If you want to debate semantics, I'll say that what's there to admit? I never made any claims about what it is you're saying, other than that one citation of your original response. The closest was when I said that "If you wish to label all of those as nazism, only the nazis will thank you for it.". I didn't claim that you do, but if you do, then only the nazis will thank you for it.

What I did do was take what I perceived to be the reasoning behind your comment (this picture of people posing as vikings is too close to nazi symbolism, so the concept and aesthetics of vikings is too close to nazi symbolism, presumably due to the far-rights attempts to appropriate said aesthetics) and apply it in a wider context in an attempt to demonstrate why I have my issues with it. If the vikings are too close to nazi symbolism, then what else is? You didn't explain your reasoning, so I had to make some assumptions based on what I see around me in the world. We have plenty of neonazis here in Finland trying to appropriate ancient symbols for themselves, and we're having similar discussions about that here every now and then. Countries (even smaller ones) aren't hiveminds and you will find most opinions represented within them.

If you think that symbols shouldn't be surrendered to the nazis, then why take issue with this image where the viking aesthetic is being used outside of fascistic ideology? It only serves to diminish that association. And the fact that you do take issue with this, means that you don't want to see symbols which you consider to be too close to nazi symbolism to be used by those who don't wish to portray themselves as nazis, effectively surrendering the symbol to the nazis. If you want the concept and aesthetics of vikings to be surrendered to them, what other symbols do you want to surrender?

You make no efforts to clear up your stance to any of the above, so I'm still left speculating.