Tag Archives: culture

What is WRONG with the Indo-European Invasion Myth?

Posted on by

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

Donkeys in a Stable identifying as Horses

Posted on by

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 ridiculous, 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.