LIBRARY
Varg Vikernes
Thulean Perspective
What is WRONG with the Indo-European Invasion Myth?
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-Christian 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 generations (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.
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-Christian 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 generations (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
29.03.2024
