We may experience a change – perhaps better times after all

A war of terror is perhaps too difficult to bring to an end without too many limitations and lost of citizens rights.
Right now the sheep are being separated from the goats. The split of Jew haters and Jews supporters may be the first step. When it has been going on for some time the violence shall increase. The split we experience will of necessity spread naturally to the whole of Europe.
This might lead to split of EU on the real or the concrete level, no longer on an ideologic level of phrases and general camp following thoughts and actions including new-Mercantilism and Eurabia.
Ideology gathers, but reality spread.
Earlier we actually have heard tiny peeps about an Europe with much less USA-involvement or without speculators’ engagement from the unknowing-parrots who have not understood that especially such a system has basicly been made by themselves.
They and their predecessors have even done the same time after time, but most of them are historyless and just blinded by their own power or ideologic dreams about an abstract future, yes, then they forget the big pendulum of history that always returns, because it is the same people, the same human characters that make the mess every time. In addition they even have via Etic Order abolished the human characters as useful concepts, and created a new man to consolidate their power or secure themselves and their descendants.
Ideology, Etics and Politics had to be melted together, two generations at the summit claimed, because they got their will by using their brains without wisdom.
Perhaps it shall give the necessary result that will show itselves, if it does: war of terror and treachery may perhaps be turned to a frontier war, where the enemies know each other and respectively their real alliances.
This war can then be won.

J. E. Vig,
http://www.lilliput-information.com
http://Danmark.Wordpress.com

If Vatican would be communist ridden then it would not be subject of aggression by communist crowds. Their policy helped to destroy communism in my country. It is a pity that euro-socialists whom did nothing in this direction hijacked this success, of course with blessing and protection of former communists.

Perhaps you are aware of the young American monarchist, Theodore Harvey? See http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/

No offense taken. Our degraded Episcopal Church claims the apostolic succession and also claims to be part of the universal Christian church. One of its principles is that the efficacy of the sacraments is not impaired by the sin of the person who administers them. My conclusion is that I don't reject "the offer of Christ" by declining to switch from one imperfect, liberal- and communist-ridden communion to another. That said, I revere Pope Benedict and would not be sorry if the Anglican communion merged with the Roman church. The fact that liberals are in the saddle at most levels does not distinguish them from most political, cultural, commercial, and academic institutions of our time.

Thanks for your comments on your monarchism. I am afraid that Chavez represents the kind of monarchy we are likely to get, the usurpation of democratic government by tyrants as a result of the failure of democratic governments to govern. King Obama's indifference to the limitations on his powers and to the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers in our constitution is also a bad sign of things to come.

No offence but I feel necessary to criticize your attitude. It seems to me, that your attitude toward the church is characteristic to many Protestants in the US. You have over there plenty of Protestant sects and people seems to skip from one church to another without much of reflection. Theology is being marginalized in favour of shallow personal political perception.

Spiritually considered, you are correct, but when you join an earthly church, you support it with donations of money, time, and a vote of approval. I could hardly support a church that exploits the Christian name to break our immigration laws and abet the Mexican invasion!

As for monarchism, doesn't the example of Great Britain prove--yet again, as we might say on July 5--that monarchy can be as bad as any other form of government? I think what you must object to is not democracy per se, but government founded on lies about human nature. Liberalism, with its excessive insistence on liberty and equality, is what destroys society, not democracy. A democratic society based on traditional realistic principles regarding human nature and society would not show the pathologies for which you hold democracy responsible. This is where Voegelin comes in, with his analysis of modern political movements in terms of Gnostic political rebellions.

In 1 Samuel, you see monarchy described as a falling away from direct government by God. When the Hebrews demand a king, they are signing up for oppressive servitude. In E.A. Thompson's The Early Germans, you see monarchy as a usurpation of the relative equality of clan-based government by tyrants imitating Roman government. The best argument for monarchy is contiuity of a workable, existing order. Have you read Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France? An outstanding statement of monarchic traditionalism. However, once the tradition is lost, as it now is, there is no bringing it back.

Drawing new designs for government is a worthy occupation of free men. There is no reason monarchists can't participate in the competition. Personally, I favor the U.S. Constitution, as should be, without the corrupting gloss of liberal judicial interpretation. To some extent, our Supreme Court has turned it into its opposite, as have Congress and the people with their amendments.

I am very upset with the liberalism that pervades the Episcopal church, which is in an even more advanced state of rot, anti-Americanism, white guilt, and dhimmitude than the Catholic church. I have thought of becoming a Catholic, but you have too many Communists!

Yes, and there were many, many different tribes of American Indians, and Mexicans living in what is now Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and former Africans and descendants of Africans who had been here since before the Pilgrims, but that doesn't affect that fact that America was a northwestern European country in its predominant ethnicity, culture and institutions.

Sorry, I don't follow "accidental" in connection with "syllogisms" in connection with this subject matter. Have a great Fourth!

To our friends at Brussels Journal: Happy Independence Day!

I guess you didn't know that there were Chinese and Japanese immigrants in America since the 19th century.

By the term, "accidental", I am speaking of syllogisms.

I don't think either the ethnicity or the change in ethnicity are accidental. America is a northwestern European country. In 1965, a coalition of liberals passed an immigration bill designed to undermine and diminish the predominance of the northwestern European demographic. They lied about it at the time, saying it would not change the ethnio make up of the country. (The same way they lied that the Civil Rights Act would not result in racial quotas.) Connivance of business interests and liberal political interests (including churches and unions) resulted in an unholy alliance to seek economic and political gain, respectively, by importing cheap labor and Democratic voters.

It is a shame Obama got the majority of the Catholic vote; I chalk it up to Irish-led Catholic resentment of WASPs. The 1965 Immigration Act was a Ted Kennedy bill. There is a connection. Evangelicals liked the military traditions and apparent reasonableness of McCain and the outspoken Evangelism of Palin. Evangelicals are mainly WASPs and don't always respond well to anti-WASP resentment, though they generally don't know it when it is staring them in the face. It takes a Jeremiah Wright for them to notice--an immigration regime designed to destroy them, an affirmative action regime designed to deprive them, a cultural regime designed to belittle and discourage them--those they don't mind. On the whole, Evangelicals seem quite gullible, easily led to amnesty and global warmism.

I am very upset with the liberalism that pervades the Episcopal church, which is in an even more advanced state of rot, anti-Americanism, white guilt, and dhimmitude than the Catholic church. I have thought of becoming a Catholic, but you have too many Communists!

Perhaps I should have worded my first comment more clearly. However, I think that when it comes to being an American, ethnicity is accidental, and is clearly changing.

I am very upset with the liberalism that permeates the Roman Catholic Church in the US. Bishops are offering "sanctuary" and aid to illegals, in blatant opposition to our immigration laws (no different than our politicians), and Obama got the majority of the Catholic vote. Strangely enough, evangelicals (of which I am not) overwhelmingly voted for McCain/Palin.

What do you think of that?

Thanks for your reply. Not to split hairs, but earlier you said America has no ethnic identity, not that "being an American is not based on an ethnic or racial group." I described the American ethnic identity as I understand it. Being an American undoubtedly involves rootedness and participation in American families and communities, and there are ethnic and racial components to that. So I think American identity, without being based on an ethnic or racial group, has racial and ethnic elements, in combination with other elements. They affect what communities you can participate in and on what basis. There is no simple formula for determining their relevance.

Membership in an international religious community is obviously different from membership in a nation, if the religion's basic principles say, anyone who believes, belongs.

I did not say you claimed people of any race and culture can assimilate to America. Your idea is a different one, as I said. The "odd ramblings" were a brief attempt to explain Americans' tendency to see themselves as a bloodless, disembodied "proposition nation" as a consequence of American Protestantism, which emphasizes individual salvation at the expense of the spiritual history of nations centered on the Incarnation of Christ.

In discussing immigration policy, I do deny free will as a practical matter. A nation can't count on any group of people to want to give up a foreign culture. If a particular individual is likely to assimilate and would add something significant to the nation, and would not harm it, then immigration for that individual could be considered.

Home-grown aliens: As you suggest, our original British Americans are at least as prone to resentfully attack and try to remake our society as every other group. What can I say, resentment is a universal human phenomenon, afflicting natives as well as new aliens. It is up to the faithful to control the apostates as best we can. Our civil war was fought when we were our least diverse. So, even if we control immigration and reverse the demographic slide, we will still have big problems with the liberals. Happy Independence Day!

Where have I denied America's Anglo Saxon origins? I simply stated that being an American is not based on an ethnic or racial group. Is it that hard to wrap one's mind around such a concept? Belief in this concept does not deny America's origins. Indeed, by your reasoning, one can say that Christianity is Semitic by nature, and that Europeans cannot be, and never were primary "Christians".

The notion that people of any race and culture can assimilate to America merely by adopting certain political principles is a destructive delusion, probably related to the dominance of a Protestantism that emphasizes mind at the expense of matter and thus fails to grasp the full meaning of the Incarnation.

First, I never made such a claim. I do believe that certain cultures or religions are inimical to the American values delineated in our Declaration and our Constitution, such as Islam or Atheism. I'd like to restrict Muslim immigration to America, full stop. However, why do you think people of any culture cannot do what you claim? Is it impossible for a person to reject their own culture which opposes American values and embrace American ones? You seem to deny free will here, which is strange, in light of your odd ramblings about the Incarnation, which make little sense to me in that paragraph.

Lastly, I know of many Americans who are of British ancestry and have rejected said American values by embracing socialism and voting for Obama and his policies. So, explain that.

It has? Do show me where. Last I heard, evolution is still a theory.

Re: Sumerian mythology. Read up on GK Chesterton's explanation of mythology, foreshadowment, psychology, and Christology.

KA: The scientific method cannot prove the validity of the theory of evolution because there is no opportunity to conduct controlled experiments. It is non-falsifiable. On the other hand, to many minds, the hypothesis of evolution satisfactorily organizes a great deal of evidence and is consistent with other broadly supported hypotheses about the nature of things. Much is left out of the picture by dogmatic materialism, however. Generative anthropology provisionally accepts the materialist evolution of prehumans up to the point where, in a hypothetical punctual event, the human, language, and the divinity simultaneously emerge. That hypothesis will be found more probable than the gradual evolution of the human from the non-human, language from animal signing, and divinity ex nihilo, advocated by the Darwinists.

atheling: I am surprised someone who goes by "atheling" would appear to deny the centrality of the English people, joined by the British peoples generally, and the Irish, and other northwestern Europeans, and subsequently by southern and eastern Europeans, in the composition of the primary American ethnicity. Black and Latino Americans (and Asian Americans) are Americans, but not of the primary American ethnicity. America is a nation with a people and a culture (accompanied by many subcultures). The notion that people of any race and culture can assimilate to America merely by adopting certain political principles is a destructive delusion, probably related to the dominance of a Protestantism that emphasizes mind at the expense of matter and thus fails to grasp the full meaning of the Incarnation. Blood is thick, and culture is thick. They are not universal solvents. Your idea seems less destructive--that there is a single "civic culture." That does not exclude the idea that many or most cultures in the world may be incompatible with our civic culture, and therefore people carrying those cultures should not be permitted to immigrate.

Edensfelt: I don't think nationality can be defined by territory. Didn't the Japanese invade and start pushing aside the Ainus? And the Anglo-Saxons, the Romanized Britons? And the Germans and Slavs, their Celtic predecessors? And the Hebrews, the Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, and Philistines? And the Han Chinese, the dozens of nationalities they met and mastered south of the Yellow River? And the Zulus and Afrikaaners, the Khoi and San? And the Arabs, the Syrians, Jews, Egyptians, Persians, and Roman Africans? And our English ancestors, the Wampanoags and Pequots? Didn't all the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas invade and and start competing for land and food? Peoples move around, establish themselves at the expense of other peoples, and defend their territory by arms and argument. The American nation exists, it has been developing for 400 years on the North American continent. It claims the right to its territory, and its people are natives of that land. Happy Independence Day!

(P.S. Generative anthropology has "proven" (by advancing a viable hypothesis) that Natural Law is based on the original distribution of the original victim under the authority of the original revelation of the divine.)

The scientific method has proven the validity of evolution. What science has not proven, is the absence of intelligent design.
 
While the Biblical notions of intelligent design do not stand up to science, that does not rule out other forms, or that humans do not have "special" intelligent design. Given the vast differences between modern humans and the other lifeforms on Earth and discovered thus far in the universe, we are exceptional.
 
And you'll note that Biblical descriptions of "creation" are derived ultimately from Sumerian mythology.
 
 

I hate to break it to you, Edensfelt, but America is the only nation without an ethnic identity.  Unlike the rest of the world, our citizenship is based on a civic identity, not a racial one. 

Science hasn't even proven evolution, so you can't make the claim about Natural Law and evolution.

Natural Law doesn't emanate from the 'devine'. Has science proven this?

Science has, however, proven that Natural Law is part and parcel of the evolutionary process.

You object to the concept of native peoples and perceive the term as ambiguous. I suggest my following submission is at least one of the reasons why you hold this view.

Has it not occurred to you that you are not native to America? Assuming you are of white European stock, you are native to Europe. For example, a white European born in Japan, regardless of his/her generational status, is NOT native to Japan and will never be native to Japan. The same applies to white Europeans, Arabs, Negroes, South Asians and assorted sub-continent Indians. None of these are native to America.

Of course genocide is highly destructive, it goes without saying, for goodness sake. So is self-defence also self-destructive, but does that mean we should never engage in it? If defending one's homeland and peoples from invading alien masses cannot be achieved peacefully, the alternative may well result in genocide either of the invading masses or the indigenous, or capitulation and subsequent enslavement of the latter.

"......with the objection that peoples only have the "right" to do what they are able to do, and they are only able to do what they have cultivated and prepared themselves to do."

If peoples, according to you, only have the right to do what they are able as long as they have cultivated and prepared themselves to do it first, then their remaining goals yet unrealized due to whatever obstacle, must be deemed illigitimate. What nonsense!

As you've already stated, you personally do not believe in the rights of indigenous peoples to their own living spaces hence your having placed quotation marks around the word - "rights".

So-called 'positive' or 'institutional' law, in relation to the question of ancestral birthright and racial identity, doesn't come into it. No socially constructed law has supremacy or jurisdiction over the rights of indigenous peoples to fight for the reclamation and retention of what are their own ancestral homelands.

If you believe in Natural Law, you believe in a transcendent standard for judging the justice or injustice of human actions, which you might as well concede is divine.

"If you believe in natural law, you are not a Gnostic but a possibly Voegelinian conservative who seeks the attunement of human society with the divine."

Yes, I believe in Natural Law. Regarding the rest of your diagnosis as to the classification of my political persuasions, I'll overlook your interpretation on that one, if I may, thank you very much.

"The argument that a religion is "man-made" may just be a curt denial of the divine,....."

Likewise, the argument that a religion is devine may just be a curt denial of the physical.

1. "There is nothing muddled or perverted about advocating steps to reclaim and secure the homeland and culture of one's nation."

Agreed.

2. "What is perverted, is the ignoring of the fact of other alien races and their cultures constituting a direct threat to the survival of the native peoples whose homelands they invade and proliferate in unhindered, and any amount of smug self-righteous preaching to the contrary at those who attempt to advocate every measure necessary to reverse this tide of genocide, can only be perceived as suspect and treacherous."

Agreed, but objecting to the concept of "native" peoples as ambiguous. I consider the U.S.A. as my home, myself as a native, and with the right and desire to preserve it as it should be, but someone else may just call me a European colonist. Also objecting to the extent you are characterizing the rejection of genocide as suspect and treacherous. Genocide can be highly destructive to the perpetrators, and is rarely justified by self-defense, though a people may bring genocide on themselves by their bad behavior.

3. "Christianity is a passive religion and as such is unfit for purpose. Marxists and Muslims, not to mention the multitude of other belief systems, see Christianity as a wet theology and an easy one to manipulate and thus pervert."

Disagree, in the sense that Christianity has been and can be again aligned with a people's defense of its own existence. Think of Charles Martel and Alfred the Great, Offa, Edwin, Oswald, Charlemagne. With respect to contemporary Christian institutions, I agree about 98%. The mainstream churches are among the West's most destructive enemies.

4. "Present-day Christianity exhibits no backbone because it has allowed Marxism to infiltrate its core message and moral code which has, in turn, muddled and muddied the minds of its clergy and adherents."

Agreed, except that liberalism has its own trajectory separate from Marxism. Enlightenment humanitarianism is more the foundation of Christianity today than revelation, and it predates Marxism.

5. "Distinct peoples and that includes white peoples, have a right to remove from their respective homelands, any whom they deem to be a threat to their continued existence of whatever ethnicity or numbers."

Agreed, with the objection that peoples only have the "right" to do what they are able to do, and they are only able to do what they have cultivated and prepared themselves to do. Your statement is consistent with natural law (which probably requires you to consider if some strangers will nonetheless be loyal and thus exempt from repatriation), but there is no positive law or institutional basis for the right you identify. A people can determine it has this right and seek to enforce it. If it fails to do so, the right is meaningless and might as well not exist. When people start asserting rights to land that is not theirs, they should be shipped home.

Ever read Sienkiewicz's With Fire and Sword? Prince Jeremiy Wisnowiecki terrified the Cossacks to protect Catholic Christian civilization, and he successfully maintained the frontier, but in the process generated so much hatred that the Cossacks rebelled and almost destroyed Poland. Sometimes there are no easy choices.

"Thank you Edensfelt, your dissection was a complete success please pick up your head on the way out. Your suicidal and genocidal tendencies suggest to me that maybe Islam is not as much a threat to you as you believe."

Actually, beheading is decapitation, not dissection. If you must attempt to be comical at least try and be etymologically correct.

According to you, anyone who advocates the preservation and survival of their homeland, race and heritage, by whatever means necessary, is suicidal and genocidal and thus more dangerous than Islam.

That just about sums up your irrational thought processes on this particular thread and very likely, on all the threads on this website.

Thanks for your reply. Here are some somewhat random thoughts on the subject. You may say you're an agnostic, but you must regard something as the ultimate reality, such as subatomic partices or the Force. If you believe in the Enlightenment program of progressive secular rationalism, you are a Gnostic in Voegelinian terms, though I realize that, when you said the Enlightenment is the source of contemporary Western civilization, you were not necessarily saying that you yourself adhere to the Enlightment program.

If you think that peoples have rights, where do they get them from? Natural law? If you believe in natural law, you are not a Gnostic but a possibly Voegelinian conservative who seeks the attunement of human society with the divine.

The Bertonneau article addresses the criticism that Gnosticism to Voegelin meant practically everything, so I don't have anything to add. The argument that a religion is "man-made" may just be a curt denial of the divine, or it may include an admission that human societies generate commanding belief systems over which no individual has control. If men regard a religion as transcendent, if it exists outside every individual, if it inspires strong feelings of obligation, if it inspires revelations that transcend the interests (and abilities) of the individual to whom they are revealed, if its commands are consistent with the long-term well-being of the people, if institutions develop its substance through discovery and discussion, and if its fundamental structure is consistent with the universal experience of humankind, then the assertion it is "man-made" does not really serve any function except as a rationalization for non-participation. It may embody truth, and the truth may be a transcendent truth. If it embodies a transcendent truth, does it matter if it is man-made, or does "man-made" mean anything? (Faith is involved in believing in it or not believing in it. You either have faith or you don't, and if you don't you can only get it by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who in fact wants to give it to you.)

I agree that most modern Christians are liberals first and Christians second and therefore are probably Voegelinian gnostics.

Christianity, is not about the preservation of race and culture it is about the preservation of itself.

One cannot have a homogeneous nation if one is an advocate of multiracialism. If you are in favour of the indigenous white races remaining the majority races in a multiracial environment, you are not being truly honest when you refuse to defend the right of indigenous peoples to repatriate any race(s) that would constitute a direct threat to their own continued existence and preservation of their own homeland(s).

Taking the view that repatriation is somehow unholy and wicked, is to deliberately deny the fact that left unchecked, the multiracial others WILL collectively demographically outstrip the native peoples leading to the theft of the ancestral homeland of all indigenous white Europeans since all of Europe is affected by this Marxist Liberal genocide agenda.

Can you not see this? Why do you remain so blind to this fact?

There is nothing muddled or perverted about advocating steps to reclaim and secure the homeland and culture of one's nation.

What is perverted, is the ignoring of the fact of other alien races and their cultures constituting a direct threat to the survival of the native peoples whose homelands they invade and prolificate in unhindered, and any amount of smug self-righteous preaching to the contrary at those who attempt to advocate every measure necessary to reverse this tide of genocide, can only be perceived as suspect and treacherous.

Christianity is a passive religion and as such is unfit for purpose. Marxists and Muslims, not to mention the multitude of other belief systems, see Christianity as a wet theology and an easy one to manipulate and thus pervert.

Present-day Christianity exhibits no backbone because it has allowed Marxism to infiltrate its core message and moral code which has, in turn, muddled and muddied the minds of its clergy and adherents.

Distinct peoples and that includes white peoples, have a right to remove from their respective homelands, any whom they deem to be a threat to their continued existence of whatever ethnicity or numbers.

I've already stated that I'm not a believer of Christianity. I'm Agnostic. My views can't therefore, be equated with a so-called Gnostic variety of Christianity of which there is no such creed (ie, your supposed Gnostic variety of Christianity).

Christianity is a man-made religion like all religions. It is not, therefore, infallible and there are contradictions to be found in all supposed holy books.

Gnosticism according to you it seems, can be applied to just about every idea or belief including those of nonreligious origin. Well, since Christianity like all 'religions', are man-made inventions at source whose adherents question/deny each other's tenets in the quest for dominance, that makes all of them Gnostic too.

Thanks for your reply. We know so little of blog posters, and like to think they will be drawn to simple truths. A stranger may be basically sound, but have seized on certain forms of speech/thought as the first thing he found that differed from official lies, or he may be a mad dog that cannot be reasoned with and should be put down.

Moslems do not belong in the West, illegal Mexicans do not belong in the U.S.A., and black incompetence and brutality should not be humored or denied, but these judgments flow from an idea of good order that is within reach and related to actual reality, the recent past and the potential present and future, not based on an unknown and irrelevant archeological past. The white Western world of historical times is real and can be preserved. Small numbers of other races who bear foreign cultures can be incorporated, but it is suicidal for a people to blind itself to the reality of "natural" loyalties and disloyalties that will tear an excessively mixed society apart. Whites conservative and liberal are doing that. Out of idealism and noblesse oblige, they pretend racial and cultural others will all join them in common humanity. They are condemning their descendants and the descendants of their beneficiaries to sickening civil wars. Which have already begun, by the way.

The West will be better off if its fantasists of all stripes, the colorblind humanitarians and the gene-maddened WNs, will put their shoulders to the wheel of achieving the just order that is within reach.

PS. To Voegelin, Islam and Enlightenment rationalism are both Gnostic political religions.

You talk about the white race in one post and about ethnicity in the other. You read about the Holy Roman Empire but you do not care to read about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or about the Hungarian kingdom and its policy of magyarization because you does not belong to these nationalities. Last time I checked, the Hungarians and the Poles and Lithuanians were Whites. If you'd read about these empires and kingdoms then perhaps you would understand my point, but despite all I have written you keep focusing on race and, not surprisingly, genetics and a Darwinian ethic of survival instinct.

If my brother with whom I share half of my genetic code is oppressing another man, then I will not defend my brother but the oppressed. I don't base my morality on genetics and Darwinianism. That is not to say I ignore the biological and psychological differences between races, men, women, children, and so on. There is order in creation and in nature, and therefore there are differences, i.e. inequalities, and these differences are good and are to be respected. There would be no families or society if all were equally as intelligent, beautiful, healthy, and so on. However, I believe that all have been created equal and none is better or more worth protecting merely because of genetic relations.

Every individual is equal because all have been created in the image of God. I will not base my thinking on modern-day tribal notions of genetic affinity, and neither has Western civilization done this after the christianization of the pagan tribes - until the racialists and ideological race eugenicists came along. I don't care about my family because of my genes, I care about them for what they mean to me and what they represent. The same is true of Western civilization. I wish to defend truth, morality and justice above all else - even at the cost of being alienated by my own people or the stubborn White race.

Pale Rider

You replied to Edensfelt:
"I must not have made myself clear. ..."
 
You stated it very clearly the first time. Keep in mind that Edensfelt is in a frenzy to do whatever is necessary to save the white race, or some mythical subset thereof. Clarity and frenzy seldom come to a mutual understanding.
 
As for Christianity and nationalism, you were right the first time no need to concede ambiguity to an individual who traffics in muddle political theories.  Christianity clearly embraces the  concepts of races and nations while its moral code clearly rejects Edensfelt's twisted perversions of those concepts.
 
Humor Edensfelt's hysteria out of pity if you choose but be careful he might appoint you shadow minister of resettlement where you are responsible for figuring out the logistics of sending various ethnic groups back to their ancestral homelands. I would suspect most of us would be rather torn apart by such an Edensfelt resettlement plan. Literally torn apart. And so the bloody saga of Edensfelt and Ethno-Nationalism continues...

Mes amis: There are infinite numbers of strategies short of genocide for a people to achieve its ends and preserve itself in being. Why run to extremes? As a white Westerner one is faced with the task of kindling even a modest spark of self-preservation in the hearts of ones fellows. The abolition of affirmative action, multiculturalism, appeasement of hostile neighbors and domestic barbarians, open borders, socialism, pacifism, and the green religion are worthy goals in themselves. No use engaging in bloody fantasies.

"I believe that people should be prepared to not only fight to the death if necessary, but to eradicate the enemy entirely in the process."

Thank you Edensfelt, your dissection was a complete success please pick up your head on the way out. Your suicidal and genocidal tendencies suggest to me that maybe Islam is not as much a threat to you as you believe.
 

 "Ethno-nationalism asserts only that each race has an inalienable right to defend its individual ancestral territory, people, heritage, language, belief system and culture by any means necessary."

Edensfelt's Machiavellian ways with apologies to the real Machiavelli who knew better.

I must not have made myself clear. I did not say you were a Gnostic Christian, but that your description of Christianity is actually a description of an erroneous, Gnostic variety of Christianity. I was advocating a non-Gnostic Christianity. However, since you say the soul of the West lies in the Enlightenment, not Christianity, I also ventured to suggest you are a Gnostic of another kind, Voegelin having described Enlightenment rationalism as another variety of Gnosticism.

I would agree that Christianity is somewhat ambiguous on the question of race and nation, but when you see how much nations and ethnicities are part of the assumed structure of reality in the old and new testaments, you can see that Scripture does not automatically endorse today's anti-nationalism.

P.2

I would say we are all wounded soldiers on the battlefield and that's because the malign forces who are attacking white nations have not been properly identified let alone targeted - yet!!!

I instinctively know what needs to be done, but the majority of indigenous European peoples would not have the stomach for it because bread and circuses has engulfed them and they revel in the enslavement it represents.

I believe that people should be prepared to not only fight to the death if necessary, but to eradicate the enemy entirely in the process. Let's face it, there is no point in sacrificing one's race and culture unless one can ensure mutual destruction.

Pt.1

I'm continuing with my dissection of your post of Saturday, 20/6/09

"Ethno-nationalism as you champion it is no better than the multiculturalism you abhor, both err in asserting any one race is inferior or superior at an existential level."

I disagree with your opinion here. Ethno-nationalism is nothing like multiculturalism which you are attempting to identify it with. Ethno-nationalism as a belief system most certainly does not hold that one race is superior or inferior to another. Ethno-nationalism asserts only that each race has an inalienable right to defend its individual ancestral territory, people, heritage, language, belief system and culture by any means necessary.

Incidently, I thought 'multiculturalism' was about denying the existence of race altogether so how could this particular ideology be asserting that any one race is inferior or superior at the existential level as you put it?

Regarding, your opinion that the Archbish of Canterbury's problem is that he's merely just a lousy Anglian, is very naive indeed in my view. When one encourages the conquest of one's land and peoples by the followers of an enemy creed which violently hate one's own creed, hates one's brethren, has an extremely long history of committing atrocities against one's flock and is still committing such atrocities right up to the present day, I would consider such behaviour much more grievious than being simply a bad Anglian - I would call it Treason.

KO

Where you got your wacky notion from that I'm of Gnostic belief, is anyone's guess. I am an Agnostic as a matter of fact!

"Possibly, if you are exposed to non-Gnostic orthodox Christianity that affirms races and nations as part of the divine order, you will give up your Gnostic religion of Enlightenment. Read Voegelin--or Bertonneau!"

If you had been reading my posts accurately, you should have already established that I have been asserting my belief in the existence of race and nation throughout and meeting with opposition to my stance from some posters which is part and parcel of open debate anyway.

Christianity tends to come across as rather ambiguous on the question of race and nation. This creed doesn't actually make clear pronouncements on the subject. The only biblical accounts I can recall is Christ's reference to Jews being of an untrustworthy and rather dishonest nature (or words to that effect).

What true colours are you alluding to precisely?

Of course, ethnicity is partly about race. It is also about the heritages/cultures/languages/traditions created by the various races. Whether you buy into it or not, is beside the point! This thread is not about your opinions alone. Others are entitled to hold them as well.

You then go on to protest that you didn't say race or ethnicity is insignificant which would suggest that you don't entirely disagree that race/ethnicity is a reality. However, one cannot agree or even only partly agree with the reality of race/ ethnicity if one then declares his/her opposition to what are, in fact, inalienable rights of ethnic groups to forge their own destinies in their own ancestral homelands by maintaining total control of all of the institutions their forbearers and they created, bearing in mind that failure to do so will result in alien groups attempting usurpation and dispossession.

This desire to safeguard and preserve each's ancestral homeland and each's institutions exclusively for each's ethny and each's progeny alone, is called Ethno-nationalism and you have just admitted you oppose it.

I am not suggesting we return to Paganism so you have got that wrong. You are far too quick to jump to conclusions about what others have said, even to the point of insinuating something that wasn't mentioned or said in the first place.

You seem to be implying that Ethno-nationalism means the undoing of a nation's past, be it whole or part and for that reason, I believe you have somehow developed a misconception about what Ethno-nationalism is.

Yes, I have, in the past, read about the Holy Roman Empire. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Magyarization are not topics which I find of any importance to me personally right now, since I'm not of any of those nationalities.

The following links might be helpful in explaining an inherent survival instinct that is wholly natural and absolutely imperative toboot, and is to be found in all distinct and individual living organisms.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sallis-Salter.html

http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Interests-Ethnicity-Humanity-Migration/dp/1412805961/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_2

Thanks for revealing your true colors. It turns out that what I have been saying was correct. Your notion of ethnicity is really one of race, and I'm not buying into that. I used my own 'ethnicity' in my elaboration to point out how problematic a 'nationalist' ideology based on race or ethnicity is. Nowhere did I say race or ethnicity is insignificant either, you choose to believe that because of my opposition to ethno-nationalism. I also used examples other than my own ancestry, such as the case of the Hungarians. I also suggest you go read about feudalism, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Magyarization, the Holy Roman Empire, etc. If you really want to go back to pre-Christian pagan Europe then I think you've come to the wrong website. I don't hate my pagan ancestors and I am willing to recognize that some pagan civilizations achieved great things. Our civilization does certainly owe a lot to the Greeks and Romans as well. However, I am thankful that my pagan ancestors converted to the 'Middle Eastern' (sic) religion of Christ the Messiah. Neither do I wish to undo over a thousand years of heritage. That'll be all from my part.

"Jews More Dangerous for the European Right than for the European Left"
More accurate.

Capo: I look forward to your engagement with Bertonneau on Voegelin on Gnosticism. You seem to have identified Edenfelt's interpretation of Christianity as a Gnostic one, purely spiritual and unconcerned with the body, thus denying one of the central pillars of Christianity, the Incarnation (not to mention bodily resurrection). It is also a Gnostic interpretation of Christianity, common to leftist Christians, that it negates nations and races. It doesn't, though leftists would like it to. As Auster points out in his excellent article on how liberal Christianity undermines nationality, quoting the Book of Revelations, salvation comes to nations, and to individuals as members of nations.

Edenfelt: I will give this to you--race is significant, it is a part of who everyone is. You are just wrong to think Christianity negates it. There is a lawn sign in my liberal city, "Would Jesus discriminate?" My answer is yes, he would, and he does, for he sees everyone for exactly what he is. Possibly, if you are exposed to non-Gnostic orthodox Christianity that affirms races and nations as part of the divine order, you will give up your Gnostic religion of Enlightenment. Read Voegelin--or Bertonneau!

"Christianity needs to go back to its roots and its roots are not in the West, they are in the Middle East."
 
Edenfelt, I knew that inner druid in you was just waiting to burst forth and cleanse the West from the corruption of foreign gods.

"Christianity needs to go back to its roots and its roots are not in the West, they are in the Middle East."
 
Edenfelt, I knew that inner druid in you was just waiting to burst forth and cleanse the West from the corruption of foreign gods.

"I will continue disecting the rest of your remarks in due course."

I await my dissection, as you attempt to make your bloody mess my bloody mess.

You seem to be of the opinion that only culture is of any importance and that race plays seemingly little or no part in the creation of it.

Your veering off into a litany of your personal genetic ancestral roots, is irrelevant as all of those nationalities are racially white European. The associated cultures and languages were their creations alone and are distinct to them.

You then go on to suggest that race plays a secondary role to culture, but how could these cultures have arisen if not for the reality of race which you deny is of supreme relevance?

Nations are not compositions of black, brown, yellow and white races all occupying the same living space(s), nations are that of single races and their cultures occupying their own individual living space(s). The former condition amounts to what I've often heard referred to as a zoo or menagerie.

For the adherents of religion, in this case, Christianity to assert that culture only is of the essence, is to state that it doesn't matter if white European nations and their cultures are diluted and inevitably erased by alien non-white cultures as a result of mass invasion as long as Christianity rules supreme once again which could only be achieved via the majority conversion of all invaders to Christianity - an event that in reality, ain't likely to happen and of which, I suspect, you are perfectly aware.

You must recognise that Christianity by its nature, a universal creed, is in the business of spiritual redemption only and has no interest in the survival of the physical being of man. Its value system could not care less if every racial group were to fuse into one thereby eradicating true human diversity.

Christianity needs to go back to its roots and its roots are not in the West, they are in the Middle East.

"However, where you consistently fall down,and what you run away from,is an understanding of that tradition and its unique and central role in defining Western Civilization."

Upon reading the various contributions on this thread, it appears to be the case that a couple of posters have decided that Christianity should be reinstated as the spiritual driving force in European Civilisation (or what's left of it) and that Conservatism is the only vehicle by which to achieve this goal. (How naive!) Every other alternative viewpoint is either flamed or dismissed, leaving others feeling somehow obliged to agree, lest their contributions to the debate be shot down in flames.

These same posters bang on endlessly about how Christianity was the defining force in Western Civilisation. So what if it was, emphasis being on the past tense!

I am perfectly aware of the role played by Christianity in the foundations of European Civilisation, to be specific, over the past 1,700 years or so, but I do not agree with the notion that European Civilisation depended on it as some posters on here obviously believe. Christianity, as you acknowledge has caused pain and suffering down through the ages and would again if it were to be afforded a dominant role in European Civilisation in the 21st century, for example. For that reason, I am against the idea.

One must also bear in mind that religious leaders are mere mortals who have the potential to succumb to corruption and vice like the rest of us thus leading the sheep astray.

I do not believe for one moment that religion, in this instance, Christianity is the saviour of mankind because I do not hold with the unproven concept of a superior powerhead, ie, a Godhead.

I will continue disecting the rest of your remarks in due course.

Monarchist: In my view GA is entirely consistent with orthodox Christianity. Gans's "Science and Faith" examines the Mosaic revelation and the Pauline revelation and makes the case for the Trinity being the most powerful anthropological theory yet. (IMHO, you could substitute "theology" for "anthropology" in many of his statements.)

I , as a Jew, don’t care if a single cent returned to Jews..I am sure there is no a Jew in this World, that arranges his retirement counting on return of properties from Eastern Europe.

At the bottom of the Chronicles page is a link to the Anthropoetics site which includes a brief summary of generative anthropology. However, the Chronicles show the theory applied to various issues, including white guilt, Islam, markets, anti-Americanism, anti-semitism, and the Holocaust, so they tend to make more congenial reading.