never heard the demo but...
is the french band BLUTORDEN still alive ?

Osc I. member involved in this band, right ?

thx for infos

The band hasn't existed for a long time after the only release, I think.
The demo was recorded between 1995-1997 and still is a brilliant work of gruesome art.
According to my recollection, 2 male members were from OSCULUM INFAME, and the 3rd member on bass was "Countess Bathory".

Excerpt from the demo cover:

"Born through the mystical Mights of the Swastika, BLUTORDEN has come through ages to revive the flames of a very ancient and secret knowledge: The Cult of Blood and Darkness.

Through the supreme Quest, from the first time flesh was marked by the sword with 2 Runes engraved, a Pagan and Ancestral tradrition made the Order eternal...

...This happened a long time ago, when law was Blood & Iron... This night, the moonshine had turned like blood, the fure was lit for the first ritual..."

...also, "BLUTORDEN doesn't play political Black Metal for those who may think so..."

Werwolf is right, If I recall correctly as well
the demo tape was promising, very good vocals & weren't two bass player involved?

Originally posted by Werwolf
"Born through the mystical Mights of the Swastika"

"BLUTORDEN doesn't play political Black Metal for those who may think so..."

I am sorry, I don't want to start another useless "ad hominem" thread... but ... it is a joke or ?
I am maybe too down-to-earth sometimes I know...

anyway musicwise i always thought the concept of two bassplayers instead of one basspl + one guitarpl should be a very good concept ... never heard blutorden though and I probably never will

Personally, I liked the tape alot myself. And yes, there were 2 bass players and no guitar (and a drum machine). Created a pretty unique sound. Too bad they are R.I.P.....

Originally posted by Carven
I am sorry, I don't want to start another useless "ad hominem" thread... but ... it is a joke or ?
I am maybe too down-to-earth sometimes I know...


Does a swastika really make a band political? Does a pentagram make a band neccessarily religious one?
I would not say down-to-earth, I'd rather say mislead.

Obviously a swastika is a political symbol. You may argue as much as you want about the various cultures that used Swastikas, and their meaning as wheel of light, life and what not ; nowadays, a Swastika is a political symbol (and I do not have to explain what it means anno 2004, forged by List, von Liebenfells and others in Austria, german völkish groups of the late 19th century etc up to national socialism, do I?). If you try to deny this, you're just blind.

Symbols have various meanings, but when a band, or a party etc, uses a certain symbol, it is obviously aware that the commonly admitted meaning of the symbol is what people will understand.
And, please, stop that pathetic hypocrisy, in "black" metal related circles, everybody knows that a swastyka stands precisely for racial thought patterns and is a political statement per se.

I am still waiting for any of the bands playing around with such symbols to being up a credible and intelligent (means: decent cultural roots and explanations and no ignorant teenage delirium) alternative. Cheers guys.


ps: SW, why don't you post here with the same signature as on the finish black metal board? I'm sure many people here would love it....

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
Obviously a swastika is a political symbol. You may argue as much as you want about the various cultures that used Swastikas, and their meaning as wheel of light, life and what not ; nowadays, a Swastika is a political symbol (and I do not have to explain what it means anno 2004, forged by List, von Liebenfells and others in Austria, german völkish groups of the late 19th century etc up to national socialism, do I?). If you try to deny this, you're just blind.

Just like the Baphometic goat within the pentacle used by the Church of $atan, the symbol and it's meaning isn't in it's primal essence corrupted by any of the people who use them, whatever their purposes might be. There is no denial on the fact that those people have used the swastika as a highly suitable symbol of a very strong, yet (now considered) controversial movement.
A symbol doesn't equal the political action and the program of the party, it represents the ideals in a highly symbolic manner, just like it is meant to be.
And what comes to a cyclic representation to light, life and such, it's also very clear that in such form the symbol equally represents also the dark and destructive side.
Whatever it might mean to a common human whatsoever in 2004 doesn't concern me at all in this context, neither should it concern you.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
Symbols have various meanings, but when a band, or a party etc, uses a certain symbol, it is obviously aware that the commonly admitted meaning of the symbol is what people will understand.
And, please, stop that pathetic hypocrisy, in "black" metal related circles, everybody knows that a swastyka stands precisely for racial thought patterns and is a political statement per se.

Since when was Black Metal degraded into a music form to be accepted and understanded by those who represent a pallid and mislead side of the status quo? Refusing to accept that kind of a mark for me represents a strength in an individual or a group not to remain in a mass of mediocrity just to be accepted.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
I am still waiting for any of the bands playing around with such symbols to being up a credible and intelligent (means: decent cultural roots and explanations and no ignorant teenage delirium) alternative. Cheers guys.

Spear Of Longinus, anyone? Or maybe it's just a simple fact with balancing between a wrong answer and a wrong answer?

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
ps: SW, why don't you post here with the same signature as on the finish black metal board? I'm sure many people here would love it....

No need for me to provocate here, my darling.

Whatever it might mean to a common human whatsoever in 2004 doesn't concern me at all in this context, neither should it concern you.

Sort of a "l'art pour l'art" kind of statement heh?
Obviously, I disagree. If you have the aim to make a strong point, you have to consider all aspects, first and foremost the main aspect in such a case, namely the impact on the public.

Ideals are abstract. A swastyka is something extremely concrete, as it was affiliated to one of the things that shape the world, namely politics. You can not forget recent history that made it what it is, even if what it is nowadays reduces it's dimension of an ideal to a limited receptacle of ideological content.

I may anyway question the "spiritual" dimension of the Swastyka as it was hugely over-interpretated precisely with politics in mind. There's a swastyka before german völkish movements, primeval if you prefer, and a swastyka that is already an instrument.
Easy: when you read about the Swastyka, what are your sources? Ariosophy (i.e. mystical delirium) or concrete serious historical researches? The later are of course less inspiring as they even tend to contradict many things, heh?



Since when was Black Metal degraded into a music form to be accepted and understanded by those who represent a pallid and mislead side of the status quo? Refusing to accept that kind of a mark for me represents a strength in an individual or a group not to remain in a mass of mediocrity just to be accepted.


Not "accepted". Understood.
Black Metal is a teenage movement and except for a very few, none of the people involved are making it adult, that's very disappointing. But I -almost- disgress.

Once you make something born out of artistic impulses public, it doesn't belong to you anymore (an evidence, but it's good to remind what is obvious once in a while).
What I see is bands influenced by "mystical" symbols like the Swastyka appearing like complete ignorant idiots. Mediocrity ? Yes, indeed. To be ignorant is mediocre. Hiding a lack of education behind symbols is mediocrity.
My point is : as long as what you have to offer is not something that can seriously challenge the current universitarian, intellectual paradigm, then it is nothing but immature teenage rambling. Leave some of your self-proclaimed elitism behind and compare what you have to offer to, say, Mircea Eliade.

If behind the self proclaimed elitism, obscurity and amusing mysticism there's nothing able to challenge that kind of people, then, obviously, the distance you put behind the public and yourself is not one of a dominating artist vs. the mindless herd , but one of a person that lacks the capacity to offer something intellectually worthy (and eventually dangerous to the status quo) - merely your personnal expression, that can not reach (efficiently) beyond this personnal sphere. A sphere that is meaningful to none, but you, roughly said.



Spear Of Longinus, anyone? Or maybe it's just a simple fact with balancing between a wrong answer and a wrong answer?

SOL is amusing. They remind me of that austrian state of mind around the times of List & the Ostara Hefte. Irrational to the bone.
That only proves my point above : once left the very closed circles of people impressed by mystic theories, there's nothing left. Nothing of value, nothing to be taken seriously in regard of the current cultural paradigm. And you may say what you want, but unless you can challenge this very paradigm, you are powerless.

Maybe that's not your aim -to have "power"- but then it all comes down to a mere teenage musical movement. Unworthy.




No need for me to provocate here, my darling.

I thought you'd at least take such things seriously (the banner is cute, may I add, ha!).
Come on, are you merely an amusing agitator or do you have something to offer? You don't care about my opinion? Fine. But you're going round circle : elitarian ambitions, high goals with racial-spiritual and political components, a Weltanschauung you seem to believe in... but eventually, the worth of it all is measured at your capacity to convince other people. Deny it as much as you want, but that's reality.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
My point is : as long as what you have to offer is not something that can seriously challenge the current universitarian, intellectual paradigm, then it is nothing but immature teenage rambling.

When your point is hand in hand with the universitarian paradigm, it's no use to discuss it further in that context. Just as if I would ask you if you would have a book there that gives an universitarian statement on the fact that the Third Reich was a life-preserving state of goodness and niceness which contradicts the Luciferian world-view as well?

The concrete facts about the Swastika and Sauvastika need not be dug that deep back the trail of the indo-european man to find out their primal essence, the universitarian and the intellectual medium does not need to be challenged, they already know. What needs to be challenged is the human emotion.

What comes to convincing people, we'll see. Are they really even interested?

No

Exactly.

Some may be interested in this.

I do hope so as well.

Yet, people with obvious personal agendas are more than ready to start wildly swinging with their bookworm-infested hammer to trying shatter a shadow of the untouchable trying to proove me "wrong", even knowing that I still won't ever stop.

The question is quite simple. Am I a true Satanist if I am a "nazi " or a "racist " or whatever?

Quote Werwolf "Am I a true Satanist if I am a "nazi " or a "racist " or whatever? "


Of course!

But, then that's my opinion...

When your point is hand in hand with the universitarian paradigm, it's no use to discuss it further in that context. Just as if I would ask you if you would have a book there that gives an universitarian statement on the fact that the Third Reich was a life-preserving state of goodness and niceness which contradicts the Luciferian world-view as well?


Well, I knew you'd answer this, - thus I named Mircea Eliade -because this man is recognized as a world-wide reference (I insist on this), but also because many of his writings were controversial enough to considered as sympathetic towards totalitarianism.

Mr SW, your mistake is to believe what so many right-wing guys preach as their own paradigm, namely that all serious research of universitarian level is leftist. Or, to leave the polemical tone aside, biased. I could give you dozen counter-examples, but you wouldn't believe me anyway as to check my saying you'd have to read all these books, and I doubt you have the will to seriously consider balanced arguments that may shake your current opinions.

I can't resist, however, to name Wolfgang Benz, and his amazing work on the third reich, or the work of his staff, not less brilliant. Therein you shall even find an in depth analysis of the "positive" sides of the third reich, believe it or not, on various fields such as protection of nature (some laws were still applied in their original form a decade ago in Germany) and whatnot.

But, go ahead, discard all this as biased, leftist propaganda.

ps: the luciferian worldview, as you say, has still to be defined, unless cheap occult literature qualifies as quality material for a solid basis, heh.



The concrete facts about the Swastika and Sauvastika need not be dug that deep back the trail of the indo-european man to find out their primal essence, the universitarian and the intellectual medium does not need to be challenged, they already know. What needs to be challenged is the human emotion.


It's amusing how much you remind me of List's approach towards history and facts....


What comes to convincing people, we'll see. Are they really even interested?


They should be. People who avoid a serious debate are pathetic. But, I insist on "serious".

Originally posted by Werwolf
The question is quite simple. Am I a true Satanist if I am a "nazi " or a "racist " or whatever?

You enjoy dictionaries don't you Werwolf ? Then take a look and you could see such things as :
racist :
- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Source :
http://dictionary.reference.com
or
http://www.yourdictionary.com

How can this suit a "true Satanist" as you say ? Satanism is far higher than the race sphere... "Racism" is a human feeling...

Originally posted by Dekadence
You enjoy dictionaries don't you Werwolf ? Then take a look and you could see such things as :


How can this suit a "true Satanist" as you say ? Satanism is far higher than the race sphere... "Racism" is a human feeling...

Satan is nothing without Humans...the perfect Stooge.

Yet, people with obvious personal agendas are more than ready to start wildly swinging with their bookworm-infested hammer to trying shatter a shadow of the untouchable trying to proove me "wrong", even knowing that I still won't ever stop.


Nah, don't you think you're such an important figure Nazgul. You're just another of these black metal musicians who haven't yet completely left their rebelious years behind, nor the teenage thought patterns that go hand in hand with this. Wether you go on or not is irrelevant, no one is yet affected by what you do -and that's the whole POINT- you're not to be taken seriously. It's not even a personal attack on you, the whole black metal genre is not to be taken seriously, with few notable exceptions.
Though... there's people who are interested in this. People who also are/were close to Black Metal, and who'd like to see this once promising genre evolve into an adult movement. Adult, as in serious. Adult, as in able to compete intellectually with the paradigm of today -a paradigm that you try to discard-.
Teenage rebellion and mystical delirium vs. the real world. Make a choice...




The question is quite simple. Am I a true Satanist if I am a "nazi " or a "racist " or whatever?


Satanist as in Church of Satan? Satanist as in a person who believes and serves an entity? Satanist as in the commonly admitted sense of a more or less nihilistic person?
Anyway, there's a huge difference between being a nazi (there's few left nowadays, and they tend to look like everyone's grandpa, you don't qualify there heh) and a racist.

Racism and COS go hand in hand more than once. Racism in Devilworship is irrelevant, considered that the whole point is theological and not that down to earth. And a racist nihilist is someone who should read Nietzsche again, heh.

But there's other categories. It all depends, once again.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
Mr SW, your mistake is to believe what so many right-wing guys preach as their own paradigm, namely that all serious research of universitarian level is leftist. Or, to leave the polemical tone aside, biased. I could give you dozen counter-examples, but you wouldn't believe me anyway as to check my saying you'd have to read all these books, and I doubt you have the will to seriously consider balanced arguments that may shake your current opinions.

I wasn't actually considering you being biased because of that. Yet it is a common reality that history is dictated by those who win the wars and in this case it's to a hvey extent used to demonize something. This still doesn't change the fact that the Swastika is a very deep symbol also BEYOND anything that happened in Europe during the '30s and '40s and neither the simple fact, be it a lie, exaggeration or the truth that the execution of 6 000 000 JEWS (whose king was Jesus Nazarene) took place under the banner of the Swastika, to go to the most simple rhetoric ever.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
Therein you shall even find an in depth analysis of the "positive" sides of the third reich, believe it or not, on various fields such as protection of nature (some laws were still applied in their original form a decade ago in Germany) and whatnot.

That is also very much known to me. The fact that the III Reich was highly advanced in many points, including technical and even spiritual development, without of course forgetting the nature-preservation programs (without the senseless liberal and politically correct standards which are guiding the politics today) and such as you mentioned is only very positive to me, I cannot deny that.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
ps: the luciferian worldview, as you say, has still to be defined, unless cheap occult literature qualifies as quality material for a solid basis, heh.

I am sure there will never be a concrete definition to this matter. I could go for a short superficial definition, but still it would and would not apply to many.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
It's amusing how much you remind me of List's approach towards history and facts....

It's also quite pleasing to me for you to compare me to Von List, no matter what for in this case.

Originally presented by Dekadence from a dictionary
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character

If this in particular is racism. Yet, I want to see a person who can totally deny this, especially in the light where we could consider on individual level a Satanist above others.


Originally posted by Dekadence
How can this suit a "true Satanist" as you say ? Satanism is far higher than the race sphere... "Racism" is a human feeling...

Satanist = human. Very simple.

Originally posted by Werwolf
Satanist = human. Very simple.

This is a so "down-to-earth" statement Werwolf... we're definitively not talking about the same things... If for you "Satanist = human" then I can definitively say we do not belong to the same world ! You only speak about the human entity... the human life... do you only have a terrestrial life ? Are you so "small of spirit" ?... This is really pathetic...
Do you really wander only in a so low sphere... ???

Yet it is a common reality that history is dictated by those who win the wars and in this case it's to a hvey extent used to demonize something.

That's what everybody thinks, and it's halfways true. In our current occidental world nobody can hide facts forever, nobody can complety alter the things or the meaning of any happening.
I don't waste time in such an obvious debate, just take a look at current international politic affairs and you'll immediately understand.

Contrary to what is commonly admitted, there is always ways to dig around in archives, there's abundant literature on everything. Up to each individual to ingest, digest, and make itself an opinion.


This still doesn't change the fact that the Swastika is a very deep symbol also BEYOND anything that happened in Europe during the '30s and '40s


But above you said we don't have to go too far into indo-european roots... what's the bottom line? Blavatsky? That's barely 50 years before the first nazi groups... that's no deep historical roots.


execution of 6 000 000 JEWS (whose king was Jesus Nazarene)


You're not really aware of the theological pointview here, are you? The place of Jesus on the jewish tradition hmm?
A good part of the ideological antisemitism of the third reich dates back to the antisemitism of the catholic church, based on the betrayal of the jews towards Christ. The romans called him INRI. King of jews, that's completely false in regard of the last 2000 years!





The fact that the III Reich was highly advanced in many points, including technical and even spiritual development, without of course forgetting the nature-preservation programs (without the senseless liberal and politically correct standards which are guiding the politics today) and such as you mentioned is only very positive to me, I cannot deny that.


Let me add that this is normal for every war-oriented economy. Sciences are developed incredibly quick. Other areas of course have to pay for this (one example, the average wages between 1933 and 1936 went down the drain for 20%. National socialism ? heh).
Nature protection in the third reich has it's roots in the völkish groups of that time, and the link between soil and soul they developed. (Amusing is the law that, right in 1933, was forbidding to call a donkey Adolf...).
Anyway, enough of that.



It's also quite pleasing to me for you to compare me to Von List, no matter what for in this case.


If he had some credibility in certain circles, that's because of the mentality back then, where mysticism was valued as much as hard science. Nowadays, comparing you to List, is like saying you have no grasp on reality. Whereas this is a pleasing comparison or not is something I leave up to you to appreciate.
Let me add that his skills as a writer are much superior to your skills as a musician, but this is merely a personnal opinion relying on taste and could be discarded as such.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
I don't waste time in such an obvious debate, just take a look at current international politic affairs and you'll immediately understand.

Obvious as in that there won't be a rejection of the approaching demographic holocaust of white europeans sooner or later? Yes I see it and I understand it completely.


Originally posted by Suicidogenic
But above you said we don't have to go too far into indo-european roots... what's the bottom line? Blavatsky? That's barely 50 years before the first nazi groups... that's no deep historical roots.

And this doesn't already proove the fact that the swastika is much more than just a "political symbol" which was exactly the point?


Originally posted by Suicidogenic
You're not really aware of the theological pointview here, are you? The place of Jesus on the jewish tradition hmm?
A good part of the ideological antisemitism of the third reich dates back to the antisemitism of the catholic church, based on the betrayal of the jews towards Christ. The romans called him INRI. King of jews, that's completely false in regard of the last 2000 years!

Well, if we put aside the fact that there are large groups of messianic jews who actually admit jesus as their saviour and such shit, there's nothing much to say to this except to read again where it says: "to the most simple rhetoric ever".



Originally posted by Suicidogenic
Nowadays, comparing you to List, is like saying you have no grasp on reality.

I understand why you would say so. Still, it gives me great comfort to see those people denying themselves and at the same time saying I am small in spirit and know that I might still have another foot on the side of reality.

Obvious as in that there won't be a rejection of the approaching demographic holocaust of white europeans sooner or later? Yes I see it and I understand it completely.

I dare to say this is a phantasm of yours, and of most right wing inspired groups ranging from catholic integrists to the pagan minority. A deeper look into assimilation and the general evolution of european cultures shows that there's no immediate risk of them being eaten up, or whatever.

Unless, granted, you base yourself exclusively on downright "racial" criterions (as in "white", "black" etc) and exclude assimilation per se. And even then, the latest statistics for France during the 90's show there's less immigration than before.

Btw, I've been waiting for people like you to give me an approximative idea of when Europe was pure, and the "white race" not threatened by foreign races... give me a date and I'll be a happy man. (I'll take a closer look, then, to all the -proven- immigration waves over Europe since a good 20 centuries or so heh).
Beware Nazgul, according to some nazi theories you have to be able to prove back to 20 generations that your blood is pure... have you checked?




And this doesn't already proove the fact that the swastika is much more than just a "political symbol" which was exactly the point?


If you know Blavatsky, you perfectly know that immediately after their first writings she got in close contact with various organisations that had politics in mind. Be it during her travels to the USA, or to Austria etc. Because the world she described, with the various races, was perfect for the eventual emerging thought pattern of a master race. (the aryan being not the master race, by the way -an idea many embraced when the third reich was defeated-)
I won't say she was in first place a political figure, rather a mystic person with lots of imagination, but she was quickly assimilated to the emerging politcal movements. The swastyka didn't remain neutral for a long time.
I also doubt we can seriously consider Blavatsky as "roots". Or if you do, that's very thin roots. The delirium of a single person can't replace indo-european roots that run over centuries.



Well, if we put aside the fact that there are large groups of messianic jews who actually admit jesus as their saviour and such shit,

Large? Check your sources Nazgul.



I understand why you would say so. Still, it gives me great comfort to see those people denying themselves and at the same time saying I am small in spirit and know that I might still have another foot on the side of reality.

People denying themselves? I don't quite understand you there.

I do not say you are small in spirit. I don't know you enough to make such a judgement. But by reading what you have to say, it is obvious where you belong to, what your influences are etc. You stand on the side of subjective analysis and mysticism. Once again, that's valuable to some, and idiocy to others.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
Unless, granted, you base yourself exclusively on downright "racial" criterions (as in "white", "black" etc) and exclude assimilation per se. And even then, the latest statistics for France during the 90's show there's less immigration than before.

Obviously it is mandatory for you to try to avoid the point, maybe you should also look into your books about the birth rates concerning the groups already settled.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
Btw, I've been waiting for people like you to give me an approximative idea of when Europe was pure, and the "white race" not threatened by foreign races... give me a date and I'll be a happy man. (I'll take a closer look, then, to all the -proven- immigration waves over Europe since a good 20 centuries or so heh).

This obviously wasn't my point either.
A certain level of integration is unavoidable, and anyone with any sense knows that. I was talking about a concrete demographic change into a different cultural majority.

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
Beware Nazgul, according to some nazi theories you have to be able to prove back to 20 generations that your blood is pure... have you checked?

Finland is one of the most homogenous countries in Europe, and if it really concerns you, yes I have very extensive family research made. Funny thing is that you call me "Nazgul" like you'd be an old enemy, maybe you want to introduce yourself a bit better to me as well?

Originally posted by Suicidogenic
If you know Blavatsky, you perfectly know that immediately after their first writings she got in close contact with various organisations that had politics in mind. Be it during her travels to the USA, or to Austria etc. Because the world she described, with the various races, was perfect for the eventual emerging thought pattern of a master race. (the aryan being not the master race, by the way -an idea many embraced when the third reich was defeated-)
I won't say she was in first place a political figure , rather a mystic person with lots of imagination, but she was quickly assimilated to the emerging politcal movements. The swastyka didn't remain neutral for a long time.
I also doubt we can seriously consider Blavatsky as "roots". Or if you do, that's very thin roots. The delirium of a single person can't replace indo-european roots that run over centuries.

Then, after reading the underlined part, go back to the part where I said that this should already proove the fact, and add the 3000+ years back in time you mentioned and we're all set.




Originally posted by Suicidogenic
Large? Check your sources Nazgul.

Point passed with flying colours.

Large != Majority

Obviously it is mandatory for you to try to avoid the point, maybe you should also look into your books about the birth rates concerning the groups already settled.

Birth rates in which places? Africa? As if that matters.
It's a false idea, once again according to statistics that you don't want to acknowledge, that immigrants have incredibly higher birth rates.
And you know why this is wrong? Integration to the surroundings cultural background, growing income etc. always make child birth rates decrease.


A certain level of integration is unavoidable, and anyone with any sense knows that. I was talking about a concrete demographic change into a different cultural majority.


And that was precisely MY point. You're completely dreaming when you pretend that Europe is going to switch into another cultural demography. In a predictable future, that's utter bullshit. Now, if we're speaking about centuries, of course I have no clue. But, should I remind you of what southern Europe looked like, 1000 years ago?


Funny thing is that you call me "Nazgul" like you'd be an old enemy, maybe you want to introduce yourself a bit better to me as well?


You're merely a person that has irritated me by it's naive approach to things, that's the bottom line. You're not my enemy, an enemy is someone you have to fight, pardon me if I hurt your feelings but you're not important enough to be considered as such. My enemies belong to the current cultural paradigm, that's a different level, entirely.
Nazgul? SW? Who cares. I got introduced to you with early Horna, that maybe explains this choice of words. It's irrelevant.




Then, after reading the underlined part, go back to the part where I said that this should already proove the fact, and add the 3000+ years back in time you mentioned and we're all set.


Are you desperate enough to consider this an argument?
You're not even an entertaining partner to debate with, I'm disappointed, heh.

http://www.manwoman.net/swastika/images/Englishpostcard.jpg

p.s. Sorry for this political outburst of mine. I thought it'd be an excellent closure.