The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

A VR member named Shane had a post concerning the veracity of the existence of Prince Vlad Basarab III Draculea of Wallachia.

I did some research and posted a bibliography of some of Professor Radu Florescu's scholarly work on the Prince as well additional articles on Romanian culture and history. I came across a most fascinating article entitled "Vampires and the Antichrist. Rather than parrot it, I would like to begin a discussion after some of you have had time to read it and make comment. I think you will find it most thought provoking and conducive to intelligent discourse.

You can find it here.

Enjoy!!

By account, it is a very good and well written article and some similarities are a touch too co-incidental. The Fathering by, and some of the passages used for evidence also ring loudly.

Thank you kindly once again Vlad, for producing an article worth discussing and grinding one's teeth on. I look forward to someone starting the discussion.


___
Vix

A wonderful, interesting article with many thoughtful points. After reading, it is easy to see why someone would draw a comparison between vampires and the Antichrist.

However, Thompson is too eager to link the vampire and Antichrist in our “collective unconscious”, to show them to be characters inextricably linked in our common mythology. Most of his rationalizing comes from Biblical references and poorly disseminated historical and sociological facts.

It is intriguing to read his accounts of the origins of the Antichrist and vampire – both born of a union between the devil and a virgin. However, that is only one piece of vampiric folklore. Greek mythology also relates countless tales of offspring born of deceptive unions between gods and man, none of those resulting in a blood sucking creature. So deception of a virgin isn’t enough.

The author then makes several references to the Eastern European methods of killing vampires. This area, largely Christian, would of course have drawn from the Bible and sacred Tradition to eliminate an “unholy” threat from their midst. Simply stating the most effective weapon against vampires were “stakes made out of aspen or whitethorn, the first of which was used for Christ’s cross and the other for his crown of thorns” is hardly evidence to prove the vampire was born of a need to symbolize the Antichrist for a more modern time.

While Thompson makes many interesting points, his flimsy logic and faulty timeline are, in my opinion, his undoing. There may be a deeper argument within his work and perhaps someday we will have a better understanding of the nature of the beasts.

Thanks Vlad! coming from you it's probably good....I once came across an article about the cloning of the last known decendant in the darcula lineage...wish I could find it..

Excellent to see such responses. Siobhan has pointed out some of the author's stretching her thesis.

I called it a Fantastic Article because I could sense that it would be fodder for great discussion; a sort of microcosm for many of the discussions that occur here concerning faith. I am saving my remarks on this little article for awhile because I would like to hear more thoughts on the premise of Antichrist as Vampire.

I did note that this article was written for what looks to be a freshman level course in university. It is well written (grammatically) especially for that level of education.

So, let the praise and criticism continue. Credit for the article is of course on the article itself. The article interested me because it cites Professor Radu Florescu, who is one of the world's experts on Romanian myth - and Dracula.

It is indeed an interesting read but as stated before a bit flimsy. It was fun to read it but i don't think it is enough proof to build a theory.

The theory I feel has merit. The author's thesis, however, was faulty and lacked the proper support.

The idea of the vampire as the modern incarnation for the Antichrist is one that warrants further study. Perhaps more in-depth research will provide something more concrete.

Well done, as always. It'll be something I'll read through later though, currently reading off things about energy transferrence. :)

Thank's for this post. I found it most interesting. Your posts are always interesting to me. lol. I find that I always learn something I didn't know.

Great post as usual Vlad. I read about half of the article now and copied to read the rest later when my full attention can be on it thanks for more of your wisdom:):)

Interesting article indeed. As it's been said before, however, I see it as abit flimsy. It made me laugh even, at certain points. It's reminiscent of something a bible thumping Christian would spew forth to try and sway the younger crowd from even thinking about enjoying anything that had to do with Vampyres or Vampirism.

That's my two cents.

It seems we have had some really good critiques of this little article. Now, let's put a spin on it.

Assuming that the idea of the Anti-Christ IS a possible future "pretend" Messiah, how would a Vampire play this part? Would it be advantageous? What ramifications would there be for other Vampires? Finally, does this speak to an intrinsic morality of Vampires?

Have fun!

Hi Vlad,

It's an interesting notion- I'd say that if the Anti-christ were to exist and he (assuming it is a man) were indeed synonymous with vampyrism, then the intimation is that vampyrism will produce this being, so, it would be a disadvantage to the community as a whole, as they would become more feared than they are already.

He would likely remain hidden until a time when he came into full appreciation of his powers. He may be assigned a guardian to watch over him until then.

Not only that, but there would have to be watchers within to seek out potential targets, either to manipulate him to their own ends, or remove the threat entirely.

And I do beleive that he would be a threat to the established order of things in the underworld, even if not a direct opponent.

I think there was one point in there I noticed about Christ being the bringer of life. I would have to say that as Christ gives of life for others benefit, so the vampire takes away for its own, which is a good match as an anti-thesis.

The attributed powers of a vampyre would enable it to operate of a different level of existence, so, morality becomes more subjective than usual. But, looking at the Black Veil, how could that way of life for vampyres be reconciled with the nature of the Anti-christ?

Nice article. Very informative on comparing the two subjects.

Thank you for putting it out there.

I have to re-read the article again, but it looks very interesting. The idea to me that vampires and the antichrist could even be considered along the same path is ridiculous to me. I do not believe vampires to be evil people. To me they are very spiritual. The antichrist on the other hand, is not. Although he pretends to be. They mention in that article the Left Behind series. If you havent read it, do so, its great reading and all that is said in those books are coming true.

Hmmm, depending on the vampyre and his ways, they would remain in the shadows until the time is right or go completely out into the public eye, letting it be known they were there and ready to cause a total breakdown of the world as we know it.

Thank you so much for the article. It was very interesting and made me think of things that I have never really thought of before.

I think I saw something like that on the history channle. LOL