave the burial mound with all the sacred objects as well as the skull and femur of the dead, lying in the ultimate chamber.

And yes, we have actual physical evidence to support what I say here: all the way back to the Stone Age, and the Neanderthals, and all the way up into historical times, we find burial sites with remains lacking both the skulls and the femur (or they have been replaced with bear skulls and the femurs of a bear). We also find the burial sites “plundered” – which of course means simply that the person in the grave had returned to re-collect the sacred objects that were rightfully his own! He had been reincarnated!

70.000 (!) year old Neanderthal remains, from Le Regordou, in France, with the head and femur missing.

5500-year-old burial mound in Tiarp, near Falköping, in Sweden, with 12 bodies. “By chance” all missing their skulls. Naturally, the “scholars” think they have been “beheaded”. Sigh.

The image of a greedy and bearded, and rather ugly, dwarf stems from this too: the little child greedily sought his precious sacred items (often made of gold, in order to last in a grave), and then left the burial mound holding much golden items and the (often bearded, and always kind of grotesque) head of his former body victoriously above his head. As I have explained in other books, “dwarf” means “opening in the ground” too. That is, whence the child comes when he is reborn.

The “problem” with this ancient reincarnation cult though, was that it was not really for everyone. Only a select few would be able to reincarnate this way. Only a select few would even be given a burial mound to begin with! The rest?

Likewise, today, only one individual in Hinduism reincarnates as the Dalai Lama. Only one single individual reincarnates as the Kumari – although they “lose” their role as the Kumari when they start to menstruate there, and then a new one needs to be found, so in a sense several women have been the Kumari, but only one at a time.

It is still a custom in Europe though, to name your children after your dead relatives, to put images of them on the mantlepiece (where they in the past put carved wooden figurines of them or their skulls on the mantlepiece), so we should reconsider the claim I make above here. Certainly there was some sort of reincarnation for everyone, but… only some would return as deities.

Yeah, I know: we have “Pagans” today who worship the gods, make sacrifices to them and think they are real physical beings on Earth. They list historical examples of god-worship, and claim this is how you shall do it. But they fail to understand that the gods, the actual and real gods, are deities reincarnated in human beings. That is: human beings reincarnated as gods. These deities were indeed given a special treatment in the past, and were hailed as real physical gods here on Earth. Like the Dalai Lama and the Kumari still is. Yeah, they still give offerings to the Kumari…

Indeed, the Lord of any ancient Germanic society was Freyr. And Lady of any ancient Germanic society was Freyja. The head of any tribe was a god, and his wife was a goddess. They had gone through the ritual reincarnation of the deity, so… they were the deities!

And yeah, we have actual evidence supporting this claim too: even after the Christianization (i. e. the “we pretend to accept your immigrant cult in order to avoid torture and death”), they still practiced this in Scandinavia. The family head of any farmer family still was a deity. When he died his throne would remain unused until one of his sons reincarnated – not as him, but as the same deity! In order for this to happen, he would need to first kill the deity, i. e. cut a wooden idol with his sword, and then become the deity himself. We see remains of this in form of traditional “sword dances”, but of course also in the Arthurian mythology, where the sword has become stuck in the idol!

You see, when the son cut the idol, he would make a promise, to do something spectacular! This was known in Scandinavia as a “Bragi promise”, from the deity “Bragi”, meaning “best”. If he e. g. promised to “unite all the tribes in England and become king there”, then he would have to do that in order to become the deity.

However the deity was in charge here, so if the sword got stuck in the idol, and the next in line could not get it free, he would not become that deity after all! And the next in line would be allowed to try pull it out. If he too failed, then the next in line would try, etc. etc. etc. In the Arthurian myth the idol is a rock, but this is the same, and ultimately the god choses a little boy, Arthur, to become him! The myth suggests that when he manages to pull the sword form the idol, he is destined to become king, but… in reality, the one who pulled the sword from the idol had to perform the act of heroism promised by the one cutting the idol! In the case of Arthur (meaning “bear”, btw…), this would be to become king.

I can also add that the symbolism here is that the idol is the placenta, and the sword the umbilical cord, and in order to be reborn, you naturally have to “free the umbilical cord form the placenta”. If you do not, when you are born, you will die.

These real gods, these deities reincarnated in man, were given special attention by the others, yes. They were hailed as real gods. They were real gods!

They would transfer divine blessings to others by placing their swords on the shoulders of their subjects, by letting them drink from the cauldron of the lady, etc., but they also had severe restrictions. E. g. They some times (as seen with the Kumari) could not touch the ground, and were therefore carried around in thrones or standing on shields (as is best known to us from the French cartoon Asterix, actually). The goddesses could not bleed (again: as seen with the Kumari), they had to wear clothes in certain colors, etc. It was no easy task, being a deity… You can read more about these “taboos” in Sir James Frazer´s “The Golden Bough”, btw, if you are interested.

It is still unclear to me, whether only the gods would reincarnate, or if there was a general belief in reincarnation for everyone. Or perhaps if everyone reincarnated, but in order to reincarnate as a god, you would need to go through a special ritual. From what I can tell, the latter is the most likely. I hope I will understand this better, but for now, I will simply present to you what I do know.

It seems though, as if in Classical Antiquity, the mystery cults appeared because something had been lost by the adoption of civilization. Too many ordinary people, too little direct contact with the natural world and of course, a diminished human species.

It was no easy task being worthy of reincarnation. With civilization, more and more failed, until so many were “uninitiated”, and so many failed to see the purpose of it all, that they could be lured into universal cults where everyone, the more inferior the better, were accepted and approved of.

Yeah, I am talking about Christianity here…

In Europe today, we see “a certain group of people” propagate the idea that Afro-Asian immigrants “have always been here”, and that in fact “they built Europe”. To all people with some basic history understanding, this is of course just ludicrous, and sounds like nothing more than a joke. A bad joke. Yet, some immigrants believe in this, and adopt these ideas.

Likewise, we see the same group of people propagate the idea that “there are more than two genders”, and that what matters is what you identify as. If you identify as a woman, then you are a woman. If you identify as a man, then you are a man. Your biological sex is irrelevant, they claim. Again, those with a basic understanding of biology know that this is just nonsense. Yet, some people believe in this, and adopt these ideas.

They want you to believe in three things:

1. A donkey born in a stable is a horse

2. A donkey moving into a stable becomes a horse

3. A donkey identifying as a horse is a horse

Yes, you laugh, because this is indeed ridicules, but…

This is not the first time they have promoted ideas like this, and the vast majority in Europe accept that ridicules nonsense as a fact. Yes! Most Europeans already accept that donkeys born in a stable are horses, that donkeys moving into a stable are horses and that donkeys identifying as horses are horses!

You see. When I say: “Brown people are not White”, I am bombarded with arguments claiming otherwise. Why? Because they are “Spanish”, “Albanian”, “French”, “Italian”, “Greek”, “Serbian”, “Portuguese”, “Bosnians”, etc.

Let us use Spain as an example. In Classical Antiquity, it was conquered and occupied for a long time by North African Semites, the Carthaginians (who of course mixed with the native population). Then later on it was conquered by North African Moors and Arab Muslims, and occupied by them for 700 years. During these 700 years, the Muslim invaders intermarried the native Iberians, raped them and took their women as sex slaves, for their harems. And yes, the harem slaves too produced children. Of course.

Or do you actually believe, what many in effect claim, that Muslims controlled their country for 700 years but never during that time touched their women? Seriously!?

When the Christians ultimately triumphed on the Iberian peninsula, the population was naturally massively mixed. And yes, they did not exterminate the Muslims (or Jews) living there, or indeed their mixed descendants. They Christianized them. No, not all of them; many Muslims fled. But yes, they Christianized many of them. And the mixed people were often Christian already anyhow. From then on they all were forced to identified as “Spaniards”.

Yeah. The donkey that had moved into the stable was forced to identify and was accepted as a horse.

When I point out the obvious fact, that many, even most, of the Spaniards are not actually Europeans, but immigrants, I am attacked by the same people who agree with me that today´s Afro-Asian immigrants are not and will never be Europeans, no matter where they are born or what they identify as.

Strange, is it not? That they accept an immigrant who move to Spain and start identifying as a European, as a true European, but laugh at the idea that we shall accept other immigrants moving to Europe as Europeans. Even though the immigrant that moved to Spain hundreds of years ago is still brown.

Yeah. They are accepting that a donkey that moved to a stable, or was born in a stable, and who identify as a horse, is in fact a horse.

No, I am not talking about brown-eyed Europeans, or brown-haired Europeans. I am talking about brown people with European passports, who were born in Europe, whose parents where born in Europe, who identify as Europeans, but who are not Europeans. People like a majority in Spain and Portugal, Albania, Southern (!) Italy, Serbia, Greece, etc.

If you accept that these brown people are white, then you will also accept that the Afro-Asian immigrants moving into Europe today, will become Europeans in the future. Their descendants, that is. Your dumb descendants will make the same arguments, that you are making today, only in relation to the descendants of the Afro-Asians who come to or already live in Europe today.

Europeans are fair-skinned, and if completely unmixed also blue-eyed and blonde (from light to dark blonde). They have a “math bump” in the back of their heads, and shorter lower arms compared to the upper arms, and shorter lower legs than upper legs, than other races. If they have brown eyes and/or brown hair, but are otherwise perfectly European, they just have a little bit non-European admixture. Very little, in fact, and they are still overwhelmingly European. But the pure European is a classical Nordic man. And brown people, no matter where they are born or what passport they have, are not Europeans. Period.

I seek to protect and promote Europe, not the “donkey” version of Europe. And yes, I see all who oppose this as subversive agents of “that group”.

Dixi.

When I argue that Christianity suffocated Europe intellectually and spiritually, and left our culture and populations dramatically reduced in all ways, the standard reaction from Christians is to show images of the “magnificent” cathedrals built by the Christians in the Middle Ages. This is supposed to prove that I am wrong, and that Christianity did not actually turn Europeans into ignorant, filthy, broken and dramatically reduced primitives. Instead, we, they argue, became better and started to build glorious temples for the new Semitic idol. Because “of course”, before Christianity we were indeed ignorant primitives.

You can of course easily list endless examples of “glorious” buildings in biological Europe from before Christianity had even been invented. All the seven wonders of the Ancient World were built by Pagans. Every single one of them. The Greeks built magnificent temples to their Pagan Gods, and the Romans did too. They also built aqueducts, bridges, sewers, theaters and more, en masse, and even the “barbarians” of Europe built magnificent ships, the Stone Henge, the New Grange burial mound, and numerous beautiful wooden temples. Only someone extremely ignorant will believe in the lies of the Christians. Even civilization itself was built by Pagans. In Europe by the Romans and Greeks. And it barely survived Christianity!

But they are correct that the architecture skills in Europe survived Christianity. And it did because the Christians wanted to build temples to their immigrant idol, to impose their Semitic beliefs on the Europeans, to force them to worship their Hebrew tribal “god”, to scare them and to ensure control. These temples were not only temples, but also intelligence gathering centers, where any and all opposition could be picked up, identified and “dealt with”.

And they did “deal with” the Pagans in all areas they took over. They burnt the Pagan temples, often with the Pagan priests inside, executed all who refused to bend their knee to the new Semitic idol and ruthlessly rooted out all European culture, as best as they could. When they failed, they Christianized it instead, and made it part of their own alien cult. Like they did with all our Pagan festivals.

The fate of everything else, everything except architecture, is a different story. And even in architecture Europe lost much. Existing buildings were not only neglected by them, but were actually also vandalized and often destroyed, and many building techniques were forgotten. Streets and bridges made by the Pagans were still used, but they built no new roads and did not maintain the old ones. The new bridges they built were of vastly inferior quality, and none of them survived time. The old roads and bridges, built by Pagans, survived only because they had been so well made. Public baths, sewers and aqueducts were destroyed by them, or left unused. Eventually they collapsed, of course. When you see images of Ancient Greek open theaters, overgrown and abandoned, you must understand that they did not “fall out of use”, but the use of theaters was banned by the Christians! Acting only survived as Christian propaganda, and this was done as in religous plays in the churches themselves.

Below: Hypatia (a Greek living in Alexandria, then part of the East Roman Empire) murdered, by a Christian mob.

Old Pagan philosophy schools, sports arenas, baths, horse racing courses, libraries, and so forth were all shut down. More than ten thousand libraries in Europe were burnt down by the Christians! Sport itself was suppressed and partly survived only because it was practiced in remote locations out of reach of the power of the church. Only religious sculptures were allowed, and they were made of inferior materials and in a quality and with a technique vastly inferior to that of the Ancient Pagan world, and nothing even half-way comparable to the Ancient sculptures were made until the Renaissance (of Pagan ideas and ideals!).

When it comes to philosophy, the Church burnt all existing works, with only a few exceptions (mainly in the East Roman Empire), where they kept them hidden from the public. They established a monopoly for philosophy. Real philosophers were censored, persecuted, and even murdered. Nothing of any value was made from the time the Christians murdered Hypatia during the Christianization of Greece, until the Renaissance, when ancient Pagan philosophy was revived. And I may add that the Renaissance was possible only because the Muslims had kept much of the Ancient philosophical works that they had come across. When the Muslims were defeated, in Spain and Portugal, as well as in North Africa and the Middle East, many of these ancient Pagan works were found by European knights, and brought back to Europe. Also, when the Muslims defeated the East Roman Empire, and sacked their capital, the old libraries of the elite, where the Christians had secretly kept some of the ancient European texts, were plundered by the fleeing Greeks, who brought these books as refugees to Italy (mainly). Books were very valuable at the time, so they did that to sell them them; to make sure they would have some money when they arrived, and thus an ability to survive there.

Education was common in the Ancient world, and everyone had been taught to read and write. Public schools were built and paid for by the rich! After Christianity though, all education was denied for almost all Europeans, except to a few rich people and those who planned to become priests. Education became limited to Christian indoctrination.

It does not stop there though! Dance was banned as “Pagan”, tribalism was of course banned and replaced by Christian kingdoms, history was replaced by pure fabrications and lie-propaganda, and mathematics was treated as Pagan philosophy and was reduced to the simple arithmetic needed to calculate the date of Easter. All medicine was banned, and diseases were instead seen as rightful punishment for sins. Hygiene was abandoned as un-Christian. Painting too was banned, except for religious themes for use in Christian propaganda and churches. Pre-Christian art was destroyed whenever they came across it. Most painting techniques were forgotten, and lost for centuries, until they were re-discovered because of the Renaissance (of Pagan ideas and ideals).

When you see magnificent paintings and sculptures appearing in Christian Europe, in the 14^th century, this is because of the Renaissance of Pagan ideas and ideals.

And how did the Christians react to that!?

Yes! This is the moment in history when they started burning “witches”. They saw their monopoly and power disappear, as more and more Europeans returned to their own roots and embraced Pagan ideas and ideals again. So the Christians fought back, to keep their power! They did that by murdering more Europeans, by torturing them and burning them alive, in public, to “scare straight” the Europeans. And of course, they murdered mainly those who were the keepers of the Pagan traditions: women. In particular the midwives.

Yes! The Pagan tradition was kept mainly by women, just like all traditions even today are. Mainly women keep the traditions. Without our women, even Yule and Easter, would have been lost ages ago already.

And this is where it gets interesting, because the church mainly murdered women in Protestant countries. Why?

Well, the Protestant countries were “by chance” also the countries that had been Christianized last. In Southern Europe, the Christians had destroyed everything Pagan for hundreds of years already, even for a thousand years, so there was very little left to destroy there. Even the populations themselves were largely mixed with North Africans and Semitic peoples. When the Renaissance re-kindled old ideas and ideals there, and not least skills, the Pagan awakening was not as dramatic as it was when these ideas and ideals reached Central, Western and Northern Europe. In these mainly Protestant parts of Europe the European blood was still overwhelmingly dominant. The Pagan memory was still very much alive. Christianity had not yet had the time to destroy their blood and heritage completely. It was still “too easily” re-kindled there. And dramatic measures were necessary, to stop that!

I can add that when they had burnt most of our midwives, the traditional sages and keepers of (Pagan) traditions in Europe, they replaced them with male doctors, and the mortality rates for both new-borns and women giving birth sky-rocketed. When it had been fairly safe to give birth before, it from then on became incredibly dangerous to give birth.

An ancient Greek theater. Fallen into ruins, because the Christians BANNED theaters. Partly repaired in modern times.

The conclusion I will draw from all of this, is that yes, architecture survived Christianity, and “glorious” temples for their Semitic “god” were indeed built in Europe, before the Renaissance of Pagan ideas and ideals, but everything else was banned and if possible destroyed by Christianity. Intellectually and spiritually, and even physically, Europe was sent into a dark abyss by the Christians, and we only survived because we found back to our Pagan roots.

We are still in this dark and dangerous Semitic abyss. But we are slowly and surely saving ourselves, from the plague called Christianity. Many keep falling, and err in the darkness, but many others or later also manage to climb out and see the light again. Like people emerging from Plato´s cave. Thankfully, only some of us, the most broken, useless and worthless amongst us, are still blinded by the idiotic lies of Christianity.

What started with the Renaissance is not over yet. We are still waking up. And fear not, fellow Europeans! We will wake up completely, before they manage to destroy us and wipe our name from the records of man.

There is plenty of evidence supporting the claim that Indo-Europeans spread out from what is today Ukraine, or the Pontic Steppes, if you like. Their language became dominant almost all over Europe, and there is ample scientific evidence proving that they had a significant impact on the genetic make-up of Europe.

So what am I talking about when I say the Indo-European Invasion theory is nothing but a myth? Why am I claiming that they did not conquer anything or anybody, and that they did not replace any populations in Europe anywhere?

Am I retarded or what?

No. As convenient as that would have been for those who believe in this myth, I am not. If you are interested in our forebears and want to understand whence we came, hear me out…

First let me address the claim that they managed to “take over” in Europe because of their superior technology. They had the wheel. They used chariots of war. They had horses. The other Europeans, the peoples they are assumed to have conquered, did not.

A chariot of war and even cavalry, is all good and well if the conditions for their use are good. Like in the Pontic Steppes. However, Ancient Europe, did not look like it does today. Most of Europe was covered in ancient forests, where the use of chariots is impossible, and even the use of cavalry is very hard. And if you do use it there, it will not give you any technological advantage over infantry. On the contrary. You are at a great disadvantage!

The parts of Europe not covered by ancient forests, were mountainous or marshland. I assume that I need not explain how the use of chariots and cavalry will not be a technological advantage in mountains, and I guess you also understand that riding chariots or horses through a bog is not very easy either.

Let me also stress that it seems as if most people today underestimate just how much marshland we had here in Europe in the past. Most of the farmland we have today, everywhere save in Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Russia and perhaps parts of Poland as well), was originally marshland, that was drained as late as in the Middle Ages! Yes, before that most of it were bogs!

Note also that the country in Europe with the most “Indo-European” (Yamnaya) genetic heritage is Norway. Even today only 3% of Norway is half-way suitable for agriculture (and thus for chariot and cavalry warfare), and the rest is made up of steep and deep fjords, boggy forests, bogs and most of all (often boggy) mountains. 97% of Norway is impassable for anyone using chariots and cavalry!

So no, the argument that they were able to conquer other Europeans because they had superior technology is worth null.

The second argument I will address is the very claim that they conquered the rest of Europe in itself. If we look at historical examples, like Alexander the Great, it took him 10 years using Macedonian infantry (!) to conquer all of Greece, Asia Minor, the Middle East, Egypt and large parts of Central Asia. In 10 years!

Yet the people believing in the Indo-European conquest myth admit that the Indo-Europeans spent 3000 years to spread from what is today Ukraine to what is today Germany. 3000 years! This further dramatically clash with the claim that they managed to conquer all others in Europe because they had superior technology. Because if they did, then why did it take 3000 years for them to conquer an area no larger than what Alexander the Great only needed 10 years to conquer!? Come on! These Indo-Euroepans must have been the most incompetent and useless warriors on this planet, if they needed that much time to conquer that!

And this brings us to the third argument they have, namely that the Indo-Europeans conquered and replaced matriarchal hunter-gatherers, who according to them had no warrior culture, but worshipped women and female gods. No manly Männerbünde. No heroic poetry. Nothing. Just a bunch of feminist sissies, basically.

Now, Alexander the Great met other warriors in battle, and defeated them, one army after the other. His men fought heroically, fiercely and skillfully, against tough opponents, all of them accustomed to and trained for warfare. And it took him 10 years to defeat them all….

Yet, the people believing in the Indo-European conquest myth want us to believe that their patriarchal, manly, warrior-worshipping and chariot-riding heroes spent 3000 years to conquer a numerically vastly inferior group of feminist sissies, worshipping a mother goddess? Seriously?!

The fourth claim I wish to address is this claim, that the other Europeans were matriarchal, and also that the Indo-Europeans basically brought our mythology, our ancient poems, our ancient symbols, our entire European heritage, to Europe. Everything from before the Indo-European assumed invasion is treated by them like worthless trash, and alien to us.

But unlike for the language claim and the genetic claim, they have zero evidence in this context. And in fact, the evidence we have tells a completely different story. We see a continuity in religious practices in Europe, all over Europe, all the way from the Neanderthals and even until today (because the Christians adopted most of that Pagan heritage, when they failed to eradicate it). Nothing changed with the introduction of the Indo-European languages. Nothing is different in this context from Indo-European-speaking Europeans and non-Indo-European speaking Europeans. Nothing in this context changed with the spread of R1 haplogroups in Europe. Nothing!

And yeah, my wife has proven this in The Secret of the She-Bear, and recently also in The Runes Finally Explained: The Germanic Book of the Dead. Which I guess is the reason why so many of the fans of the Indo-European invasion theory spend so much time to slander her and her books.

We even have physical evidence proving beyond any doubt that the pre-Christan Tradition of Europe remained the same all the way, from the Neanderthals. Even archaeology supports this claim, but also all the fairy tales and myths prove this. If you don´t believe in me, you can see for yourself, by reading my wife´s books. And if you refuse to see the evidence, then you have no argument. Sorry.

And let me end this argument, by making it perfectly clear that no, no Europeans were ever matriarchal. The other Europeans too, had the exact same world view and tradition as the Indo-Europeans did.

But I have admitted that the Indo-European language has become the most dominant of all European languages in Europe, and that they genetically influenced all of Europe dramatically. Obviously, there was no conquest. So what really happened?

Let us first ask us: what could realistically explain this?

Well, think of it this way. I am one single man. A Norwegian. And I have married a French woman and moved to France. We have 7 children. If our children each have 7 children too, then I will get 49 grandchildren. If each of them too have 7 children each, I will be the great grandfather of 343 individuals. If this continues…. after only 5 generations (150 years), a total of 117649 individuals will stem from me.

7*7 = 49

49*7 = 343

343*7 = 2401

2401*7 = 16807

16807*7 = 117649

After 10 generation (300 years) a total of 1.977.326.743 individuals will stem from me. That one single Norwegian in France… and all the males in direct male line from me will belong to the same paternal haplogroup as I do.

If I teach my kids Norwegian, and they keep doing that to their children, then Norwegian will dramatically influence the French language, and perhaps even replace French in France. And beyond too! Because of course, they are not going to all stay here in France! Or to only marry Frenchmen! They will slowly, but surely, spread out across probably all of Europe. And yeah, in 3000 years, my paternal haplogroup will probably have reached all the way to Ukraine… to the Pontic Steppes.

Yet, I did not “conquer” anything (save perhaps a single French woman´s heart), the males descending from me did not defeat anybody, they did not steal the women from anywhere, but simply married and had kids. I did not replace any religious traditions in France. The French already have the same traditions as we do in Norway.

Yeah. Conquests by blood take a long time. Just like the spread of “Indo-European” languages and blood did. Making it very likely that this is exactly how they spread out across Europe. Not by warfare. Not by killing other men and stealing their women. But by living in Europe. And again: along with other perfectly European Europeans.

So my claim is simple: the (very slow) spread of “Indo-Europeans” and their language in Europe, is because some individuals there by chance were more fertile than others, elsewhere in Europe, and therefore had more children than they did.

Before I end this, I will stress that if a large group of men came to Europe and took our women, and killed the men, it would take only a few generations, a 120 years tops, to completely replace our male lines in Europe. Not 3000 years. Not even 300 years. 120 years tops! In fact, if they did that, it would take one generation to do that. This never happened in the past!

As a curiosity, I can mention that it is estimated that more than 90% of all Norwegians, actually stem in direct line back to one single king (Olaf) from the Viking Age. Because he had many children. We pretty much all stem from him. That is how “fertility” works in the long run.

Being “fertile” is not just about being able to reproduce, physically, but also about being willing to reproduce. A normal man willing to become a father is infinitely more fertile than the most physically able man on this planet, if the latter is not willing to take the responsibility of having children. Fertility is also a mental state.

When I say that this Indo-European Conquest myth is dangerous to us, and intentionally spread by those who want to destroy Europe and everything European, this is because it works just like Christianity did: anything from before the Indo-Europeans came is treated like alien garbage, when it is in fact our heritage just as much. The will to let this part of our heritage be completely removed and replaced, is part of that Indo-European Conquest myth. They even paint our perfectly European pre-Indo-European forebears as a bunch of worthless feminist sissies, worshipping a fat goddess. Further, the idea that we are immigrants in all of Europe, save in the Pontic Steppes in the extreme East of Europe, supports the idea that (continued) immigration is ok, and especially that we are not Natives in our own homelands. The Indo-European conquest myth therefore works to deprive us of our rightful status as Natives to our own homelands. To all of Europe.

To promote our blood, our heritage, and our future, not least, we need to stop pushing this “Indo-European Conquest Myth”. We are more than just that!

Dixi.

Varg Vikernes

One of the most common arguments I hear when I say that we descend from Neanderthals, is that we do not look like they did, cranially. Their skulls were so different from our own, that we cannot possibly have come from them!

This is an utterly bizarre response though, because if we do not stem from the Neanderthals, then we must have come from Homo Sapiens, and… do you know how their skulls looked at the same time?

Modern Homo Sapiens skull vs Ancient Homo Sapiens Skull

Surprise! Our modern skulls do not look like the skulls of the ancient Homo Sapiens either. Yet, you think we descend from them! Why!?

But you are right. Neither we, stemming from Neanderthals, nor modern Africans, stemming from Homo Sapiens, look exactly like our/their forebears. Why would this surprise you though? Have you heard about this concept called “time”? Did you not know that time changes… everything?

But of course, the same people who make the claim addressed in this post, actually claim that we stem from Cro magnon, and not Homo sapiens. So they do not need to worry about how Africans looked in the past! *Sigh of relief*

Cro magnon is not a race or a species at all though, but just a term scientists use for all the remains they find that are neither Neanderthal nor Homo Sapiens. Cro magnon is a term for those who are a mix between the two. For the hybrids.

Yeah. A hybrid. Just like modern hybrids, the Cro magnon was often very tall (extreme growth is a common feature for all hybrids), but none looked the same, and their teeth were as a rule as if “cast into the mouth”. They did not fit properly (again, a typical trait for hybrids).

But Cro magnon had much larger brains (up to 1600 cubic centimeters [cc], cranial capacity) than even modern Homo Sapiens (up to 1500 cc), so of course the “IQ-focused” modern Europeans would rather want to stem from them, than from Homo sapiens!

They seem to forget that the Neanderthals had up to 1900 cc cranial capacity though… and yeah, the Cro magnon hybrid had a larges brain than Homo Sapiens did, because it was a mix between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal.

Modern Africans have a cranial capacity around 1250 on average. Their average IQ apparently is around 70.

Modern Europeans/East Asians have a cranial capacity around 1350 on average. Their average IQ is apparently around 100.

Neanderthals had a cranial capacity up to 1900…. On average it was probably around 1500 cc. That is the same as the maximum (1500 cc) for modern Europeans. This suggests that on average, the Neanderthals were as smart as our biggest geniuses. The smartest Neanderthals must have been something quite out of the ordinary, to us, and even beyond our comprehension. Even if you take their larger skeletons and bigger muscles into account, this suggests they were much smarter than we are today!

And yeah, we stem from them.

So what happened? Why are we not as smart (or powerfully built) anymore?

Well, this is what happens when you become domesticated. We have seen it in all, absolutely all, wild animals that became domesticated. Their wild counterparts remained larger-brained and more powerfully built, and the domesticated versions of them saw their brains shrink and their skeletons weaken. Think of how wolves turned into little Chiwawas.

So no, the fact that we are different from the Neanderthals, does not mean that we cannot stem from them. We do. We just created a society that caused us to auto-domesticate, and this changed us. For the worse.

Note also, that our Paganism stems from the Neanderthals. Not from some delusional criminals living in some desert in the Middle East, but from people with a cranial capacity of up to 1900 cc. I trust them to know better than we do today. Indeed.

To those who think that our high tech society proves that we are in fact intellectually superior to the Neanderthals, I will say that it actually proves the opposite. Creating for example a fancy electric wheelchair might be brilliant, but you will only ever do that if you need one. Our Neanderthal forebears did not need all of this technology, so of course they did not develop it. We are in fact so inferior today that we need machines to do almost everything for us. For example, we cannot remember entire mythologies by heart, so we write it all down. Only therefor do we invent pencils and paper, and books to write things down. Because we need to.

But yes, at the same time we – unlike certain other groups – are indeed still brilliant enough to invent and create all these “wheelchairs”, that we need and use in the everyday life, or for complex and advanced science.

But no, we are not smarter. We are dumber, and we are because of auto-domestication. And yeah, we Europeans do stem from the brilliant Neanderthals (and Asians also partly stem from them), and we still have much of their genius in us.

Not only that, we can “re-wild” ourselves again too, and become as smart as we once were. Or even smarter! So hail to our Neanderthal forebears! I hope we become more like them again.

Dixi

Varg Vikernes

Some claim that what I say is in direct conflict with what we know about our heritage. I can assume that they can even produce evidence proving me wrong some times.

Yet I am not wrong…

How can that be?

Let me give you an example.

We all know what a troll is. Right? A big, stupid, ugly, and malevolent giant, or if you like a little goblin-like creature with long nose and messy hair, living in the forest. This is an established fact, you could argue.

But it is not a fact. It is a lie that has been parroted for a long time. You could argue that because it has been parroted for such a long time, it has become true now, and in a sense you are right to do so, but…

No.

A troll is the name for a malevolent spirit, a wraith, a ghost, or a dead man rising from the grave to haunt the living. The name “troll” derives from the verb “å tralle”, meaning “to chant” or more correctly: “to cast a spell (by chanting”). This name was used on such creatures because they believed that they had been brought forth by malevolent sorcerers casting spells on the dead.

Ettins are today often wrongly called trolls, because they are large, ugly, and stupid, and wander around in our dark forests and caves. The name “Ettin” derives from proto-Germanic *etunaz, meaning “big eater” or “hunger”, and they were named as such because they are not really alive, they have no “mind”, and they think that by eating something or someone with a “mind”, they will get a mind of their own.

So when I claim that ettins are not trolls, that trolls are not ettins or indeed “giants”, and that trolls are actually what we today call “undead creatures”, then I am perfectly correct. Yet you can “prove me wrong”, by referring to the lies that has been parroted about these creatures for a long time already.

And that is my point: when you see my claims, and you think I am wrong and that you know better than me, because we have plenty of recorded evidence saying something else, then you should re-consider.

You see, I am not wrong. When in conflict with what I say, your sources are wrong. The established “truths” are in fact lies. The scholars have been ignorant for hundreds of years already. They have parroted lies and even slander against our forebears, for ages. Often they did not know any better, but sometimes they did, and intentionally subverted our heritage because they were Christians or “something like that.”

We need to actually return to our roots, instead of looking at what “they” say about our roots.

Whether we talk about reincarnation, spirituality, praying, sacrifices, trolls, ettins, gods, or whatever, understand that the established “truths” about our heritage is nothing but old lie-propaganda, slander, and part of an effort to destroy us and our heritage.

How a TROLL looks like (image from “The Creatures of Thulê Deluxe, for MYFAROG”:

If you go to Amazon to look for books about runes you find dozens upon dozens of books about rune divination. Some thin and some thick, and they all offer you a way to divinate with runes; to predict the future. Many of them combine their “rune lore” with tarot cards, meditation, Yoga and all sorts of other Oriental practices.

Strangely enough, if we look for their sources for their seemingly immense knowledge about rune divination, we find very little.

That is, at first glance we find a lot. There are mentions of runes used for divination in The Saga of Sigurd the Dragonslayer, in The Volsung Saga, in The Saga of the Greenlanders, in The Saga of the People of Laxardal, in The Saga of the Sworn Brothers as well as in The Saga of Egil Skallagrimsson.

That is, if you read the English translations of these texts….

Yes. If you read the English translations….

If you read the original texts though, you will find that the term “rúnar” (runes) are not mentioned even one single time in any of these texts. Instead you will see that the Norsemen carved “stafir” on pieces of wood, to predict the future. Or rather, to let chance decide.

Scholars agree though, that “stafir” must have been a reference to runes. But if they had carved runes on pieces of wood, why not call them runes!? It is not like this was not a well-known term back then. They had runes. They knew the runes. So why not call them runes, if they carved runes into pieces of wood? Ok, if they wrote “runes” in one saga, and “stafir” in another, we can agree that they used these terms interchangeably, but this is not the case. They only use the term “stafir” for this. Never “rúnar”. Let this sink in: in all those sagas, not once is the term “rúnar” used.

I can mention, that in Tacotus´ “Germania”, there is mentioned that symbols are carved unto some pieces of wood, for the same purpose as given in the sagas: to let chance decide. And again, the term “rúnar” are not used, and I may add: from what we know runes did not even exist at the time. He wrote his book around 2000 years ago. The oldest runes found are about 1800 years old.

Well, I think the runes existed back then too, they are probably older than we think, but there is indeed no mention of them being used for divination anywhere. Not in “Germania”, and certainly not in any of the sagas.

What we know instead, is that the Ancient Germanic tribes used “symbols” carved into pieces of wood, and that the Scandinavians used “stafir”. And it was done not to “predict the future”, but to let chance decide.

And yes, when they did not know any better, the ancients often let chance decide. “Shall we go to war over this or not?” If they could not decide, they would place their spears on the ground, and let a young man ride a horse over them. If the horse stepped on one of the spear shafts, it meant “war”. If it did not, it meant “no war”. They knew perfectly well that this was a game of chance. More commonly though, as we know from “Germania” and the sagas, they carved some symbols into pieces of wood, and threw them to the ground, to let chance decide. Like we throw a coin into the air today, “head or “tails”, or cast a die. To let chance decide.

If you look up the word “stafr” (plural: “stafir”) in a Norse dictionary, you will find this: “Staff, walking stick, stick, pillar” and also “used for signs telling you where the property ends/starts”. But then at the very end, they add “rune”…. not because it means rune though, but because the scholars think that all the references to “stafir” in the sagas are actually references to runes. So they added this meaning to the term. Then when they translate the texts into English, “stafir” is therefore translated into “rune”.

Norse “Stafr” derives from proto-Germanic “stafaz”, meaning “staff” or “stick”. It does not mean rune. Scholar believe that it is used to mean “rúnar” in the sagas, but that is pure speculation. And their argument ends up being circular, because they gave “stafir” that meaning”, and then they use their own dictionaries to “prove” that the “Vikings” used runes for “divination”.

My simple claim is that they are wrong, and that if they had used runes for this, then they would have used the term runes too, in the sagas. At least once. But they don´t.

***

The next thing we need to discuss in this context, is how the runes are used for “divination”. Not historically, and certainly not in the sagas, as I have explained above, they were never used for that, but in modern times. In this “New Age”…. In the dozens of dozens of “rune divination” books out there.

What is it they base their interpretations of the runes themselves on? What do we know about the runes!? How are they able to give you complex and intricate predictions, using the runes?

Well. We have rune carvings, of course. Most of them just say “ek erilaz” (“I am (now) noble”). They don´t actually say anything about the runes themselves though. So… we learn nothing about the meaning of each individual rune from that.

What we have are the rune poems. They are our sole source for the names of the runes, and also the only information we have about each rune. We have 16 Old Norwegian poems, 16 Icelandic poems and 29 Anglo-Saxon poems. I am not going to list them all here, or translate them all, you can find them all translated in my wife´s “The Runes Finally Explained” book, but I will give you an example.

The Old Norwegian (13^th century) poem for the rune Féhu is:

Fé vældr frænda róge;


føðesk ulfr i skóge.

This is commonly translated into:

Wealth causes strife among kin;

the wolf is raised in the forest.

This translation was done by a scholar, ages ago, and all scholars since him have used his translation. You know… “sources”. Not one of them seem to have tried to translate this on their own. If they had they would have found his translation to be sorely lacking.

Again, they have given a meaning to the term that was not there originally. Fé translates as “cattle”, you see, and indeed, historically wealth has been measured in how many cows a person had. And because of that they claim “Fé” means “Wealth”. But it means “cattle”.

Also, “vældr” does not mean “causes” at all. It means “controls”. As if that was not enough, the term “róge” does not mean “strife” at all. It means “dispute”.

Yeah. Of the 4 words in the first line, 3 of them are mistranslated…

How is that even possible!? Are they doing this intentionally, or what?

The second line is also mistranslated, although less so than the first line. “Føðesk” does not mean “is raised” at all. It means “gives birth”. Quite a different meaning, isn´t it?

The poem correctly translates as:

Fé (cattle) controls the dispute of the friends;

the wolf gives birth in the forest.

I could go on, and show you how almost every single line in every single poem is mistranslated, but that is what my wife does, in her “The Runes Finally Explained” book, so I will leave it with this.

My point though, is that the rune poems used as a source for all the made-up “rune divination” practices are themselves mistranslations.

The problem is that the scholars who translated these poems did not understand them. They found no meaning to them. I am sure they could have translated them correctly, if they wanted to, but this correct translation made no sense to them, so they mistranslated them intentionally in an attempt to give them some meaning. They still made little sense though, and in the end the rune poems were written off as “meaningless” and “nonsensical”, and “basically no more than the Scandinavian equivalent of “A for Alpha, B for Beta, etc.”.

If you understand the correct translations though, they make perfect sense, as demonstrated by my wife in her rune book.

But let us return to the subject of rune divination here. My point is that these scholarly mistranslations are the original source of information for all who try to give the runes a meaning. We literally have no other information about the meaning of the individual rune signs anywhere! Well, now we have my wife´s book, of course, explaining what they actually mean, but this is not the source for these New Age “rune divination” books, I can assure you.

Note also, that there is nothing anywhere, in any source, telling us how they supposedly used runes for divination. At best, what we know is that the “stafir” (and not runes…) were carved on some pieces of wood. And that is all we know about it…

***

To conclude this…

In reality the very idea of “divination with runes” is speculative nonsense. As I have showed you, there is no real evidence that they ever used runes for that. As if that was not enough, the powers they attribute to each rune, when they MAKE UP a way to “predict the future with runes” are, just modern interpretations of mistranslations of rune poems…

“Rune divination” is nothing but a scam. The people who write these books are scam artists, who “make up shit” and then present it as “Norse practices”.

The scholars, who see the rune poems as “meaningless”, are not much better.

In reality, as demonstrated by my wife in her “The Runes Finally Explained”, the runes have deep meaning, deep purpose, and are very much an important part of our heritage, supported by mythology and traditions.

The runes are not used for divination. They are divine…

I can add that when runes are mentioned in mythology, in Hávamál, they are mentioned with rebirth: when Ódinn is reborn (again) as he falls down from the tree of life, and picks up the runes.

#RunesMatter