Nothing much seems to have changed. Our Snorrist continues to come up with scenario after scenario to maintain the basic views of Heimskringla about eastern invasions. Forbidden direct allusions to Odin and company, he has now concocted alternatives, with Maeotians and Bastarnians performing the roles. And I am sure this will go on forever. So I will end my participation in this scientifically useless exercise with quotes from a great philosopher and political theorist (I have cited him before). Substitute "Snorrism or equivalents" (mutatis mutandis) for the anti-Semitic ideology James Burnham uses as his primary example and you'll get the gist of the TP approach.
"A convinced believer in the anti-Semitic ideology tells me that the Bolshevik revolution is a Jewish plot. I point out to him that the revolution was led to its first major victory by the non-Jew, Lenin. He then explains that Lenin was the pawn of Trotsky, Radek, Kamenev, Zinoviev and other Jews who were in the Bolshevik High Command. I remind him that Lenin's successor as leader of the revolution, the non-Jew Stalin, killed off all those Jews; and that Stalin has been followed by the non-Jew Khrushchev, under whose rule there have been notable revivals of anti-Semitic attitudes and conduct. He then informs me that the seeming Soviet anti-Semitism is only a fraud invented by the Jewish press, and that Stalin and Khrushchev are really Jews whose names have been changed, with a total substitution of forged records. Suppose I
am able to present documents that even he will have to admit show this to be impossible. He is still unmoved. He tells me that the real Jewish conspiracy is not in Russia anyway, but in Antwerp, Tel Aviv, Lhasa, New York, or somewhere, and that it has deliberately eliminated the Jews from the public officialdom of the Bolshevik countries in order to conceal its hand and deceive the world about what is going on. Q.E.D. ...
An ideologist-- one who thinks ideologically-- can't lose. He can't lose because his answer, his interpretation and his attitude have been determined in advance of the particular experience of observation. They are derived from the ideology, and are not subject to the facts. There is no possible argument, obervation or experiment that could disprove a firm ideological belief for the very simple reason that an ideologue will not accept any argument, observation or experiment as constituting disproof. "