My Final Words to The Golden One (VR)
Video info
Transcription
| Description | No description |
| Collections | Video ResponseVisual |
| Uploaded | 2017-05-24 |
Let me start by saying that this is just a friendly discussion I have with The Golden One. We disagree on something and, like mature adults, we discuss it back and forth. Secondly, I wish to salute Marcus for his speech in relation to how we talk about each other in the comment field here on YouTube. And I wish to do the same and stress that you should not in any way disrespect Markus in the comment field, even though you might disagree with him. And, of course, you should not express yourself in a disrespectful way in relation to others as well. Thirdly, I wish to discuss a little bit the fact that I have supported Marcus and his channel. And I have done so in spite of our disagreements and I have done so at a cost in relation to my credibility. Because Marcus has expressed certain views and support for certain groups that I and my viewers find hard to justify. So I have done so, yes, but at the cost of my credibility. And I have done so with the hope that he would change some of his views, especially in relation to Christianity.
In relation to his last video response, I think, Marcus, you are being a bit dishonest. Because I already replied to the claim that Tacitus called the Germanians red-haired in the comment section on my video. And I replied on one of your threads, so you should have been given a notification about this. As a Latin student, I know perfectly well that the Romans used the term ... i think it was "ratilae" or something like that, which means reddish, yellow, to describe blonde hair. That was the term they used for blonde hair. So even though you translate it directly, it means reddish or reddish yellow or reddish golden. That is the term the Romans used for blonde hair. So he did not say that the peoples of Germania had red hair.
Further, I think you are being dishonest again when you say that Tacitus talked to Germanic people from one tribe. There is no evidence whatsoever suggesting that he talked with people only from one tribe. He talked to different Germanic-speaking slaves in the Roman Empire. And there is nothing whatsoever suggesting that all these slaves came from the same Germanic tribe. So that is not correct.
Finally, if you use common sense, you will understand that the entire Germanic population could not have been red-haired when they later on are not (?). Unless of course the entire German population had been replaced at a later point in history. And they weren't.[1] The vast majority of Germans are still blonde. Of course. And very, very few of them are red-haired. So if you add up 2 plus 2, your statement doesn't make any sense. And my statement makes perfect sense. The Germanics were purely blonde, as stated by Cornelius Tacitus.
Further, dear Marcus, I think it is dishonest to use the Viking Age Sagas to disprove my point about Tacitus. Because the Viking Age Sagas were recorded more than a thousand years later. And they were describing a period about one thousand years after Cornelius Tacitus described the Germanics. And like I said, the Scandinavians and Germanic-speaking peoples were originally blonde and blue-eyed. And of course, if you move a thousand years on, they are no longer blonde and blue-eyed. All of them because they have mixed with their thralls.[2] And you talk about how some of the people are described as having dark features. If that is correct, there are two individuals in the sagas described as "the black". That would be the black haired, because they had black hair.[3] And this was so rare in the period, in the area, that it was worth a mention.[4] So, actually, the sagas prove my point that having non-blonde features were so rare that it was worth a mention. Others would have been called the brave, the beautiful, the whatever.[5] But they were called "the black" because that was the thing that made them stand out from the rest.
And using your logic, adding a thousand years to my source, why not add another thousand years? And then maybe another fifty years to prove how the Scandinavians are not blonde? You know, in fifty years I'm pretty sure that Sweden is not overwhelmingly blonde, so to speak. But that does not say anything whatsoever about how the original Scandinavians were like.
I cannot talk a lot about the historical character that you talk about, because doing so in a positive way is illegal here in France. And even quoting him to support anything can be defined as support of him. So I can't do that. But what I am going to say is that, again, you are being dishonest. You are cherry-picking things from him and you are completely ignoring the things that talk against your argument. For example, in relation to Christianity, he expressed public support for it, but privately he made it perfectly clear that Christianity was anti-European, it was not a Germanic religion, and that they needed to get rid of it. Therefore they created positive Christianity, which was meant to be a changeover into paganism, that would be a facing out of Christianity. And there are plenty of sources documenting his views on Christianity as being something alien and destructive, and as something that they had to get rid of. And they didn't get rid of it because of the war. Again, you are being dishonest in the things that you don't say, because you are cherry-picking, again, and you completely ignore, for example, the information that we have about that certain historical character, in relation to homosexuality. So you didn't mention a word about this in a video, and I assume that you didn't, because you know that he didn't support your view.
Here are some quotes by that historical person's favourite philosopher, by the way, in relation to Christianity.
What I have done in relation to your channel is to support you in the hope that you would grow wiser. And I have made a number of videos, not just for you of course, but for you as well, in relation to Christianity. And instead of accepting the fact that Christianity is destructive, alien, and has always been destructive and alien to Europe, you cling to your support for Christianity.
There is no justification for support for Christianity. If you look at my videos and accept reality, you will understand that there is no way to justify any support for that alien Jewish desert cult. It has been nothing but destructive for Europe. And it still is. I have proven again and again how destructive Christianity is and I'm going to link to those videos in the video description below. And I encourage all those who are in doubt to watch these videos and to read the text on the videos and to think over what Christianity has really meant for Europe.
Our pagan forebears were tolerant. They tolerated Christianity and because of that they had their entire culture destroyed and Europe was genocided because of that. And all the problems we have today can be traced back to this tolerance. So if we should ever be critical of our forebears, it would be because they were tolerant and open minded. And we should not be that anymore. We cannot afford that.
I understand that you want many subscribers to your channel, but you have to understand that everyone's friend is everyone's fool. Everyone's friend is loyal to no one. And you are not going to grow a big solid channel by being open and tolerant to everybody. You have to pick a side and in this conflict there is no compromise. You cannot compromise with people who want you dead, who want to burn you at the stake as Satanists. It's that simple. You cannot compromise with people who did that to your forebears. You cannot compromise with people who think it's okay to support a religion that has genocided Europe and all our culture and has completely destroyed our heritage and that is still trying to destroy our heritage. And it's that simple.[6]
Everything you say is nullified by your support for Christianity. You have no credibility when you support Christianity and at the same time claim to be pro-European. You have no credibility when you support Christianity and at the same time claim to be a pagan. You have no credibility as a pagan when, as far as I know, the only thing you religiously support on your channel is Christianity.
I am not going to start down-talking you, I am not going to start saying bad things about you, but what I am going to do is to unsubscribe to your channel and also encourage all other pagan Europeans to do the same. Because there is no way to justify your support for Christianity and as long as you support Christianity there is no way to justify a support for your channel either. I did support your channel, because I hoped you would grow wiser and cast aside that Jewish religion and your support for it, but you refused to and that's okay of course, I can't force you to do anything, but what I can do is to stop supporting you. And I will. I am going to end this video with a quote from Hovamol.[7]
In relation to his last video response, I think, Marcus, you are being a bit dishonest. Because I already replied to the claim that Tacitus called the Germanians red-haired in the comment section on my video. And I replied on one of your threads, so you should have been given a notification about this. As a Latin student, I know perfectly well that the Romans used the term ... i think it was "ratilae" or something like that, which means reddish, yellow, to describe blonde hair. That was the term they used for blonde hair. So even though you translate it directly, it means reddish or reddish yellow or reddish golden. That is the term the Romans used for blonde hair. So he did not say that the peoples of Germania had red hair.
Further, I think you are being dishonest again when you say that Tacitus talked to Germanic people from one tribe. There is no evidence whatsoever suggesting that he talked with people only from one tribe. He talked to different Germanic-speaking slaves in the Roman Empire. And there is nothing whatsoever suggesting that all these slaves came from the same Germanic tribe. So that is not correct.
Finally, if you use common sense, you will understand that the entire Germanic population could not have been red-haired when they later on are not (?). Unless of course the entire German population had been replaced at a later point in history. And they weren't.[1] The vast majority of Germans are still blonde. Of course. And very, very few of them are red-haired. So if you add up 2 plus 2, your statement doesn't make any sense. And my statement makes perfect sense. The Germanics were purely blonde, as stated by Cornelius Tacitus.
Further, dear Marcus, I think it is dishonest to use the Viking Age Sagas to disprove my point about Tacitus. Because the Viking Age Sagas were recorded more than a thousand years later. And they were describing a period about one thousand years after Cornelius Tacitus described the Germanics. And like I said, the Scandinavians and Germanic-speaking peoples were originally blonde and blue-eyed. And of course, if you move a thousand years on, they are no longer blonde and blue-eyed. All of them because they have mixed with their thralls.[2] And you talk about how some of the people are described as having dark features. If that is correct, there are two individuals in the sagas described as "the black". That would be the black haired, because they had black hair.[3] And this was so rare in the period, in the area, that it was worth a mention.[4] So, actually, the sagas prove my point that having non-blonde features were so rare that it was worth a mention. Others would have been called the brave, the beautiful, the whatever.[5] But they were called "the black" because that was the thing that made them stand out from the rest.
And using your logic, adding a thousand years to my source, why not add another thousand years? And then maybe another fifty years to prove how the Scandinavians are not blonde? You know, in fifty years I'm pretty sure that Sweden is not overwhelmingly blonde, so to speak. But that does not say anything whatsoever about how the original Scandinavians were like.
I cannot talk a lot about the historical character that you talk about, because doing so in a positive way is illegal here in France. And even quoting him to support anything can be defined as support of him. So I can't do that. But what I am going to say is that, again, you are being dishonest. You are cherry-picking things from him and you are completely ignoring the things that talk against your argument. For example, in relation to Christianity, he expressed public support for it, but privately he made it perfectly clear that Christianity was anti-European, it was not a Germanic religion, and that they needed to get rid of it. Therefore they created positive Christianity, which was meant to be a changeover into paganism, that would be a facing out of Christianity. And there are plenty of sources documenting his views on Christianity as being something alien and destructive, and as something that they had to get rid of. And they didn't get rid of it because of the war. Again, you are being dishonest in the things that you don't say, because you are cherry-picking, again, and you completely ignore, for example, the information that we have about that certain historical character, in relation to homosexuality. So you didn't mention a word about this in a video, and I assume that you didn't, because you know that he didn't support your view.
Here are some quotes by that historical person's favourite philosopher, by the way, in relation to Christianity.
Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life. Hatred of "the world", condemnations of the passions, fear of beauty and sensuality, a beyond invented the better to slander this life
Friedrich Nietzsche
In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point
Friedrich Nietzsche
You who hate the Jews so. Why did you adopt their religion?And then we move on to a more important issue, namely, Christianity and your support for Christianity. You say that you are pagan, but every time I have seen you talk about religion on your channel, you express support for Christianity. I have not seen all your videos, so I might be wrong, but from what I have seen, you have never, ever made a video about paganism. You only express support for Christianity. And the occasional empty phrases with the hail this and that God does not count as actual support for paganism, because it's not describing anything, it's not doing anything for paganism, it's just empty phrases. Your real support on your channel is for Christianity.
Friedrich Nietasche
What I have done in relation to your channel is to support you in the hope that you would grow wiser. And I have made a number of videos, not just for you of course, but for you as well, in relation to Christianity. And instead of accepting the fact that Christianity is destructive, alien, and has always been destructive and alien to Europe, you cling to your support for Christianity.
There is no justification for support for Christianity. If you look at my videos and accept reality, you will understand that there is no way to justify any support for that alien Jewish desert cult. It has been nothing but destructive for Europe. And it still is. I have proven again and again how destructive Christianity is and I'm going to link to those videos in the video description below. And I encourage all those who are in doubt to watch these videos and to read the text on the videos and to think over what Christianity has really meant for Europe.
Our pagan forebears were tolerant. They tolerated Christianity and because of that they had their entire culture destroyed and Europe was genocided because of that. And all the problems we have today can be traced back to this tolerance. So if we should ever be critical of our forebears, it would be because they were tolerant and open minded. And we should not be that anymore. We cannot afford that.
I understand that you want many subscribers to your channel, but you have to understand that everyone's friend is everyone's fool. Everyone's friend is loyal to no one. And you are not going to grow a big solid channel by being open and tolerant to everybody. You have to pick a side and in this conflict there is no compromise. You cannot compromise with people who want you dead, who want to burn you at the stake as Satanists. It's that simple. You cannot compromise with people who did that to your forebears. You cannot compromise with people who think it's okay to support a religion that has genocided Europe and all our culture and has completely destroyed our heritage and that is still trying to destroy our heritage. And it's that simple.[6]
Everything you say is nullified by your support for Christianity. You have no credibility when you support Christianity and at the same time claim to be pro-European. You have no credibility when you support Christianity and at the same time claim to be a pagan. You have no credibility as a pagan when, as far as I know, the only thing you religiously support on your channel is Christianity.
I am not going to start down-talking you, I am not going to start saying bad things about you, but what I am going to do is to unsubscribe to your channel and also encourage all other pagan Europeans to do the same. Because there is no way to justify your support for Christianity and as long as you support Christianity there is no way to justify a support for your channel either. I did support your channel, because I hoped you would grow wiser and cast aside that Jewish religion and your support for it, but you refused to and that's okay of course, I can't force you to do anything, but what I can do is to stop supporting you. And I will. I am going to end this video with a quote from Hovamol.[7]
- I probably can't say the same about that in 30 years.
- And yes: they had thralls from peoples that had been mixed with non-Europeans.
- Halfdan Svarti and Haldfan Haraldsson Svarti
- And they were both in family with each other.
- We have one "Eirik the Red" too, and that might refer to him having red hair. Or that he was very angry at times. We don't know.
- Thankfully, it resurfaces every time though, because of our European blood. Which explains why they want to mix our blood.
- Stanza 43.
Vin sînum
skal maðr vinr vera,
þeim ok þess vin;
en ôvinir sîns
skyli engi maðr
vinar vinr vera.You shall be friend with your friend and his friends; but no man shall ever be friend with the friend of an enemy
The Christians are our enemies, Marcus, and you are their friend. This is your choice. See video description for an extensive list of videos about Christianity.