A little defensive aren't we?Lies were told and implications were made that were not true; responses occur.
Your message doesn't state your intent clearly. You object to some links on the bottom of the page?
I'm not in the mood for fencing so I'll continue. In addition to being a website for the study of Burzum, its declared intent, the late burzum.com also functioned more or less as an anus.com adjunct. That might not have been a conscious intention but that is how the website looks and reads. Whether or not it was 'directly associated' with that network of content and its authors I won't bother quibbling over. I'm not even sure why there's such an aggressive interest in disassociating the two.
Why the links? Preliminary evidence. I don't object to the links. Vikernes might. I like those websites for what they're worth (i.e., exposition, supplementary material). I speculate, however, that the man behind Burzum would
object to the links and perhaps more importantly some of the overlapping content which they and burzum.com share. I made an educated guess as to what specific problems Vikernes would have with the new website giving him the benefit of the doubt for argument's sake. I would have liked to see burzum.com receive official support because I think they would do a better job. Clear enough?