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.)

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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!

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.)

Pail Rider so how to get hold of your manifesto if you will be correcting it?

The thing is that many people see that something is going wrong in their countries.
They are good people but they can not articulate easily proper position.
They don't want to be right wing nuts , let alone support the Nazi ideology , yet they see that the wrong tendency is growing in their countries , which is not only slowly taking away their rights but effecting the very foundations of the Western Civilization.
Yet , the main parties, who supposedly representing them, letting it go by. So people , who are busy with their lives , their work simply letting it go by too, yet they know and are aware that it is wrong.
I hope that you are a politically active in the Conservative movement and vocalizing your very needed positions to more than readers of "The Brussels Journal".
We need to demand of all to be responsible. Somehow today , if you are of brown color or black - you automatically given some moral elevation, which in the responsible society would have been considered - a crap.

I have read somewhere something similar in regards to the Israel vs Arabs conflict.
The following is not to argue who is wrong or who is right there, but just to state the obvious truth to anybody who cares to see and think : the fact that Arabs are weaker militarily and consistently loose and end up paying a higher price , does not in itself indicate a moral superiority.
One might say even more , and he /she will be correct : this fact might indicate stupidity , lack of common sense, definitely hate -(lets kill at least one Jew –we don’t care that we will loose a hundred for it, and plus we will make others to care for it, even Jews) , but absolutely does not mean automatically that the weaker side is right. A weak compare to a strong – still can be evil.
But yet , somehow ,today we have this premise : if a country with predominantly dark or brown populace somehow is in confrontation with a country whose populace is whiter - white must be wrong, then in some discussion between Judeo-Christianity vs Islam - Islam automatically is beautiful and done so much for all that we should just drop on our knees and kiss the ground Muslims walk on, and so on.
This is not a way and it will backfire at some point.
Therefore, a proper Conservatism is the only way, but proper - not mellow, not feeble - but principled and almost in some questions - uncompromising.
Otherwise I believe there will be blood in the streets of Europe in the next 30-40 years.
In my estimate, unfortunately, my last sentence most likely is a true one and is a belief on my part and a former one (about Conservatism) - is a hope.))) and I hope I am wrong

Outstanding discussion. With your concentration on the relationship between religion and culture, you might be interested in Generative Anthropology, a theory developed by Eric Gans on the religious origin of all cultures (or the cultural origin of all religions). It is also a theory of economics and politics. Here is a link to the "Chronicles of Love and Resentment," the most readable approach to the science:

Chronicles of Love and Resentment