The scholar criticism

We have the ususal suspects, again... The so called scholars that are more dedicated to point out that nothing can be proven or taken seriously, if not a "system professor" has sourced it. Those who parrot only, in their safe spaces, while bringing absolutely nothing of value to the table.

First of all - SIR Vive the Jive: is it time to get down from your pedestal? I think so.

Secondly, I will enlighten you where you have heard this, and help you to remember:

You have heard this from another philologist scholar friend of yours, sitting disconnected in a concrete cage in New York city, a comedian, a clown, a beta hipster, using up your time naging about Patreon support and buying "cool" garbage on Teespring - whilst more than often pissing all over our cultural heritage trying to be funny.

My work is based on genuine tradition - pagan traditions and folk traditions still among my own rural Scandinavians, still in whole or partly active. They are based on sources, both written and practical. Most of the written sources, before 1945. Before the scholars de-constructed the little that what was left of it, after it got burned away for new glorious cathedrals.

There was specifically one thing your scholar friend pointed out to me, besides the usual rant that "nothing can be proven", "you only speculate", "this must be discarded" etc., and that was my intepretation of professor Ludvig Holm-Olsens translation of Grímnismál stanza 5. I argue that since Freyr is of the Vanír, he represents our ancestors and the light elves (fairys). Holm-Olsen translates this passage as - that Freyr got his realm Alfheimr as a tooth fairy. I have made the connection to the still practised tradition with loss of teeth and the fairys. The scholar criticism then became that "as a tooth fairy" relates to the gift itself, and not that Freyr is one himself. This claim is also mentioned in the footnotes of Holm-Olsen, and this claim is also mentioned by me in the book. I am always trying to be honest, you see.

So, the dissens here boils down to if Alfheimr was recieved by Freyr as a toothfairy (the gift itself), or if Freyr was a toothfairy himself. I asked specifically what the difference would be, and why one should blindly trust a narrow scholar view. I asked why one could not make the claim of this obvious connection to our still practiced tradition, either way. No answer. No urge to explore or self thinking. Nothing.

The reply I got back was that "if professor Ludvig Holm-Olsen had been alive today, he would agree with me".