WAR

Posted by Gregory on July 19, 2008, 05:53 AM | #

Good job Soren.  What is needed next is a text version of your speech—something we can annotate and chew on a bit.  Something we can take clips out of and comment on.  You raised many interesting points.  But somehow it’s difficult to “work” with the video as a source for extended comments, thinking, etc. How about placing a text version up for commentary?

Posted by Guessedworker on July 19, 2008, 11:15 AM | #

Well done. Soren.  Palingenesis is a little more respectable in my estimation, as a result of listening to your cervidaec allusion.  I still incline to the view that European Man cannot be encouraged in the European nationalist tradition towards a new heroism because said encouragement tends to be a right royal inflation, and people get killed as a result.  We are insulated from ever taking that course in life.

That leaves an exploration of volkishness - in essence, love and being - as the foundation.  Not rebirth but rediscovery ... an end to our self-estrangement.  If heroism is included within that, and it is to a degree, then fine.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 19, 2008, 05:45 PM | #

Certainly agreed, Soren gave an outstanding talk.  He did so well that he made me feel very proud as I watched him (proud because in a sense he represented us, MR.com, at the conference — he’s sort of one of us!).

I watched all the speeches in their entirety.  All were excellent — which made me feel proud some more, this time because the side I’m on displays such obvious intellectual and moral quality when it gets together, quality the other side must wish it could match (but can’t, of course, and never will).

Posted by Søren Renner on July 19, 2008, 06:45 PM | #

Sort of?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 19, 2008, 07:02 PM | #

“Sort of?”

LOL.  Thanks, comrade, for representing us, and The Cause, so well! (not to mention bringing us these extremely valuable videos!)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 19, 2008, 08:57 PM | #

On the Discourse is War theme: 

The other side may succeed, through a strategy of incessant PC hectoring and harrassment, in driving the word “race” out of the vocabulary of certain weak-minded individuals but that strategy will never work with the rest of us.  (And yes, I’m calling blogger Klimentidis weak-minded, if that log entry he posted, at the link, is any indication.) (Another weak-minded guy, I would say, is Hawks, but that’s another subject.  Though I have my differences with Dienekes, I’d say he’s stronger-minded than both these others.)

Posted by torgrim on July 19, 2008, 09:08 PM | #

Well done, Soren!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 19, 2008, 09:19 PM | #

JWH also comments on these “Racial Ten Commandments” that read exactly as if they were lifted straight out of Central Casting’s List of Irritating, Childish Crap Jewish Academics Think Up Because of their Genetic Obsession with “Racism” (in other words, I wouldn’t blame the Chinese professor who headed up the committee that produced this piece of obvious Jewish-academic provenance, as JWH seems to do.  I’d blame the ... what are we calling them now, which euphemism?  “The usual suspects”?  OK, I’d blame the “usual suspects” for this piece of total PC bullshit.  (Or should I go back and do a “fill in the blank”?  All right, I’ll leave it as “the usual suspects,” I think that’s the one we’re using lately ...)

(Of course, JWH being anything but weak-minded, the [fill in the blank] ______ strategy of driving the word “race” out of everyone’s vocabulary isn’t working with him the way it is with guys like Klimentidis and that GnXp star blogger David B, so instead of speculating on how he’ll soon have to drop that word, he switches the subject and refers to dental floss sufficing to blindfold the Oriental heading up the committee ... my kinda guy, in other words ....)

Posted by .357 (Dave Johns) on July 19, 2008, 09:48 PM | #

“I’d blame the ... what are we calling them now, which euphemism?  “The usual suspects”?”

No criticism intended, Fred, but referring to any person who IS a Jew as a “Jew” is not eo ipso an ad hominem. Rather, it can be a relevant descriptive appellation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 19, 2008, 10:00 PM | #

You’re right of course, 357.  What I intend to convey in writing the way I do is a form of sarcasm in reaction to the Jews’ hating, really hating, to be identified, and outright denying all responsiblity, all involvement.  It’s almost comical they way they do it sometimes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 19, 2008, 10:07 PM | #

Needless to say, if they truly weren’t involved no one would identify them in the first place — they’d be ignored, the way the Amish are.  And they can’t try to forbid others to identify them when they’re as overwhelmingly involved as they are and everyone knows they are, and even lots of their own professors, writers, pundits, and commentators tell us they are (but having eyes, we don’t need anyone else to tell us, we see it ourselves — you’d have to be blind not to, once the brainwashing wears off a little).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 19, 2008, 10:13 PM | #

“Needless to say, if they truly weren’t involved no one would identify them in the first place — they’d be ignored, the way the Amish are.”

They say to each other no that’s not true, they wouldn’t be left alone, and they teach their kids no, saying Christians would blame them anyway, for all sorts of things they don’t do, because Christians are taught by their religion to hate Jews for killing Christ.  This is one huge lie.  When people in the host populations become critical of Jews as a group it’s not because they were told by the priest when they were seven that the Jews killed Christ.  It’s because of the crap Jews pull, like opening the country’s borders to race-replacement immigration.  And tons else, tons.

Posted by .357 (Dave Johns) on July 19, 2008, 10:18 PM | #

“What I intend to convey in writing the way I do is a form of sarcasm in reaction to the Jews’ hating, really hating, to be identified, and outright denying all responsiblity, all involvement.  It’s almost comical they way they do it sometimes.”

Yes, I know you’re being sarcastic; I always get great enjoyment from it too! So please keep hammering away at those Jews whom deserve to be hammerd.

Posted by cladrastis on July 20, 2008, 02:04 AM | #

Isn’t it ironic to use the phoenix as a metaphor for our cultural rebirth - the phoenix being both etymologically and culturally derived from Phoenicia?  Also, the title of this talk reminds me of something about which I’ve been thinking - that the only tenable form of warfare left for us in the modern world is psychological rather than confrontational.  This is the form of warfare that psychotropic plants evolved eons ago; confusing, ensaring, or frightening one’s ecological predators might be more useful in the long run than killing them outright.  A perpetual arm’s race merely results in a temporary victory (at which point resistance to the toxic chemical is selected in the predatory population), whereas psychotropic plants have “discovered” that confusing an enemy (so that the insect or animal forgets where the plant was or what it looked like) subverts the arm’s race by maintaining genes that do NOT confer protection from the plant’s chemical defenses in the gene pools of their enemies. 

It appears that our enemies are at least a century ahead of us in this same endeavor.

This speech is excellent by the way.

Posted by Robert Reis on July 20, 2008, 05:24 AM | #

I do not have the time to listen to a person with an untidy beard and a T-shirt.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 20, 2008, 01:14 PM | #

By the way, here is the text of the enchanting and intricate poem with which Soren opened his speech.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 20, 2008, 02:06 PM | #

During the question-and-answer period following Soren’s speech Esperanto came up.  Here are what it looks and sounds like.

My own preference would be to not stipulate a lingua franca but let whatever one (if any) emerge that emerges naturally.  Beyond that, I’m not a huge fan of Esperanto on esthetic, historical, traditional, cultural, ethnonational, linguistic, and other grounds and in general I think any invented language cannot be the equal of a natural one.  With that said, I certainly respect the reasons Soren gives for thinking Esperanto would be a good choice (not as difficult to master as Latin, far preferable to Indo-European, etc.).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 20, 2008, 02:11 PM | #

For those interested:  a web-site for learning Esperanto.

Posted by anon on July 21, 2008, 02:09 AM | #

Soren, were you not arguing the opposite of what Lowell was saying?

Lowell seemed to think that the solution was to use pan-national and globalist institutions and install his own favourite people into leadership positions in those organisations. But isn’t that the reason for the whole problem in the first place, a very very small group of people are able to weld extreme disproportionate amounts of influence due to the highly centralised power structures in the modern world. Soren argues for localisation of the economy and culture, Lowell seems to have a globalist Empire building vision, surely these things are not compatible?

Posted by weston on July 21, 2008, 05:40 AM | #

Big fan of the speech, Soren.  I wish you would adopt the more straightforward style of your talk for your posts here at MR as well.

Posted by .357 (Dave Johns) on July 21, 2008, 12:40 PM | #

“… Struggle against the struggle for existence, especially in the last couple hundred years - this is what liberalism is acually all about. It’s about the denial of inventing in universal war, that’s the lie of liberalism ...  the struggle against the struggle for existence ....”

Very thought provoking, Sorren.

Liberalism is variable, so it’s plausible, under certain conditions (*), we can obliterate the destructive aspects of anti-white modern-liberalism and replace it with a philosophy that is white-preservationist at its core.

* I don’t know what future event(s) will create the conditions for change, but I do know the course of civilization can turn its direction on a dime ....

Posted by Selous Scout on July 21, 2008, 05:12 PM | #

Excellent. Thanks for posting this.

Posted by Jewish Racial Conservative on July 24, 2008, 11:18 AM | #

LOL who is this slob?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 25, 2008, 06:07 PM | #

In his talk, Soren responds to those who suggest Euros should adopt the approach recommended by Leo Strauss (of using doubletalk to get what they want), saying they can’t because it’s not in Euro natures. 

Here’s something similar, discussed by JWH:

http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/07/gw-answers-gc-analysis.html

http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/07/nec-watch-morality-in-south-asia.html

JWH doesn’t talk here about the same NEC group Leo Strauss was addressing, but does go into the idea that certain kinds of straighforward dealings, also called frank dealings, are in the Euro nature more than certain NEC natures. 

Bear in mind the etymology of the word “frank” in this sense:  it comes from the Franks who were a Germanic tribe, one which, for a few centuries during the Dark Ages and Early Middle Ages, not only dominated Europe but led the European forays into the Near East in the form of the first Crusades, and so represented Europe in the minds of the Arabs of the Levant.  “Frank” dealings were the kinds of straightforward honest dealings “Franks,” or Europeans, engaged in.

Posted by White, Jewish, and Proud on July 27, 2008, 03:33 PM | #

Wow, that speech was embarrassing to watch.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 27, 2008, 04:06 PM | #

Which speech did you like best, WJ&P;?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 27, 2008, 04:26 PM | #

Let me guess ... none of them, what you liked best was the Lady Michele Renouf interview???  Yes??? 

I knew it! Always knew you had great taste, WJP!  As for me, I LOVED it too!  GREAT interview!  Congratulations, as always, go to Soren!

Posted by snax on July 27, 2008, 04:31 PM | #

Not quite Fred, frank dealings were the custom of free men of the ruling tribe in early France - the Franks - in contrast to the peoples they ruled - fellow Europeans, as it happens.

The subjugated have to canny about talking change, moreso as the ruling class is losing its grip on us because of a more fundamental failure of control.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 27, 2008, 06:04 PM | #

“Not quite Fred, frank dealings were the custom of free men of the ruling tribe in early France - the Franks - in contrast to the peoples they ruled - fellow Europeans, as it happens.”

Thank you for correcting me, Snax.

Posted by White, Jewish, and Proud on July 28, 2008, 10:06 PM | #

“Which speech did you like best, WJ&P;?”

Jonathan Bowden’s speech was the best, of course.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 28, 2008, 10:15 PM | #

What about Obama’s speech, WJP?  You didn’t swoon or anything listening to it, did you?

Posted by snax on July 28, 2008, 11:27 PM | #

Soren Renner could use a little work on his communication skills and focusing ability, Wayward Jewish Pride - I was as surprised as anyone to hear he once wrote an essay - but the ideas he offered were interesting, I thought. Particularly the ‘winning the collapse’ (from the clutches of our controllers - Jewish and White) theme.

If everyone broadly supportive of the BNP’s policies expressed their politics this way, ie. really, fundamentally challenging the elite’s hold on power, we’d much more quickly and often find ourselves silenced and jailed.

It may very well be a good thing to have an intellectual elite, disconnected from activist movements, discussing these things - as Fred sort of pointed out to me. However - as Soren points out - anyone speaking for us in any way at all will be attacked by Jews. (You prove it Wayward, were proof needed)

Is that why Bowden doesn’t speak for us? I would be interested to know what guidelines Chairman Bowden gave to the other speakers on avoiding potential claims of hate-speech. He did not seem to mind others using strong language about Jews, even while he deliberately avoided use of a word inevitably heard every time one visits a major city centre or uses public transport.

(And Fred might still explain why he intervenes on behalf of a talent who won’t speak for us, when someone else encourages that talent to be more explicit).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2008, 12:19 AM | #

There’s a time and a place for everything, Snax.  Each individual goes as far as he feels he can, at any given point in the process.  Overall, the resistance we’re building is, believe it or not, slowly lumbering forward, in this clumsy way.  We’ll get there.  The thing will get more streamlined, stronger, more daunting.  In the end it will prevail.  We’re not going to stay submerged as we are now.  Everyone must just keep putting one foot in front of the other and walking, always in a forward direction.  If everyone does that, no force on Earth can turn us back.  Every day, every hour, we grow slowly but surely stronger while the other side stagnates.  One needn’t be a rocket scientist to know what the outcome of that will be.

Posted by snax on July 29, 2008, 12:53 AM | #

And Fred might still explain... or he may not.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2008, 12:55 PM | #

“anyone speaking for us in any way at all will be attacked by Jews” (—Snax, a few above)

Snax there has stated the Fundamental Law of Jewish-Euro Relations on this matter.  What the Jews want is the outcome, our demographic eclipse.  That law cannot be gottten around.  The Jews will aggressively attack anything from us, no matter how stated, no matter how seemingly remote from aught to do with them and benignly intentioned in regard to them, that has the potential to thwart that outcome.  It’s the outcome they’re after, and that with an ethnoracial singlemindedness of purpose that’s amazing to behold.  Tom Bethell once likened them to a hive of bees in the way they instinctively act in unison, and he was right on the mark with that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2008, 02:14 PM | #

Remember in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy’s little dog Toto pulls the curtain back, exposing the “fearsome” wizard as a pitiful bumbling fraud no one would be scared of?  Well, here‘s the “Toto-pulling-the-curtain-back” moment for the SPLC’s “terrifying attack dog” whose name will have scared not a few, the “fearsome” Heidi Beirich.

Posted by 2R on August 21, 2008, 06:43 AM | #

Soren suggested it was better to be esoteric in our actions as opposed to exoteric.  Is this this why he’s feels comfortable wearing a sun-wheel on his chest?  Was his shirt a prop for his message of renewal?  It would seem that we should possibly avoid sun-wheels or runes or other pagan symbols that popular culture identifies with National Socialism?  Perhaps I’m wrong? 

I thought Soren’s talk was the best one of all. He is 100% correct that we will find no success in trying to out Cohen the Cohen’s.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 21, 2008, 11:49 AM | #

2R,

Soren, who is a creative person, designed that wheel in April 2007 as a flag of Europia.  When he sent me the design I told him green was a bit Celtic for my taste.  But I’m lousy when it comes to visuals anyway, so what the heck!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 15, 2009, 05:38 PM | #

Esperanto was mentioned above.  I just stumbled across this constructed language I’d never heard of, a derivative of Esperanto called “Ido,” apparently around since the start of the last century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ido .

On the subject of constructed languages, Lord of the Rings fans will also recall JRR Tolkien’s constructed “Elvish” languages.

(For an international lingua franca I for one happen to prefer natural languages to any language “constructed for the purpose.")