Forever Young

Magyar. SpanishСрпски.

Mankind is not a static entity; mankind has changed a lot since the Old Stone Age. Not just because of evolution, and indeed not even mainly because of evolution, but because of hybridisation – something we more commonly simply call ”race mixing”, or even “the mixing of species”.

The modern European man is a hybridised being; he is mainly still a Neanderthal (on average 99.7%), but he has some African (i. e. homo sapiens) genes too (on average 0.3%). This mixing occurred probably during the Ice Ages, when some of these proto-Europeans were driven south by the extreme cold in Europe, and there (in the Middle East and in North-Eastern Africa) they met the physically and intellectually much weaker proto-Africans. Most likely the proto-Europeans killed the proto-African adults, but not the children, and every now and then they adopted a surviving African child out of pity (a trait still very strong in Europe). On rare occasions these adopted children were allowed to mate, and because they were of different species only the female offspring was fertile. On rare occasions the mixed blood survived for more than a few generations, and when it did their African DNA was taken up in the tribes of the proto-Europeans, and was eventually fairly evenly distributed amongst them.

When these mixed proto-Europeans returned to Europe – after about 120.000 years of Ice Age – they brought these genes with them, and the African DNA was thus further distributed in the European populations. The further north, the fewer individuals with African genes survived, because they were after all not at all an advantage in Europe, and thus Europe was left with a population fairer, blonder and more blue-eyed the further north you come.

Everyone in Europe today has some African DNA, and this changed the European man. Most obviously he became physically much weaker and his brain shrunk – because the size and shape of the skull changed. He is largely the same, but these small changes in the European man had a lot to say in relation to most things.

Some see these changes as positive, because they most likely led to the creation of civilisation, of high culture and high tehcnology. Others see these changes as negative, because they led to a long list of health issues and even mental issues for the modern European man. Most likely almost all problems we have that are related to our nerve system and almost all autoimmune problems are a direct result of this. The metaphysical despair, and probably almost all other mental problems modern Europeans in particular suffer from are a result of this. If you want to know more about this you can read the posts on

I will return to the topic of civilisation, of high culture and high tehcnology, though, and try to explain why this happened because of the mixing of species. You see, there is an apparent paradox here: the more intelligent proto-Europeans did not create any civilisations, any high culture or high technology that we know of (although that might be the only problem in this context; we just don’t know of it today. It might well have existed), but the less intelligent mixed Europeans did. If the unmixed proto-Europeans were more intelligent then why didn’t they do this?

We think very highly of civilisation, high culture and high technology today, and sort of measure the brilliance of a race by how advanced it is in relation to this. I have previously suggested that perhaps they were so intelligent they chose not to create these things, because they knew of or understood the adverse effects they had and how things would go wrong if they did. There is perhaps another explanation to this though…

We are born infants, then we are children for some time before we become adolescents, and finally adults. When we were proto-Europeans (remember; i. e. Neanderthals) our skulls changed when we became adolescents. Neanderthal children had the exact same skulls as modern European children do; our forebears didn’t develop the well-known Neanderthal facial features until they became adults. Today the European man never does; so in a sense he remains an adolescent.

Young women are supposed to be attractive to men, in order to be able to choose between many men to find the one she thinks is the best for her, and then when she has done so she is supposed to grow up and raise her children and focus on her family instead. Modern women are obsessed with their own beauty even decades after they are married and have had their children, and keep trying to be attractive to other men, because they never actually grow up. The mixing of species has led to them not developing as they should, so they never develop their adult skulls.

Young men are supposed to impress young women, with their skills, their strength, their crafts and their courage, in order to be chosen by the best women, and when they are they are chosen by one they are supposed to grow up and provide for their families whatever they need; food and security in particular. Modern men never stop trying to impress women, even decades after they have been chosen by a woman, because they never actually grow up. The mixing of species has led to them not developing as they should, so they never develop their adult skulls.

The consequences to this are many, but let us for now at least focus on how this led to the creation of civilisation, of high culture and high tehcnology, and first and foremost in those areas where the hybridisation had been most widespread; in Southern Europe, in the Middle East and North-Eastern Africa.

In the less hybridised areas of Europe the men grew up more and for longer than in the more hybridised areas, and even into historic times the men in Northern, Eastern and Western Europe actually became real adults, with real adult proto-European facial features and skulls (and thus brains). So the women in these areas were less “slutty” – as discussed by Cornelius Tacitus in hos book Germania – and the men less childish.

Gallic coin. Image of man withNeanderthal facial feature. 


In the more hybridised areas of Europe, which genetically speaking includes the Ancient Egyptians, and we assume also the Sumerians, the men kept competing for the favour of the women throughout their lives. Because the men never really grew up and became adults they always tried to impress the women with what they did even after they had grown old and wiser; their art and architecture became more and more impressive. Everyone wanted to show off with whatever they did, to impress the most attractive women, and if one did something great the others wanted to do even better than him – all in order to impress the equally immature women, who in turn kept doing their best to be attractive to all men. In order to keep doing so the men needed new techniques and new ideas, and when old and wise they were able to create new techniques and come up with these new ideas, and that would explain the birth of civilisation and high culture in these areas.

With time the African DNA broke down the Northern, the Eastern and the Western Europeans as well and turned them into such creative and childish men too, and eventually Europeans developed high technoloogy – and because of that our world is now heading into an environmental disaster, with high tech enabling mankind to grow too numerous and produce too much that is made from the limited resources we have here on our planet…

The proto-Europeans developed technology too; spears, javelins, bone flutes and much else, but they had the wits not to go too far. They knew when to stop, and because of that lived in harmony with nature. The “primitive” Neanderthal Europe lasted several hundred thousand years. How long will the “advanced” high tech Europe last do you think? HailaR WôðanaR!

Related video!

152 thoughts on “Forever Young

  1. Pingback: European Discipline | 1people1nation1europe

  2. Pingback: Eternamente Jóvenes | Hermandad Pagana

  3. It reminds me of a lecture I attended at the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle (former Jardin du Roy) in Paris, in which the lectress explained that she had studied the grotte de Lascaux paintings, and compared them to the stars in the sky as they were at the time of the creation of these paintings. The paintings, she said, were not only reprensentations of various animals the neanderthals were familiar with but also a representation of the sky. A most fascinating study that did not receive enough attention, because it went against all that is taught : that the neanderthal were brutes and savages.
    But how could brutes and savages do something so complicated and beautiful, and at the same time meaning that they would have had a way of keeping this knowledge alive for generations.
    Furthermore, she studied several other caves like Lascaux and concluded that, in order to paint these sky-paintings, they would have had only a few little chances every decade or so.
    We have still so much to learn about our ancestor neanderthal !

  4. Pingback: Заувек Млади | The Call of Thule

  5. Hello V.v… I would like to know about those battles the proto-eur did against the proto-afri and slaughtered them, like battle names or a little more detailed about 120,000 years plus ago. And “when some of these proto-Europeans were driven south by the extreme cold in Europe” automatically will come to my head which means those who live in the nord will the first who will run away obviously bcuz simply they r from nord u know…. U might say it’s fucken ice age there’s no nord,south,east in Europe regarding to the weather things, it’s extremely cold everywhere,but still it’s the to speak,Then in this artical “the men in Northern, Eastern and Western Europe actually became real adults, with real adult proto-European facial features and skulls (and thus brains)” why they are the (real)….the northern nd E,W specially the nords. don’t know why u didn’t mention the southern Europeans…..I guess all europ directions ran away from the cold so I guess all hv the same problem by mixing with other ppl who ran to them from their own environment <—-I see it strange….I don't hear so often about some fuckin African ran away from his land to Europe just bcuz it's Becoming a little too hot,as much for better my Q here is just… every people in europ they driven by extreme weather to the south not just the southern people in europ who went south? And thank yew

    • Not all proto-Europeans left Europe. Big parts of Europe was perfectly inhabitable even during the Ice Ages.

      The differentiation between the South and North came AFTER the Ice Ages. All the Europeans probably mixed with each other before and during this process. They were nomads. They were everywhere, but with time the South became the “darkest” area, because those with “dark” genes didn’t make it elsewhere. As simple as that.

      • Alryt I see, thanks.
        Btw, many still believe myself too that we still in the ice age. At the end of it. Regarding to north and south pole who still icy, don’t kno for how long since there’s massive factories there.

        Since this blog mostly about Europe and various things of course….allow me to share this. From where Europe term have been driven? You’r V.good historian…surprisingly you never mentioned the Phoenician goddess Europa daughter of Agenor, the Phoenician King of “Tyre”…..and her relation with (zeus,Jupiter,Odin) pick one, uIl go for Odin Obviously 🙂

        Thank you.

  6. I thank you, brother, for this article. Although I don’t yet accept the Neanderthals-R-Us theory, you have made progress with me by presenting the “never growing up” aspect. The scientific term for that is “neoteny,” which I learned when reading the works of Carleton Coon and others. It is a well established fact (as you and Marie surely know already).

    By the way, I have referred to Carleton Coon before, and I mentioned that he and subsequent scientists and scholars along his line AGREE(d) with us that the Out-Of-Africa propaganda is certainly wrong. But I didn’t mention that I know some of his work was surely skewed by the inclusion of some “evidence” from jews, as we can easily see included in his pages of acknowledgements, thanks, and credits.

    In regard to us being “less intelligent” than ancient ancestors, it is to our credit that we recognize what has happened to us and what has been done to us, and after our European-race recovery and victory, we will properly educate our people and bring our fantastic technological inventiveness into line WITH Nature instead of its currently going so much against Nature.

    Highest regards,

  7. Pingback: Örök ifjúság | Magyar Thulean Perspective

  8. Another suggestion as to why the mentally/spiritually/physically superior humans felt no need to create perceptibly advanced civilisation is that what we know as ‘civilisation’ can be equated to ‘convenience’. Almost everything we call civilisation now is some kind of solution to hardship and relationship with nature. A spiritually and physically advanced man does not seek convenience, and actually avoids it. He nurtures a closeness with nature for the benefit of his eternal honour and purity of spirit. To build cities of convenience is thus abhorrent to the strong, spiritual man.

    • I buy this explanation easier than I can believe Varg’s idea in this post. The idea that the whole of civilisation boils down to old men wanting ‘sum o dat sweet ass pussy’ (as our negro friends may call it) is a bit far fetched.
      Greed and a penchant for luxury make better sense when thinking about why a master of nature would want to wall himself up as our ancestors did at Ur and other early cities. Perhaps the immaturity of our newly hybridized ancestors made the thought of overcoming nature unpalatable, thus leaving the less mixed of our ancestors, the Celts and the Teutons to live as true Europeans.
      Also note the split in those two, who were once kin, one was Romanised and thus mongrelised while the other stayed on the outside of ‘civilisation’.

      • I know Varg! My post was not in conflict with yours, but rather my addition to the overall theory of why the ancients may have lived a seemingly more ‘primitive’ existence despite being advanced beings.

        • I think what you said contributed to the same, but to a lesser extent. Physical changes in the skull because of the mixing of species played a bigger part.

  9. Hi Varg.
    So I guess you dont give credit to the polar shitf thesis that are around. I know they may sound weird, but I also became suspicious of everything the official science says. And that includes “ice ages”. Ice ages are official theory as much as “out of africa” is. There is almost no room for catastrophic events. Only room for gradual changes (almost linear). But if I read the traditions of all peoples of the world there are legends of cataclysmic events from time to time. That create bottlenecks for human population and also for metaphysics. The end of overpopulation and the end of States (also end of oceanic powers f.e. atlantis and next U.States and the return to tribal forms where no concept of welfare or public state is…and only of aristocracy and hence private property management of affairs)

    There are also interesting ideas about the black sun regarding planet nibiru and how it is related to hyperborea when planet nibiru (the dark star) just hooks for some time in the horizon, exactly at the north pole, being able to be seen the whole day and night from the northern hemisphere. And the huge magnetic force that it creates being responsible (probably) for spiritual awakening during that time.

    have a look to LLoyd work for instance and his Dark star theory.

    • I have never said anything that is in conflict with the first part you say here. In fact I never said anything about why the Ice Ages came or come about. And no, these are not linear changes; they are circular… There are plenty of room for catastrophic events in my hypotheses, and personalyl I welcome such events with open arms too, I may add… They are our best hope, at this point.

      I talk about the black sun (I think in Irminsul, but it might have been in the [unpublished] EihwaR, written in 1999]).

      Hyperborea is a widely misused term.

    • Actually, the “magnetic pole reversal” (=magnetic north will become south and vice versa) phenomenon is not a thesis but a well established theory. There is no conspiracy theory behind this. Every (honest) physicist can tell you that magnetic pole reversals have been happening since the early days of our planet. Earth is long overdue for its next shift. No one knows exactly what will happen when it takes place but it is going to happen, that’s for sure.

      But one thing is certainly for sure: The physical poles won’t dramatically change their location in a matter of a few years, months or even weeks as some doomsday quacks have predicted. in fact, this will take thousands of years.

      Some scientists believe that there is a potential danger for (almost) every living organism on this planet during the time of the magnetic shift because earth will lose its protective magnetic shield for a short while which will dramatically increase solar radiation intensity.

      Oh well, here we go again:

      Don’t believe anything those new-age idiots are saying. Not one prediction those people have ever made actually happened. This whole Nibiru nonsense was created by an Azerbaijani Jew called Sitchin. Lloyd is no better either.

      Here are two links about the “magnetic pole reversal” phenomenon:

      • magnetic pole reversal is real and you can see it even in TV documentarys on mainstream TV chanels

      • Thanks for the answer.

        But Johan. How do you know that the physical poles will not change their location drammatically in a few hours for sure? what proofs have you got of that? what official science says?

        I am very skeptical of official science and mainstream theories (jew´s world dominated theories). I do believe that there is truth in the magnetic reversal theory. The work about it of, for instance Robert Felix is quite good. It looks possible to me that more radiation would be possible in such events, and that great changes on earth including earthquakes and eruptions could occur. Yes…I agree…can be.

        Nonetheless, I do not reject the idea that the dark star (the night sun or the black sun) exists because that idea was “first introduced” by a jew. (the idea of physical pole shift is older than). Mises and Rothbard were jews and I consider their economic theories to be quite good while Marx, also a jew, was utterly wrong (well he was actually right, because his true and hidden objective was to destroy Europe).

        I am not saying I believe what Sitchin says, andy lloyd or Robert Solarion or Nancy lieder (yes, the freak zetatalk). But if I read what they say and separate the wheat from the chaff I eventually get a lot of hints that make me think of the black sun as something very real. Very physical. something that can be seen in the sky from time to time. if put together all those hints with alchemycal works, freemasonry symbols, egyptian simbolism, the traditions, the Deluge and Noah´s myths, the ragnarok, the coming of kalki….that makes some sense to me. I beleive that the golden age will only be brought by a cleansing. A cleansing possibly (I say possibly not certainly because I am skeptical of everything) brought by Marduk (the red dragon, the winged disc) only to be followed by the sight of the black sun for some time in the northern hemisphere. And at that time, with a few survivors in earth a new descending cycle will start.

        • “How do you know that the physical poles will not change their location drammatically in a few hours for sure?”

          A magnetic pole reversal does not affect the earth’s rotation speed nor the position of its axis. The only thing that could possibly change the earth’s orbit or its axis would be a celestial body with a big mass that would closely pass by our earth. And no, there is currently no planet called Nibiru or whatever approaching the center of our solar system.

          You see, astronomy has a huge amateur following. There are so many amateur astronomers on this planet and if a big object would enter our solar system they will sooner or later detect it and will furthermore start to post photos on the internet. There is no possible way to cover up such an event. Everyone with a big enough telescope would see such an object.

          As I have already said in my last comment: “Don’t believe anything those new age idiots are saying”. ALL of their claims are completely baseless and outright idiotic. They lack of the most basic knowledge in physics and generally make a rather dull impression. All those stories are just made up fantasies. They use mythological stories from different cultures and misinterpret them so that they are “in line” with their bullshit.

          All they care for is the huge amount of money they make with their books, speeches and DVD’s.

          Why do you expect to find a single grain when there is obviously only chaff in the bag?

  10. When did really “advanced” high tech Europe started? 10.000 years ago? At 9th century? 16th century? 20th?

  11. It’s more sophisticated, I think. About 600000 years ago when polar bears appeared neanderthals “created” what consequently be called homosapien. The Story Marie has found very strange indeed. For instance, in morphogenesis melanin of blue eyes, white hair, face bones and … neurons of the brain originate from one stem cells. So it’s obvious color of your eyes somehow connected with characteristics of brain.

    • And what if the non-Neanderthal species are results of an older mix between Neanderthals and beasts? Just a theory.

  12. Reblogged this on Asgard's Son and commented:
    I made a post on my blog about my paternal grandfather who is from Cumbria which is in the North West of England, I have never met a man like him before, and the question I posed was basically, if we do not start now instilling European values in our children and our children’s children, we are doomed. But I also asked the question, why were men like him so different from”men” today, your post goes along way to explaining that, thank you.

  13. True high cultural would be spiritual in nature? so say rather than mobile phones one would have telepathic abilities. The organic vs the inorganic/ artificial.

  14. Personally, I think we are reaching peak capacity within our environment. Our race at least is turning in on itself, and from the perspective of nature, I think that generally signifies nearing the end of some type or another. And certainly our innovation will be tested if all the modern methods of resource usage and extraction continues as expected. I suppose we can see many aspects of technology already trying to adapt to this inevitability.

    I do agree there are other more complete ways of thinking and existing outside of the high-tech, high-minded civilization. I would say that all of our blessings are more like a sickness. A part of me thinks that Skirnir’s Journey is somewhat applicable to modern man:
    And the conclusion to the outcome of this story is apparently that Freyr is left without his sword at Ragnarok.

    I think one of the major drawbacks of modern civilization is that Man can no longer see himself, or not very clearly. I don’t think the idea of ‘seeing one’s self’ should be an abstract notion, yet, put that notion to people and they will look at you as if you have lost your mind. They can’t even seem to begin to realize what that means. The further away I get from a big city(where I cannot see myself at all), the more clearly I can see myself. And if people need to wait for science and high-tech civilization to explain such things, I wouldn’t hold your breathe.

  15. It’s so obvious that many further north indeed CHOSE not to “progress” with civilisation, not just out of a preference for natural environments (back then cities were rarely far from forests anyway), a good example of this picked up on by Brian Bates in “the real middle Earth” is that when the Romans left England en masse, the invading Anglo-Saxons just left the villas abandoned to fall into ruin….even these still beautiful, more advanced villas were it seems to “urban” for them, too sterile, to artificial…

    I think the artificial is what a lot of this boils down to, and beauty, and nearly everything in the modern world – the “natural” countryside of farmed fields, pets, modern music, films as art – it is all artificial and we now more than ever are so fixated permanently on artificial beauty, which in itself is an interesting idea (my favourite film of all time, Blade Runner, addresses this notion of artificial beauty better than any other film, I think)

  16. Your analysis makes sense in a wierd way. I would like it to be the explaination.
    This pile of crap made me sick….
    The Neanderthals where probably superior in many ways, especially hunting. I doubt that they ATE others of their kind… and I don’t think they raped anyone, rape is an african phenomenon. Very few whites do it compared to the rape and abuse cultures on the african and west asian parts of the world.

  17. Reference:

    “Who is White?”
    Graph of different facial types of the Aryan/Europid (Neanderthal) race.

    I am not sure, I believe I something like part Alpinid. part Subnordid…?

    What are you all on this graph?

    • I most closely share North-Atlantid features, longer face brown hair light color eyes. It correlates my ancestry.

    • That’s a handy graphic for reference. I used to get involved with taxonomical classifications and such, and it is very interesting. It does indicate that dark-featured Europeans are wholly indigenous to even Scandinavia (albeit as an originally secluded minority), and the fact that pockets of such subtypes exist indicates that Europe is not strictly gradiated from South to North in terms of pigmentation/phenotype. I’d simply repeat my claim that phenotype can suggest, but not define, one’s European purity. Facial/head shape can be Nordic whilst pigmentation is dark, and vice versa. And mixed-race people can appear Nordic whilst evidently pure Europeans can appear impure. There are dark indigenous Scandinavians and blonde Mediterraneans. What counts is traceable ancestry and allegiance.

      • Can you list any sources for this claim?

        Read Tacitus’ “Germania” regarding the homogeneous population of Northern Germany. They were ALL blonde…

        • It is claimed in the descriptions of many subtypes here:

          Tacitus may or may not have generalised. Just as today people around the World say “Scandinavians are blonde” when not all are. I’m not so interested in arguing this one way or another, because your views on pigmentation are widely known and I have no intention of disputing them. I personally would never wish to tell a brunette Norwegian that he is less Norwegian than a blonde one. If others take a different personal stance then fine.

          • About 80% of Scandinavians ARE blond, and those who are not have NOT LONG AGO mixed with non-Scandinavians…

            I don’t disagree with your phenotype versus genotype argument, but you can not claim that not ALL Scandinavians WERE blonde e. g. 2000 years ago, and they were BECAUSE they had so little non-European DNA.

            Dark features ARE non-Europeans. It doesn’t mean that a person with dark features is necessarily less European than one without such features (because there are many “invisible” genes too), but they ARE non-European features.

          • PS. This is from your link, Steed:

            2013/9/4 Varg Vikernes

            > About 80% of Scandinavians ARE blond, and those who are not have NOT LONG > AGO mixed with non-Scandinavians… > > I don’t disagree with your phenotype versus genotype argument, but you can > not claim that not ALL Scandinavians WERE blonde e. g. 2000 years ago, and > they were BECAUSE they had so little non-European DNA. > > Dark features ARE non-Europeans. It doesn’t mean that a person with dark > features is necessarily less European than one without such features > (because there are many “invisible” genes too), but they ARE non-European > features. > >

            • That link doesn’t lead anywhere specific Varg. In answer to your question: “Exactly what in your link proves what you say?” – if you visit: and read the descriptions of (among others) the ‘Strandid’, ‘Tydal’ and ‘Alpinid’ types then you can find particularly the Strandid and Tydal being described as indigenous to Northern Europe. I don’t know enough about this science to assert my view, and this is merely my attempt to shed light on the other side of the argument.

              Anyhow, I’m not interested in pursuing this. I find it to be a destructive discussion. So I shall retire 🙂

    • Funny story: When I was a child my doctor (who was more than 70 years old at that time) used to praise the shape of my skull everytime she saw me. “Oh, such a pronounced curving in the back of your skull. You are a real german child and gonna become a scientist one day! All those turks don´t have this! The back of their skulls is totally flat! I am so happy everytime I see you, because you remind me, that such noble traits still exist.”
      Not to mention, I liked her very much. 😀

  18. This is a very interesting way of looking at it and seems entirely possible. I’ve thought of some other (not necessarily opposing) views on this. Notice how all of the earliest civilizations are in sub-tropical zones. The intense sun may have an effect on the European mind which gives him energy (maybe too much energy) and aggravates his ambitions. There is more competition and willpower in this (possibly fool-hearty) way. Also, food is more plentiful and life not as difficult as in the north which allows for more time to experiment with technology.

    Another thing I noticed is that these early civilizations also had Europeans as the upper class, and other races as the lower classes. The Europeans directed the somewhat subdued under classes like pawns. Because of this docile working class, they could undertake much more ambitious projects than if they were trying to control very un-docile European work teams.

  19. Southern Europeans (especially Serbs) are giving the greatest resistance to the Zionists and Islamists. That courage and rejection of different races can only have the purest blood of the european people… The Serbs!

    • Do you expect the Icelanders to fights as hard against the Muslim Albanians in Kosovo as you do?

      • Muslims are all over the European continent, but only the Serbs stopped them, and because of that, we were bombarded by the Zionists in 1999 and depleted uranium weapons…

              • No, I think that in the past few decades, only Serbs defended the Europe… Today, Western Europe was cowardly, there are only rare individuals who oppose Muslim invasion. Although, in the past, the Ottoman Empire had to stop in Serbia in 1389. Otherwise, Muslims back then wanted to take Europe. So the Europeans should be thankful to my Serbian people for it. But today there is no honor, so there is no sense of gratitude for the sacrifice filed.

                • Well, you are very ignorant if you think only the Serbs fought against the Muslims, or that the rest of us should be so grateful to what your forebears did. So you think the rest did any worse? What about the Wallachians? The Moldovans? The Croats? The Greeks? The Hungarians? The Austrians? The Poles? The Lithuanians? The Russians? The Serbs and Bosnians even fought on the side of the Ottomans for a long time, so what about that? Should we be grateful for that too?

                  In the West the Iberians and the French fought against the Moorish (Berber-Arab) Muslims, and the French also STOPPED their advances into Europe — unlike you guys on the Balkans. The Ottomans were finally stopped by the Germans, the Lithuanians and the Poles, at the gates of Vienna. NOT in Serbia.

                  Scandinavians came in great numbers to fight in the Byzantian elite units, who fought against the Muslims, even though this was far away from their own homelands. Did any Greeks or Serbs ever come to Scandinavia to help us in any of our wars? Not that I know of.

                  I like Serbs a lot, but you speak nonsense. Pride is one thing, but base it on facts, not idiotic chauvinism and ignorance.

  20. I’ve often thought recently how people are unwilling to grow up and become adults in the way they are so reluctant to settle down and have children because they could not cope with the responsibility, they do not want to give up ‘going out’ and joke how they can barely look after themselves (these are people in their 30’s quite often.) Very interesting point about the willingness to attract the opposite gender too though.

    • I think it’s still up for debate what Asians are made up of, as there are possible connections with homo erectus too, but it’s fair to assume they are comrpised of at least three separate species: Homo Sapiens (no more than we are I imagine), Neanderthals (still to a reasonable degree), and either Denisova or Homo Erectus, or both.

  21. And what’s your point here Varg, that we should go back to being hunter gatherers with spears and javelins and reject all this technology we have? Like the PC you used to write this article?

    • An what is your point with this comment? You think I can not use my PC because I think this high tech direction is bad?

        • Of course not! Not now anyhow, and certainly not at this point. Our enemies are not, so we can not either.

          • If we intend to eventually leave this planet we must carry on developing technology for space travel, regardless of whether our enemies have gone or not. Maybe you don’t care if we stay here and die when the planet is no longer able to support us, I don’t know.

  22. I hate to say this, but this is the first post that sounds like a personal hypothesis presented as fact. The reason why neanderthals or Proto-Europeans did not have a civilization is very simple. They were hunter gatherers, always migrating along the same routes to harvest whatever was ripe or needed. This also explains their obsession with the cycles of Nature and the heavens. They traveled very long distances to get their resources and also for their sacred rites. They also had settlements but they were not intended for permanent habitation. This all changed in the stone age when they became farmers. Neanderthals were probably not so different from us. They made music and art, they decorated their tools, they simply made the best of their lives.

    I simply don’t understand what you mean with being a full grown adult Neanderthal? Adolescent behavior is the result of a decadent society. Europeans are curious by nature, creative and eager to learn new things. These genetic characteristics also mean to be forever young. Being an adult today simply means that you’re a functional and productive human being capable of raising a family. Would you consider a playful genius like Da Vinci to be a well grown adult or adolescent?

    Tacitus wrote that German man were content with 1 woman. This was very strange in the eyes of the decadent Romans. However there are also historical records which say that Europeans were polygamous, women took care of the house and adoption was very common. This was a huge problem for the Holy Roman church because they could not confiscate land and property when the master of the house died, so they introduced marriage to solve this problem.

    Apologies for my long rant, please correct me if I’m wrong.

    • From the “about” page of this blog:

      “The views expressed by me on this blog are my personal opinions only and are not to be taken as undisputed facts!”

      Varg’s rhetorical style must be kept in mind when reading his scientifically inclined posts, like this one. It’s easier to make a point if one simplifies the argumentation now and then. Keep all the details and exceptions in, and the core gets lost.

    • Then you shall be corrected. You don’t seem to get this. So you think the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture was not taken into the equation? Agriculture is technology too, you know.

      Hunter-gatherers were not “always” migrating. They migrated only for a short time, maybe only one or two months of the year, and set up (tent) camps for the rest of the time. Usually one camp during winter and one during summer, in different locations.

      Yes, Da Vinci was a big child, playing all his life.

      I am talking about skull shapes, not culture or decadence, and how the shape of the skull influences the growth of the brain, and thus the development of the mind.

      Europeans were only polygamous when there was a shortage of women, like after long wars.

      • You’re starting to make more sense now. Here’s my personal opinion: The mongrelisation and degeneration is causing us to be less intelligent every generation. According to scientists Neanderthals were also very spiritual. This would also suggest that their mind was indeed far more developed. It’s incredible that our forebears had such a good memory and we can only wonder how much wisdom was lost. There are countless ancient artifacts and monuments which suggest that our forebears were sophisticated.

        I always thought Proto-European technology was more advanced, it simply had to be to survive. Neanderthals were very industrious, difference is they cared more about quality than quantity. They’ve found stone quarries and huge garbage heaps from hunting, fishing and gathering. I’ve seen evidence that suggested far more migration than twice a year. In Britain they migrated to Stonehenge twice a year for celebrations.

        I guess you mean shortage of men 😛

            • It was not approved, because you spread lies (willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly , I don’t know).

              And I don’t even understand how you can even write that crap about. No, Turkey is not TYR’s land. That’s absolutely ridicules! It is called Turkey because it was invaded and stolen by Turks in the Middle Ages, and they are called as such because they come from Turkistan, in Central Asia.

              This is as ridicules as Thor Heyerdahls argument that Odin was just a chieftain who came from Caucasus, because there is some town there called Oden.

              What you say about the Neanderthals too is absolute crap.

              Such bullshit is not allowed on this blog. That’s it.

              • Ok. So your readers are not capable of sorting out my lies, even when they are so ridiculous as you say? Censorship and suppression is a dangerous road to walk.

                Or take a look at Gobekli Tepe that very few even know of, just because it backs up political incorrect views on early European civilization and totally smashes the accepted theories of European primitiveness.

                You are also doing a mistake by diminishing Heyerdahl, there is much more to his theory than a city called Oden. Even I too don’t fully support his theories.
                I find it strange when people don’t even want to discuss, but think they themselves has all the answers allready. But, thats just me. 🙂

                • We have discussed Heyerdahl’s fairy tales before, and the discussion is over. He wasan idiot, a fool and everything he said about this is bullshit. All scholars in Norway CRUSHED his stupid arguments. So I will waste no more time on it — just like I will waste no more time talking about the “flat Earth” theory if someone tried to bring that up.

                  Censorship is not a bad thing. It is necessary when people use their freedom of speech to spread blatant lies, made up by sinister beings to hurt the truth. If you spread such ideas then you will not be allowed to spread them here.

                  Gobekli Tepe is interesting, and you may discuss that as much as you want, but bullshit about the name of Tyrkia will be removed.

                  Tyr is a modern name. The deity Tyr was called *TwaR before the Viking Age, and *Twaz before that, and the name is the same as the Latin Deus (from Old Latin Divus). The proto-Indo-European name for Tyr is *Diwus. 2000 years ago it would have been *Twaz, and 11,000 years ago we didn’t even speak an Indo-European language here, and not in today’s Turkey either. Tyr is an Indo-European name. There is NO connection between Tyr and the name Tyrkia.

                  The same story can be said about Heyerdahl’s “Oden” in Caucasus. inn 2000 years ago was called *Wanaz. That doesn’t look very much like “Oden” at all, does it? And how does his BULLSHIT explain the innic art in Scandinavia from the Bronze Age, if Odin was a guy who came from Caucasus 2000 years ago? Sorry, but such BULLSHIT is NOT worth discussing. It only spreads uncertainty and doubt in the minds of the ignorant.

                  Sorry for being aggressive here, but I am tired of these discussions. They are meaningless and a waste of our time.

                  • Congratulations on making the biggest straw-man ever. I think you will, in my original comment which you censored, find that I never mentioned Heyerdahl nor Oden nor Heyerdahls theories.

                    And it is not like I am saying that 12000 years ago people were saying: ” it sure is nice here in Tyrkia”. 🙂
                    I believe that just like Tyr has gone through changes, so can the name Tyrkia, and the name of the tribes conquering it eventually, have done.

                    It is amazing how you can compare one modern form of a word to an ancient form of the word, and say: “see, not same. As you did two places in your last comment.
                    You are not being intellectually honest, willingly or unwillingly.

                    I hope I don’t come through as aggressive. 🙂
                    You don’t, to me, but more like narrow minded and full of your self. The last by the way doesn’t have to be bad as long as you also are intellectually honest.

                    I didn’t find anything on innic art, do you have a link?

                    • I have better things to do than discuss this nonsense with you. That’s it.

                      I compare “your” (?) theory with the bullshit of Heyerdahl, as it is very similar, and equally flawed.

                      About the name of Turkey read this:

                      See? That’s how easy it is to find the origin of that name. You could have spared yourself a lot of questions by simply googling it first.

                      I didn’t want to waste my time on this because I already knew… I will also appear as “full of myself” if you try to discuss my childhood with me. I know that I know more about that than you do… :-p

                    • Did I try to discuss your childhood with you????
                      Or are you suggesting that living for a while in Turkey makes you an authority on Turkey too?

                      I don’t want to argue with you, but please stop using straw-men and bullshit arguments. We can end this discussion, hopefully with no hard feelings.

                      So much for wikipedia:

                    • *sigh*

                      Are you deliberately not understanding anything of what I say or do you seriously not understand what I say?

                      Providing you with a link to a site explaining why Turkey is called Turkey is neither bullshit nor straw-man arguments. The information provided to you just proves that your Turkey-hypothesis is wrong.

  23. Now, I do not think that because South Europeans are a bit more mixed with Homo Sapien, that they are inferior.
    This change was something that manifested only of the physical body, and of course the pigment. Definitely not more on the side of mentally.

    Shall I stand corrected on this? Am I wrong?

    • I’d have to agree. I think the ‘soul’ or whatever you want to call it is either or. And while Southern Europeans may have some more Negro blood in them(that may or may not manifest on a mental level) they still have the European spirit in them. The blood might determine how likely someone is to act in a certain way but I think there is some kind of core where the thought originates. Looking at Mulattoes for example they generally either act like any average black(but with a higher IQ) or have the attitude of a white man but are let down by their other genes. This is why race-mixing is such a tragedy. In the short run at least it doesn’t produce a mix but a person with two(or more) very distinct personalities. And I’ve read many a post from Asian-White mixed people who feel very conflicted, alone, ashamed, and depressed because of this.

      Seeing some of the stuff that comes out of countries such as Italy, and what such countries have invented/done in the past it would be pretty hard to argue that they are inferior.

      • One thing I’d really like to know is if new classes of spirit are formed over time or not. We still seem to have the Neanderthal spirit. Being non-dogmatic I think Creation, Evolution, a mix of both, or something else entirely are all valid theories. Knowing the answer to the question on how new races form on a spiritual level(or if they even can). Would go a long ways to answering ‘where we came from’.

      • Geographical areas in Europe don’t mean much, is not a dedicing factor on race. You could find all kinds of people in Southern Europe. What do you mean by some have negro blood in them? people like Antonio Banderas..? Sometimes one can overlook or ignore things people write on this blog like that but generalizations get tiresome after a while. Plus guests are reading all of this. You can always tear a mongrel apart like it was established in “The European Mind, Spirit & Blood” post.

        • I meant exactly what was said in the post, that the further south you go the more likely you are to find people with more African blood in them. We all have some, and as I’ve said I don’t think it’s a big deal. I have nothing negative to say about Southern Europeans.

          May be a stupid question, but what admixture is the average Arab? Like us but with much more African blood, or something entirely different?

        • Would you say that there is a general trend for people to make generalizations on this blog, and that generally these generalizations bother you but that somehow one should not generalize? 😉

          • It doesn’t bothers me usually but sometimes it does, but is not about me is about the general perception and that others can read it. And is not good. Race is a very complex thing to be defined in a simply north/south dichotomy.

            • I would say the scale of gradation is fairly obvious and logical. At the same I suppose I don’t know for sure. But then if I rely on my real life experience it actually changes nothing because of the general perception of others. Maybe it’s an aspect of living in multicultural societies where nobody wants to be a White male so people take whatever exit is available to them. For example, in group settings I have found that Greeks, Portuguese, and even Russians will potentially deflect to the ‘other’ non-white group, and would sooner associate themselves with Blacks, Arabs, and Asians. The real world consequences are that you could be in a group of 10 people and all of a sudden you are the ONLY White person. Although, I considered them White, they did not, is my point.

      • I have to say, east asian/white mixes are often very beautiful and better than any mullato. Still I believe that any mixing is wrong exactly for the reasons you mentioned. Even closer mixes like slavic/mediterranean are often conflicted. Maybe that is why the Balkans have such a tragic and turbolent history. Even now you can see lots of conflicting traits and qualities within us.

        • I myself was a bit conflicted for a few years, and I’m only a German/Celtic mix. While I don’t think having European sub-groups mixing is necessarily harmful as it does work itself out it does still have a noticeable impact on the child.

  24. You make it sound as if the European’s evolution was entirely seperate from other hominids, when in reality it wasn’t.
    It’s pretty simple. Like leaves on a tree, each hominid shares the trunk, many hominids share a branch, fewer share a twig. Some are higher up on the tree and some are quite low, but they all share large parts of the same genes, the trunk.
    So you may sequence the DNA of a chimpanzee and see that it shares over 90% of DNA with humans. And already it becomes obvious that both modern humans and neanderthals share much more than 90% of their DNA with all other hominids.
    How can you make silly claims like European humans having evolved entirely seperately, which would be the only way they could ever share only 0.3% of their genes with African humans as a result of interbreeding?
    This is high school level science and I’m astonished many commentators don’t seem to pick up on this irrationality.
    This kind of superstition is also why I warmly agree with some of your posts and have to question your sanity at others. Certainly if it happens to me, it happens even more to many other Europeans you won’t be able to reach as a result.
    By the way, I am not saying that race mixing doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t have enormous influences, but get your science right. Very small percentages in DNA differences can make very large differences in outcome. It’s not the difference between a race but between a human and an ameba.
    As for the adult skull hypothesis, I can’t even begin to take it seriously. It is a very simplistic approach to a much more complex subject.

    “our world is now heading into an environmental disaster, with high tech enabling mankind to grow too numerous and produce too much that is made from the limited resources we have here on our planet”
    On this we agree!

    • My thought exactly, this post raised a lot of questions.

      We’re heading into disaster because our corrupt economy is hellbent on profit and to raise as much capital as possible. This is a Jewish strategy and we should resist it.

    • I don’t think Varg means that there is only 0.3% of European genes in common with Homo Sapiens, rather the European man has 0.3% Homo Sapien specific genes (ie from the Homo Sapien twig). I think.

    • “Get your science right”? Do you believe in everything they tell you in school?

      Read instead of whining about my lacking science knowledge.

      • “Do you believe in everything they tell you in school?”
        No, it has been a while since I was at school, but thanks for asking. I am very capable of distinguishing fact from fiction, and what you wrote here is mostly fiction, same a large parts of I’m afraid.

        • I have to agree with Blitzkrieg on this matter. Of course we shouldn’t believe everything they tell us at school. But believing everything that some guy without any scientific background posts on the internet isn’t much better. You tell us to think critically, Varg. If we believed everything you post on your blog without questioning it, would that not make us what you call “Sheeple”?

        • You don’t have to agree with Varg, but you did not present your disagreement in a very mature way. Saying things like ‘this is high school level science’, only gives credence to aspects of Varg’s overall argument, which I’m not sure you understood. However, I’m sure we would all welcome, and look forward to your detailed and exhaustive scientific studies on these matters.

          • Do you have any arguments to bring to the table, or just rhetorics?

            The burden of proof for making claims of the sort Varg did lies on him.

            If you really think the fact that a basic knowledge of biology is enough to disprove his claims strengthens his theory, I doubt anything could sway you, since you would have to be a walking and talking manifestation of irrationality.

            As for my bluntness and honesty (not immaturity as you call it): Varg has often spoken in even harsher terms, I’m sure he can take some of his own medicine.

            • Why is the burden of proof on Varg for the type of issues YOU have a problem with? We may never know the truth about many of these things entirely. Aren’t you the one who seeks infallible scientific truths? So, I’m calling upon you to approach these things in your way. That’s all.

              What strengthens his theory is the fact that you rely so heavily on science, and value that over the way in which you communicate, and over other types of understanding. You go in one direction, but may be lost in another.

              Varg is putting himself on a limb suggesting his theories, and you are not approaching it in the correct manner. That is what I am talking about. You shouldn’t come here for such a typical textbook understanding of things, and should try to understand what type of criticism in valuable.

              • Right. Let’s all hold hands and listen to fairy tales. That will surely improve our lives big time. Screw the scientific method, it’s all made up by a bunch of infantile sex crazed maniacs.

                Listen, there are some things we know with extremely high probability to be true, and if people don’t want to accept that, that’s sad but ok, kinda like people believing in God(s) and stuff like that. Whatever makes people’s lives easier for them to bear.

                If that is the target audience of this blog, I should probably stop reading it. That would make me less observant of the real life problems happening in Europe, and less likely to act on them, but surely I would be much happier not feeling scorn at every immigrant I see on the street. Thanks, Adalwolf! I’ll stop trying to spread the word right this minute. Sheeple everywhere, no loyalties, every man for himself. I’ll just have to remember not to deal with the Internationalists so I don’t screw my life over completely.

                • Listen, I am not trying to discourage you from acting in the interests of Europe and Europeans, or to throw your rationality out the window. Also, I don’t usually hold hands with other men, but I suppose if it would help…what fairy tale do you want to read?
                  I am not a Sheeple, and I am not asking you to be. You should feel free to question things. I’m not you’re enemy. I agree that things have probability according to certain methods.

                  You should be observant, and you should act. Please don’t take it as me trying to discourage you from that. I’m not opposed to the scientific method, or science. I only advocate a balanced approach of it’s usage, and also a rational approach to it’s valadity which can be over-valued as much as a belief in God. A healthy approach to those who make an attempt to understand things in unorthodox ways is a good thing. There are many things which science once thought improbable only to later discover as infallible, no? You can use your knowledge to help, no?

                • Why don’t you approach official WWII history instead, with your scientific approach? They taught you about that too, when they taught you about biology.

                  Official theory is that “we are all Africans”. and that has been PROVEN as BULLSHIT by now.

                  Do you think you know everything? Did they teach you MUCH about these things in school? Was it NOT tainted by political correct ideology?

                  • Please, you focus too much on me instead of the matter at hand and make too many assumptions about me. Only because of one sentence mentioning that evolution is taught in school, you assume I got my knowledge there and believed everything I was taught.
                    Well, let me tell you this story about someone I know. You may be glad to hear that he has long since left behind what he believes to be the indoctrination attempts made by his school system. He knows about “Entnazifizierung”. Even back when he was in school, he thought it weird to be taught so much about WWII year after year, including visits to concentration camps and all that jazz. He has done his research and concluded that there must be much more, or in some aspects less, to the story than what he was taught. As you know, he may not be allowed to speak openly about what he thinks actually happened.

                    Did I say we are all Africans or that I think the “out of Africa” theory is true? No, and I agree with you on that. But that doesn’t have any bearing on the arguments I actually made.
                    And no, I don’t think I know everything. Neither should you.

                    • Bring some scientific facts to support your claims then, whatever they may be, or say nothing more.

            • *sigh*

              Much of your basic knowledge in biology has been disproven. Maybe the “German” school books are not up to date? Or maybe you should not trust EVERYTHING they tell you in school?

              Read again. You didn’t seem to learn anything the first time you did.

          • He seems to trust too much what he has been taught in school.

            He was also taught about WWII….

  25. Shame that you must repeat many posts that you had to delete.

    This was great though, and I will use it many times in the future to prove a point to people. Great for school essays too.

  26. Dear Marie and Varg, would you be interested in taking a look at some pictures of my skull? I think I have a pretty good neanderthal shaped skull, but I don’t have a very large head… only 57 cm around (my hat size). Friends have told me that my face looks pretty neanderthal. I could send you a couple of pictures from my other e-mail address if you have the time or interest to confirm or dismiss my neanderthalness…

    Also, how do I measure the arms etc.? Should I measure from the elbow to the wolf-joint?

  27. The beginning of the post reminds me of how people often accept keeping dogs pure-bred in order to get the best traits of the animal, but if you tell them the same thing about humans they will often dismiss it as racism.

    The next part about women and men never growing up and therefore always trying to impress everyone of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives is interesting. I never thought of it that way before.

  28. Varg, I totally agree with you when you say that technological advancement is pushing us toward self-destruction. I’ve grown up “loving” technology almost above anything, but now that I am nearly 30 years old I see how foolish were my ideas. We (the people) are far too dependant from thecnology; I’d say we are addicted to it.

  29. Technology follows in the wake of science; science (in the purest sense) seeks to build a true understanding of nature via testable explanations and rational predictions. The science that you describe as being a religion is that which is presented to us by the media. The media presents science as a set of adopted principles (which are often founded on dodgy practice) rather than the process itself.

    An intelligent creature will try and understand his universe, if he fails to do this religion will often fill the gap (not necessarily a bad thing). A strong (and noble) culture will naturally wish to expand it’s universal knowledge; technology will follow in the wake.

    • So what if they understood the universe without science, and much better than we do today with science?

      • Varg, please don’t be so dismissive of science. Theories such as quantum mechanics, relativity and thermodynamics, are not only mathematically beautiful, but give us an explanation (and allow predictions) of the universe after the first 10 picoseconds following the big bang. We can actually reproduce a similar energy state at this time in modern particle experiments, such as those being carried out at CERN. These theories have been pretty well tested without the confines of human experiment.
        The ancients had their runes, we have mathematics. I think the truth is in theories such as

        • The Big Bang is just a hypothesis, and a very faulty one too (no different from the “Creation” of the bible). See the posts in this chapter:

          Then ancients had their mathematics. We have religious bullshit called “science”.

          Why is it you guys always think in black and white? I can not be critical to some science without you guys thinking I am critical to ALL science?

          • Yes the big bang is very much a hypothesis describing the absolute origin of the universe but we can be pretty sure about the nature of the universe after the first 10 picoseconds.

            Also, as I said in the original post the science you seem to label as religious is the science presented by the media, this isn’t pure science.

            There is a lot of room for criticism of “science”; the pharmaceutical industry for example presents cherry picked and bad research as it’s “science”, so you’re right to be wary when presented with scientific “fact”.

            Thanks for your reply, not much time to think here, having to rush back to work.

  30. I’m a southern european and I’ll doubt of this until the day it’s been proven that we’re inferior, since we’re more mixed with homo sapiens, duh!

  31. You make a good case. Would you disagree that the spiritual side is a factor as I put forth in my recent article or do you think it is a factor as well? Almost everything that is targeted against us is meant to appeal to the adolescent mindset we all suffer from: the overwhelming Idealism(Altruism being one side of it), the recklessness(mass producing new tech without knowing it’s consequences), and the want to stand out(individualism as well as pretty much everything in modern culture). Though I think the African DNA itself is another factor as their culture generally revolves around bragging and trying to impress(rap music anyone?)

    Aren’t the Asians another example of a part Neanderthal hybrid? They don’t seem to have this problem(sorta, always been a problem for us though atm I think Asian teenagers have it worse than our own). Also the Native Americans, they didn’t seem to be stuck in an adolescent mindset from what I’ve read. Though in modern times they certainly do.

    Something that has come up a lot recently in the pro-white radio shows I watch, Islam. It would seem that the Arabic people are suffering from much the same problem(though they lack the Idealism and Altruism, more African DNA perhaps?) and they’ve addressed most of their issues with their religion. True it has it’s own problems, and I’m not advocating we convert or anything as it’s too foreign for us, but it does show that we can address this weakness to a degree with an organized spirituality. It’s a bit of a crutch perhaps, but I think it’s what we need. Shame that most white people follow religions that emphasize our weaknesses rather than addressing them. :/

    All three(African DNA, Foreign Religion, & Results of Hybridization) are likely factors; but I think you may be putting too much weight into the third one. Most important to note is that this whole ‘look at me’ culture is strongest in the blacks despite any Neanderthal mixture.

  32. Varg, there is scientific evidence to demonstrate that mental illness such as depression is more prevalent among European people as opposed to African peoples, do you suppose that the genetic dissonance and the European man in his current form came to this outcome?

      • About “depression” I believe its prevelant in Europeans because we obviously have more humane feelings and are more affected psychologicaly by the cruelties and injustities that occur in this world

        • I agree here. Much of what is considered mental illness is just the bad reaction that Europeans have to Jewish culture, which we have been smothered in for a long time. If we weren’t trying to operate under an alien mindset we would be much better off.

    • There have also been studies done which show that blacks in the US and Britain (whom have anywhere from a 5-20% European admixture in them.) experience headaches, migraines, depression, and schizophrenia at a rate 50 times higher than blacks in Africa. Other studies show that race mixed children, of any and every racial combination, suffer from headaches, migraines, depression, schizophrenia, fatigue, and general sickness, at a rate which is significantly higher than found in non-mixed persons (1.5 to 5 times).

      One needs to realize that the immune system of the human body is incredibly heritable. Resistance to certain types of disease and ailment is heavily linked to the presence of specific genes and gene combinations. When people of a similar of stock breed with each other, it is likely that these similar individuals share the same genes, and thus the chance of passing them on is significantly greater. If only one parent has the genes, the chance of passing it on is considerably lowered. In some circumstances it is actually impossible to pass on if it isn’t present in both parents.

      Diseases, virus’, and various illness causing pathogens, are largely geographic in nature. You only build an immune reaction to ailments which you contract (or your ancestors contracted, and passed onto you). You can only contract ailments which are present in your region. Europeans and Blacks are going to, and absolutely do, have incredibly different immune systems and immunities. Letting them breed with one another, produces an offspring which is only capable of receiving some of it’s parents immunities. You’re breeding a sick animal.

      Also of note is that bone marrow and stem cells are exclusively racial in nature. If you are European, you can NOT receive a bone marrow or stem cell transplant from another race. The body immediately attacks the transplant with a ferocity that drugs can not subdue. You will die very quickly. I have read cases where a mixed race individual was in need of a bone marrow transplant. If he was 100% European the chance of finding a compatible donor among donor lists would have been 90%. Because he was 3/4ths European, and 1/4th Japanese (1 Japanese grandparent), his chance of finding a compatible donor was 2%. He died after the first article about his case was written.

      Race mixing has detrimental affects on all races. It should not be under any circumstance condoned. The races are not nearly as genetically compatible with one another as the current decadent society would like us to believe. Even small admixtures are akin to an absolute death-sentence in the case of needed life saving transplants.

      -~Race mixing is the original sin of mankind from which all suffering flows.~-

      • Although I must say I have not checked out some of the claims, from my background knowledge I can give my opinion that your comment is BRILLIANT.

        My favorite paragraph is about the bone marrow and stem cells.

        James Laffrey

  33. You’ve thought about this a lot, haven’t you Varg? That’s good 🙂
    I’ve come to the conclusion that technological advances don’t make our lives easier, they just make us weaker – and less likely to survive if faced with a more natural lifestyle. We need to understand that it’s impossible to “cheat the system”, so to speak.

  34. Interesting theory, Varg. However, some might wonder if this is a projection of yours, being a creative individual yourself. ‘Is this Varg’s way of telling us he’s never grown up?’ 🙂

  35. Pingback: New Thulean Perspective post | Ancestral Cult

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s