24 September 2013


The following posts (some english, some dutch) were posted on the Unexplained Mysteries forum, between 28 november and ... 2012:

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:00 PM
Abe, I hope you finally see what I mean with OLB being somehow 'suppressed' in post-WW2 Netherlands (and Germany).

It is connected with Wirth, who is connected to Himmler and the SS (even though he stepped out of it in '38).
Himmler used to send Jul-candle holders (with the wheel on it) to families of SS-members for christmas.

Admitting that you like the OLB or take it seriously, is like saying that your parents or grandparents collaborated with the nazis.
From the younger generation, hardly anyone will know of its existance, but for the older generation, it will smell like NSB.


Abramelin Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:08 PM

Sorry, not to be stubborn, but no:I don't see it like that.

Before I started writing this post, I tried to remember when exactly I heard about the OLB for the first time.

Well, I knew for certain that the first time I read about it was in a Dutch new age magazine called BRES.which I regularly bought . I googled, and arrived at Knul's site:

Grootaers, Jan - De nalatenschap van tante Aafje, of het beruchte Oera-Linda-boek. In : Bres No. 38 (dec. 1972 / jan. 1973), pp.85-103.

The fun thing is that I did not buy this item, but read it in the library (Bilderdijkstraat, The Hague), and..... ripped out the pages containing the article,lol ! Anyway, it fascinated me, and I needed to know more about it, although I also had some doubts about some of the things the article talked about, like - here you have it - the etymologie. However, as far as I remember, nothing about Wirth or Himmler or the Nazis was mentioned in that article.

The library itself had nothing about it, but the famous Dutch second-hand bookstore, De Slegte (the store in The Hague) had. I remember it was a hardbound book with a light-green cover and with the seal Ottema also used in his book on it. But it was in German and I wasn't willing to go read a German book voluntarily, lol, so I only leafed through it and I left it there (no, it wasn't Wirth's book).

In the years after I sometimes read a newspaper article about the OLB, but again: almost never anything about Wirth, and the Nazis.

Finally, in the 90's of the past century, I stumbled upon Overwijn's book about the OLB (second edition of 1951) in an antique book market in the Sint Pieterskerk in Leiden, and bought it without hesitation (costed me 75 guilders back then). And again: nothing about Wirth or Nazis in his book. And no one eyed me up and down when I held that 'notorious' book in my hands....

But the former owner of the book (it was signed by Overwijn himself) must have known about Wirth and the Nazis in relation to the OLB because he had cut out an article about Overwijn from a newspaper ("De Dordtenaar", Friday 22, November 1946) and had inserted it between the last page and the back cover. The article was about Overwijn's risky dealings with the NSB (collaborators) and the Nazis, he was described as somewhat of a hero of the resistance.. It also says that Goebels himself was against his book about the OLB being published, and that was about the only line about it..

Anyway, I'm just saying that my impression about how the OLB was and is being treated in the Netherlands is different from yours.

The reason the OLB never got that much attention anymore, decades after Ottema published his book, is because most people were by then convinced it was a fabrication, a forgery, a hoax, or whatever label I should use.


Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:47 PM
Very interesting to read about how you found out about the OLB, as well as the article on Overwijn from 1946.

If Goebels had forbidden his 1941 edition of the OLB, that would be most significant.
Now I would really like to read that version and compare it with his post-war (1951) edition.

I don't know what to think of that 1946 article.
It is possible that Overwijn made up that story to get rid of the fishy smell he must have had by having published his '41 OLB.
There was (and is) much black-and-white thinking after the war.
OLB can indeed be read as propaganda for racial purity and as said, OLB being also known as "Himmler's Bible" says enough.

Therefore, it would be important to have confirmed that his '41 edition was indeed illegal and to know what he wrote in it (other than his translation). What was Overwijn's '41 ideology? If he was not explicit about it, it may be readable 'between the lines'.

What many people will not know is that there are actually many parallels (not all obviously) between 'New Age' ideas and Nazi (specially SS) ideology.

Significantly, Jensma mentioned New Agers in one breath (Dutch expression) with nazis and right-extremists ('new-right'):

As I posted on 17 oct. 2010:
Jensma (2004; page 17)

"This Ottema was followed by a long row of believers of suspicious character. Of them SS-Führer Heinrich Himmler is most notorious, but he was certainly not the only one. Theosophists, nazi's, New Agers and right extremists of various sorts explained and still explain this OLB as an authentic and important source for our knowledge of western civilisation."

Original text:

"Deze Ottema kreeg een lange stoet van gelovigen van bedenkelijk allooi achter zich aan. De SS-Führer Heinrich Himmler is van hen de beruchtste, maar hij was zeker niet de enige. Theosofen, nazi's, New Agers en Nieuwe Rechtsen van allerlei pluimage verklaarden en verklaren dit Oera Linda-boek nog steeds voor een authentieke en belangrijke bron voor onze kennis van de westerse beschaving."

I edited your newspaper article for future reference:


0 Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:05 AM
Reasons to doubt Overwijn's resistance story and that his OLB work would have been illegal:

Source: www.oeralindaboek.nl/...dossier24

Overwijn. J.F., - De strekking van het O.L.B. Onze voorvaderen: de West-Friezen van Doggerland (Verslag van twee lezingen voor het genootschap 'Yggdrasil'). - Het Vaderland 1941, 25 Maart en 10 Apr.

Overwijn. J.F., - Thàt Ura Linda Bok, Opnieuw bewerkt en uitgegeven door --. - Enkhuizen, N.V. Enkhuizer Courant v.h. D.C. Egmond, 1941, LVII, 189, XXIV pp. 8° (get. Dordrecht, Aug. 1941). vgl [nr. *635].

Overwijn, J.F., - Merkwaardige namen en plaatsen in het O.L.B. - Ons Eigen Volk III, 1943, pp. 262-271.

The founder of Yggdrasil was a National Socialist.

In 1932 was hij [Elle Gerrit Bolhuis, 1887-1970] een van de oprichters van de Kelto-Germaanse Studiekring Yggdrasil. Vermoedelijk vlak voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog bekeerde hij zich tot het nationaalsocialisme.

source: nl.wikipedia.org/Elle_Gerrit_Bolhuis

And if his '41 book would have been forbidden, it would not have been reviewed in the Enkhuizer newspaper.


Abramelin Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:19 AM

What was Overwijns ideology??

All I can say, by reading his book (second edition, 1951), is that he was much influenced by Blavatsky ('root races') and Velikovsky.

And most if not all of his etymology was based on Celtic languages, and not anything (Germanic) we all here came up with.

I don't consider New Agers to be equal to Nazis, They both use(d) the same books, but came to different conclusions.

I also don't consider modern Pagans to be equal to Nazis, though they both used the same books and Nordic (and Celtic) myths to fabricate their beliefs.

I see no reason to doubt his resistance story because of what you posted about what he published.

Many here in the Netherlands wanted to go back to the good 'ol Germanic times, but not in the way the Nazis suggested.


Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:32 AM
Not equal, but being similar in ways may make them suspicious to some.

Overwijn's '51 edition will be different from the '41 ed.
It would be very interesting to know the differences.
So do you believe that Goebels forbade his book?!

It was published in the open and even reviewed in the newspaper.

He held lectures in NSB circles.

Enough reason to make up a resistance story (as many 'suspicious' people did).


Posted 29 November 2012 - 02:14 AM
Abramelin, on 29 November 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:
Remember, Goebels forbid Overwjn's book to be published AFTER his merry men found out/ concluded the OLB was nothing but nonsense.


If Goebels, head of propaganda, had forbidden it, Overwijn would not have given lectures for NS audiences and the Enkhuizer Crt. would not have written about it.

This lie about Goebels makes the whole '46 article suspicious.


Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:26 AM
Fragment v.h. artikel uit 1946:

Verder verscheen nog een ander boekje: Het Oera Linda boek (1941) dat o.a. door Goebels werd verboden. Toch gaat de heer Overwijn verder met de verspreiding, hoewel de beruchte ds. G. van Duyl, die tot de SS was overgegaan, hem ten stelligste had verboden op enigerlei wijze propaganda te maken, op straffe van onmiddelijke arrestatie. Ondanks deze waarschuwing worden beide boekjes geplaatst.

Overwijn, J.F., - Merkwaardige namen en plaatsen in het O.L.B. - Ons Eigen Volk III, 1943, pp. 262-271.

Ons eigen volk ~ Tijdschrift voor vaderlandse gebruiken, gewoonten en volksverhalen
Schagen : NV Drukkerij en Uitg.Mij. v.h. W.F.K.


Ik heb deze publicatie in handen gehad in het archief van Hoorn, en ik kan je verzekeren dat het geen verzetsblaadje was.

Overwijn was een fantast van het eerste uur (zijn woonboot noemde hij "het kasteel"), die zijn gave heeft ingezet om zich na de oorlog voor te doen als verzetsheld.

Als hij in de oorlog ter dood veroordeeld was, hadden ze hem niet nog een jaar lang gevangen gehouden.

Ik zou dat "boekje" uit 1941 wel eens willen lezen, om te zien waarom Goebels het zou hebben verboden.
En zijn vermeende doodsvonnis.


Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:49 AM
Abramelin, on 29 November 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:
... when he was arrested in Dordrecht in July 1943
by the enemy and after many long interrogations, was sentenced to death and after having spent a year in prison, was transferred to prisons in Germany in 1944

A death sentence would have led to immediate execution.
Why would 'the enemy' have spared his life and fed him for almost two years?

And again, if he worked for the resistance, why would he have been so utterly stupid to risk being arrested by publishing about the OLB in 1943, despite prohibition?!!!!!

It simply all does not make sense.


Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:53 AM
Abramelin, on 29 November 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

You seriously think they hand out medals for a captivating war story?

He will not have been the only one who performed that trick with success.

The only thing you need is a few friends who confirm your story (and in his case a journalist, or maybe he even wrote that '46 article himself).


Abramelin Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:55 AM

It all makes sense when you think of his writings as a cover-up. For the enemy he was only busy writing about some weird fantastic book, but most of the time he was gathering info.for the resistance.

Eventually the Germans nailed him, but they could use him for the info he had gathered. No doubt he was able to keep them busy checking his info. His 'gift' saved his ass, so to speak.


Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:59 AM
Overwijn has done more harm than good to the credibility of the OLB, with nonsensical claims like that the JOL script is 20.000 years old, and that "Atland" actually comes from the Mayan word Atl = water, war, hair on the head (source Jensma 2004, p.156).


Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:11 AM
Abramelin, on 29 November 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:
I think the OLB served for him as a way of relaxing, focusing on some fantasy to not go crazy by what happened in real life.

It's like some general writing poetry during a break in a siege. That doesn't mean that general is some airhead, or softy or whatever, it just helps him to stay mentally sane.

No comments:

Post a Comment