MR Radio: Soren Renner interview

Posted by James Bowery on November 08, 2009, 11:02 PM | #

Congratulations GW.  I don’t know how you did it but you successfully interviewed Mr. Renner.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 08, 2009, 11:30 PM | #

Good interview.  I enjoyed listening to it.  My only criticism:  it ended too soon.

Posted by john on November 09, 2009, 08:19 AM | #

Heroic GW. Alex kuturgic interview here:
http://www.radiofreemississippi.net/audio2009/stream.7.wma

Posted by Selous Scout on November 09, 2009, 09:45 AM | #

Excellent. I enjoyed it. Thanks for this chaps.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 09, 2009, 10:10 AM | #

James, John,

Can I remind you that it is Soren’s intellectual creativity and Soren’s body of knowledge that this programme was about, and certainly not the interviewer.

John,

Thanks for the link to Alex K’s interview.  He is still young, I believe.  But at present he is not, and will likely never be, an orginator of thought - which Soren most decidedly is.  There are no originators of thought attached to OO.  There are a good number of people with fine analyses, philosophical, political, racial and scientific.  Analysis, though it is extremely important, does not possess one-tenth of the possibility to change the world of an original idea.

Posted by fellist on November 09, 2009, 10:27 AM | #

Soren shouldn’t think his work goes unappreciated. I for one have linked to and recommended it in online debates ...

Posted by James Bowery on November 09, 2009, 02:26 PM | #

GW, since this is the most accessible presentation of where Soren is coming from, I thought it best to praise the presentation so as to guide people to it.  As you and Soren discussed, there is a lot more creativity than accessibility to that creativity—so much so that it is important to point out the successes in accessibility when they happen.

Soren and I are coming from very similar places in our intellectual development as citizens of a post-unsustainable state.  This is why Soren is willing to entertain my Cornucopian leanings and I his Malthusian leanings.  I think we both agree that “liberal democracy” is simply tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced “human rights”,  that any “discourse” predicated upon it is simply war by other means and that this war entails billions of human deaths in the next century—war which we would win.

Where we part company is the necessity of predicating the discourse upon liberal democracy.

This is why Soren described as ‘stunning’ my thesis in “Secession From Slavery to Free Scientific Society”:  That the discourse may be predicated upon experiment.

Now, he may indeed be correct that “they” who now proclaim themselves “human” in the mold of liberal democracy will, during progress toward free scientific society, expose themselves as mere forces of nature—forces of nature to be dealt with as such by humans seeking truth and freedom.  In that case, my ‘stunning’ thesis will appear merely a momentary diversion.  But I would suggest that it is a vital diversion because it provides the foundation for just war, hence morale for our people.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 09, 2009, 03:28 PM | #

While we’re on the topic of shedding additional light on both Soren’s and James Bowery’s thinking, maybe I can throw this in — James often includes the concept of “rent-seeking” in his discussions of what’s broken in the present set-up and the ways in which it needs fixing.  Readers may not all have a grasp of exactly what the term “rent-seeking” means.  It happens that the other day Peter Brimelow re-published a 12-year-old Forbes article he wrote, dealing with this topic in part, and with some other ideas of the economist who was among the pioneers of the “rent-seeking” concept:  see here,

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/11/07/rent-seeking-and-a-china-crack-up-peter-brimelows-interview-with-gordon-tullock/ ,

and here,

http://www.vdare.com/pb/091106_tullock.htm .

Notice how, in the article, one salutary effect of decentralization of political power comes into focus with the story of the way excessive centralization in China slowed innovation and progress by making it impossible to escape the stultifying effects of rent-seeking abuse by the overlords, while in the relatively decentralized European Continent one could escape the worst aspects of this overlord abuse when it arose in a given country by simply moving to another where it was less.  In China, so the theory goes, you couldn’t find a place where it was less because centralization made everywhere the same.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 09, 2009, 03:34 PM | #

I didn’t finish my thought just above:

In China, centralization made everywhere the same, so everywhere was equally stultified and impoverished by excessive overlord rent-seeking, you couldn’t get away from it, and China stagnated, while Europe, relatively unburdened by this particular problem (relative to China, that is) surged ahead of China socially, scientifically, etc., as a result.

It’s an argument, yet one more among a great many, for finding ways to keep excessive centralization in check in the new system we all intend to put in place after the final crash of the teetering wreck of the present system.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 09, 2009, 04:50 PM | #

The problem with Tullock’s analysis, is that it denies the evolutionary component of individualism, Fraser’s atypical “nation of strangers”, a very English extended phenotype.

Nevertheless, when researchers discuss the demise or evolution of the extended family, several factors are commonly cited. These include industrialization and the proliferation of Western political and education models over the last century. By removing kinship from the economic arena, industrialization is said to have made the viability of nuclear family households possible. Likewise, Western education and politics are said to have produced value changes in direct opposition to extended family life since they emphasize individualism over collectivity (Parsons and Bales 1955).

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/individualism_and_collectivism_from_china_to_the_british_isles/

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 09, 2009, 04:56 PM | #

By removing kinship from the economic arena, industrialization is said to have made the viability of nuclear family households possible.

Actually, it’s the reverse. Evolving non-kinship based forms of reciprocity, nuclear family households, made industrialization viable. It is a unique trait evolved by a unique people in a unique environment.

Posted by Dan Dare on November 09, 2009, 04:58 PM | #

A fascinating conversation and a useful guide to approaching to Mr. Renner’s ideas.

GW, I find it hard to believe you haven’t done this before in a professional capacity. You have the perfect voice and the manner and the sort of dogged but polite persistence that gets the subject to reveal himself. 

Very, very well done. Looking forward to future episodes.

Posted by jamesUK on November 10, 2009, 12:47 AM | #

I can’t wait until your next interview when you interview Dugin and the Eurasia movement.

Posted by Thunder on November 10, 2009, 01:43 AM | #

I agree with Dan above about the quality of the interviewing.  Couldn’t sleep last night so I got up and listended to a few interviews including GW’s Helios monologues.  I found them quite soothing and well spoken.  The Fraser interview was good to from an Australian perspective.  We had been hearing snippets of Andrew Fraser in the news so it was good to get a more complete picture of his views. 

Soren’s enthusiasm is entertaining too but I think he should have let Tom Sunic leave a little sooner. 

Good work.

Posted by PF on November 10, 2009, 04:01 AM | #

Good job GW.

Posted by Dasein on November 10, 2009, 07:03 AM | #

Great interview, happy to hear that Majority Radio will be started up again.

Posted by Q on November 10, 2009, 07:49 PM | #

Congratulations GW.  I don’t know how you did it but you successfully interviewed Mr. Renner.

I seems to me Mr. Renner is more than somewhat accessible. Now, if GW could land an interview with the Scroob, THAT would be congratulatory. Possibly even merit a Peabody.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 10, 2009, 08:13 PM | #

I’d like to hear interviews with the reclusive 1.) wintermute; 2.) Anti-Yuppie (no idea whether he’s still posting anywhere) 3.) Hunter Wallace.

Posted by Dan Dare on November 10, 2009, 08:22 PM | #

If nominations are being invited, I’d like to hear GW quiz Jonathan Bowden and Lee Barnes.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 10, 2009, 09:19 PM | #

A couple of quick points:

“Discourse as war” is supposed to be original and deep? Are you serious, GW? You must be kidding.

Dugin’s metaphysics are of less interest for our purposes than Frank Salter’s concept of ethnic genetic interests. If anyone needs to be vulgarized and brought to the Great Unwashed is Frank Salter rather than Dugin. Of course, one can make the credible point that both have their uses. I admit that I haven’t really read Dugin but I don’t know why a western mind would find him useful; however, I reserve judgment. Rushton and MacDonald are also prime candidates.

Soren Senner looks like a homeless serial killer. A dirty t-shirt wearing freak.

It was mostly a worthless interview that didn’t get us anywhere. A pointless exercise in intellectual masturbation, something GW seems to really like and nobody else outside MR’s small coterie of sycophants.

I want my 45 minutes back!

Posted by jamesUK on November 10, 2009, 09:21 PM | #

Was it just me but when I listen for the first 15 minutes it was like someone was talking to Soren off air.
Very distracting so I stop listening after the 15 minute mark.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 10, 2009, 09:38 PM | #

Next up for me is Alex Linder, hopefully for posting here on Sunday (always providing I can get my head around all the issues).  Soren will do Jonathan Bowden if anyone does.  He met him in London and they share the literary interests of the well-educated, which I entirely lack.  Chain is someone Soren has also mentioned.  WM is a very reclusive fellow, and I seriously doubt whether he would be willing to submit to the indignity.  But it would be a great show.

Lee Barnes could be interesting if the subject matter is constrained within the political sphere.  I am not sure how out of bounds MR is to BNPers, but Lee is a ferociously independent spirit.

I would be honoured to interview Fred, though I think Fred may have too humble an opinion of himself to accept an offer.  I think Dan and Dasein would be highly interesting - Friedrich too.  Friedrich especially, in fact.  DanielJ, when he recovers from the shock of the new (fatherhood).  Ben Tillman is someone I would like to talk to at greater length.  Not sure HW would accept.  Tanstaafl maybe.  Alex Kurtagic.  “James uk” persists in asking for a Dugin interview, which would be highly interesting but might require some Russian-language assistance.  Troy Southgate might lend himself to an interview.  Andrew Yeoman would be interesting.  One of the RD guys.

I am sure we can keep this rolling.  But we can always use help, and if any of our regular posters or commenters think they can do this interviewing thing, they are welcome to contact me.

Posted by Q on November 10, 2009, 09:42 PM | #

Re:  Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 11, 2009, 01:19 AM | #

Impostor alert! This guy is acually a Jew that usually goes by the name: ‘Jewish, White and proud’. He’s a sneaky creep.

Posted by jrackell on November 10, 2009, 09:59 PM | #

“Was it just me but when I listen for the first 15 minutes it was like someone was talking to Soren off air.
Very distracting so I stop listening after the 15 minute mark. ”  JamesUK

I think this has to do with the audio being recorded in stereo, which is (imho) a slightly non-standard way of doing things for an interview.  So you get one speaker in one ear phone and the other speaker in the other ear.  Or if you don’t have stereo, like me, eg you have only audio-speaker, you only get half the conversation.  This might be what you were experiencing.

Posted by Mr.S on November 10, 2009, 10:36 PM | #

Not only discourse as war, but logoed teeshirts as well.

Logoed teeshirts as war!

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 10, 2009, 10:54 PM | #

GW, I’d rather write an essay on my approach to the JQ. I spent the last year putting my thoughts together on this question. I think that if most people understood my approach their hostility would lessen. Maybe not.

Posted by Cato on November 10, 2009, 11:06 PM | #

“It has been recorded that the Greeks wore their beards until the time of Alexander, who, fearful lest the length of their beards should prove a handle to their enemies, comrnanded the Macedonians to be shaven.”

Take heed all, for we are at war, even if it be a war of discourse.

Posted by jamesUK on November 10, 2009, 11:33 PM | #

I e-mailed Sunic recently and others about why no one brings up the topic that international Jewish organisations since Afghanistan in 79 and the break up of the USSR starting in 89 and the Balkans have supported every single Islamic terrorist/separatist movement around the world except in Palestine as I commented on VOR.

The problem I have with Sunic and others is they speak in generalisations there is no real teeth to what they are saying that Jews lobby and support immigration and groups so they can have a more diverse and divided society.

But for what purpose they already control the US and much of Europe and minority groups are more hostile and critical towards Jews and no country is powerful enough except for Russia and China to counter balance US/British/Israeli Jewish global supremacy.

Seem to want to limit the conversation to Israel and immigration in the US and Europe.

I’ve tried to email McDonald and others in the past (except Sunic) why they have never written about or mentioned why Jews since the break up of the USSR have supported every Islamic terrorist/separatist movement around the world except Palestine in some cases strong links to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian VEVAK especially true and evident during the Balkans in the 90’s supporting the Bosnians and the Kosovars and the Chechens who Palestinian groups in Jordan and Hamas leaders have publicly praised and claim ethnic decent.

It seems if it doesn’t fit into there realisation and perspective in the context that it does not directly benefit Israel or Jews in the US they just ignore it.

@jrackell

I see because I was listening to it on my MP3 at work I only had might right earphone on.

Posted by PF on November 11, 2009, 12:02 AM | #

“Friedrich Braun” wrote:

“Discourse as war” is supposed to be original and deep? Are you serious, GW? You must be kidding.

its a felicitous word combination distilling an idea presented in KMac and some others, also implicit in several Nietzschean theses (perspectivism, morality pushers as self-serving manipulators). I also think its neither original nor very deep. Using war metaphors to explain the zero-sum aspect of various non-military realities (spiritual, social, competitive) is already in Nietzsche and Hobbes. Perhaps GW values the reintroduction of these ancient and forbidden memes amongst the IQ 130 set - it would essentially represent a reappropriation of radical/conservative thought which has since fallen by the wayside.

Posted by Englander on November 11, 2009, 08:10 AM | #

GW said:

Soren will do Jonathan Bowden if anyone does.  He met him in London and they share the literary interests of the well-educated, which I entirely lack.

If Bowden is willing to be interviewed by Majority Rights then it would be a great shame if that interview wasn’t carried out by you, GW. I’m certain I’m not alone in thinking it would be great to hear what you two have to say about the nationalist scene in Britain. A unique opportunity not to be missed.

Posted by Dasein on November 11, 2009, 12:08 PM | #

How about interviewing Frank Salter?

It would be nice if the commentariat had the chance to submit possible questions.

This medium might also be good for getting opposing views.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 11, 2009, 12:53 PM | #

James uk,

I didn’t realise that mp3 players would process the recording in mono.  We record in stereo so we can split the tracks for individual processing.  But they can be recombined afterwards.  That just wasn’t done this time.  My bad.

Englander,

Maybe a three-way conversation, then, so the UK political dimension could be included.  In that case, we would return to the practise of inviting questions for Bowden from readers a week before the interview takes place.

Friedrich,

Mail me any time you like with that - be sure to use your usual mail address.

Dasein,

I have it on unimpeachable authority that FS would not wish any involvement.

Posted by Selous Scout on November 11, 2009, 01:43 PM | #

I would enjoy listening to an interview with Fred.

I listened to the interview with Soren again. His intellectual curiosity is inspiring. The intellectual quality at MR as a whole is extremely high, IMO. At any rate, two things about the interview stand out. One, Soren’s constant interruptions of GW, and two, the sound of what seemed to me to be someone sipping tea.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 11, 2009, 02:25 PM | #

the sound of what seemed to me to be someone sipping tea.

It was red wine, actually.  But very observant of you.

Posted by Frank on November 11, 2009, 02:32 PM | #

I’d like to hear PF or the Narrator interviewed, in addition to some others mentioned.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 11, 2009, 03:40 PM | #

I would like to hear PF interview The Narrator!

Posted by Frank on November 11, 2009, 03:43 PM | #

Reg. the interview: I’m curious how conservatives are held back in any real way. Surely we all are planning for a future state; it’s just a disagreement of what’s at the center, the character of the future state. A debate over means isn’t so fierce.

Reg. economics, it sounds like Mr. Renner understands it very well: limited resources means an end to globalism. Mercantilism is the future. Econ might have been confusing because it’s founded on false premises (such as individuals will singularly pursue wealth and act as selfish individuals albeit always within the rules and never cheating).

I’m curious to hear more of Mr. Renner’s thoughts, especially if it’s possible to pull away from that one bothersome attachment.

The way I’ve heard a great thinker develops is he writes out the premises and even defines the words he’ll use to build into a whole. Chronicles got me reading Aristotle - you might wish to emulate his approach and pull all the pieces together into a cohesive, logical whole (like a computer program).

Posted by Q on November 11, 2009, 06:27 PM | #

Friedrich,

Mail me any time you like with that - be sure to use your usual mail address.

GW, insist upon Friedrich FULLY explaining why he felt he had to insult Soren Renner ... and by extension YOU.

Eg:

Soren Senner looks like a homeless serial killer. A dirty t-shirt wearing freak.

It was mostly a worthless interview that didn’t get us anywhere. A pointless exercise in intellectual masturbation, something GW seems to really like and nobody else outside MR’s small coterie of sycophants.

I want my 45 minutes back!

Posted by john on November 12, 2009, 05:56 AM | #

Freds comments are reasonable, containing a humour that is sadly lacking in so many others, over there.

Posted by Nordmacht on November 12, 2009, 04:48 PM | #

This interview was really boring. Quite badly prepared, I should say.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 12, 2009, 07:46 PM | #

This guy is acually a Jew that usually goes by the name: ‘Jewish, White and proud’.

GW, insist upon Friedrich FULLY explaining why he felt he had to insult Soren Renner ... and by extension YOU.

Sez the man who lies about me.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 12, 2009, 08:39 PM | #

Interview with Alex Linder:

http://www.radiofreemississippi.net/audio2009/stream.2009-11-06.130149.mp3

Posted by Q on November 12, 2009, 08:41 PM | #

Sorry for the misunderstanding, FB. But at first I thought Jewish, White, and Proud (JWP) was operating under the cover of your good name for the purpose of taking a cheap shot at Mr. Renner.

JWP on a prior occasion, here at MR, made an almost identical insult towards Mr.Renner. Therefore I issued an “Impostor alert”. It was meant to alert the readers the comment wasn’t made by you, FB, but was made by WJP. I thought I was protecting you, Friedrich. That was until you confirmed by your following posts that it was indeed YOU,  not JWP, that was the actual author of the post in question.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 12, 2009, 08:47 PM | #

I didn’t think it was a good or useful interview, Q. We can differ on points without name calling. Unlike GW, I’m not a fan of this fellow Renner. I think he blows smoke. But I could be wrong.

Posted by Hunter Wallace on November 12, 2009, 11:30 PM | #

Jonathan Bowden is a great speaker. I had the opportunity to meet him recently.

Posted by Q on November 13, 2009, 05:24 PM | #

We can differ on points without name calling.

Name calling?  Like: “Soren Senner looks like a homeless serial killer. A dirty t-shirt wearing freak?”

Is that the type of name calling you are referring to, Freidrich?

If so, I think you need to apologize for your own infraction!

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 13, 2009, 07:20 PM | #

Q, did you get your feelings hurt? You must be new to the Internet thing. Give it a rest. At least I didn’t call you a crypto Jew.

I was unable to make the speech given by Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, at Theos, the religion think tank, on Wednesday evening. But I hope he wasn’t making a thinly-veiled attack on European Muslim immigrants, when he said that Europeans are more interested in material things than having children.

Our report has him saying this: “Where today in European culture with its consumerism and instant gratification – because you’re worth it – where will you find space for the concept of sacrifice for the sake of generations not yet born? Europe, at least the indigenous population of Europe, is dying.That is one of the unsayable truths of our time. We are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no one is talking about it.”

Lord Sacks was ostensibly attacking our secular, consumerist culture. But a regular canard of European racists is that the Muslim immigrant population is “out-breeding” other ethnicities. They usually add that the name Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name in some cities. The truth is that immigrant birth-rates settle down to mirror local trends. And the much greater pluralism of non-Muslim names is bound to make the Mohammeds stand out statistically.

But I worry about the Chief Rabbi’s remark that “the indigenous population of Europe is dying”. That “indigenous” is a dangerous word, as Lord Sacks must know. Clarification please.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100015964/is-the-chief-rabbi-worried-about-muslim-immigrants/

Anti-White liberals often leave me perplexed. Why is “indigenous” a dangerous word? Anyone? Is it only “dangerous” when applied to Europeans? If so, why? Clarification please.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 13, 2009, 07:34 PM | #

I left this hateful comment, it will undoubtedly go down the memory hole soon.

Anti-White liberals often leave me perplexed. Why is “indigenous” a dangerous word? Anyone? Is it only “dangerous” when applied to Europeans? If so, why? Clarification please. Is there something wrong with a people wanting to remain homogenous, George. Is there something wrong with an ethnic group wanting to survive, George? If so, why? Was the indigenous population of these islands ever consulted regarding their dispossession and replacement by other groups in their own land? The people who built this Anglo-Celt civilization should have a say as to such ultimate interests, no? George? George? I don’t remember a referendum on immigration in the U.K., do you? All this doesn’t seem terribly democratic. Why do you loath the indigenous population of Great Britain, George? Do you think that there’s something evil about our genes that you wish for our destruction? What do you think of people who want to survive and go on living?

Posted by Hunter Wallace on November 15, 2009, 11:54 PM | #

Reviews:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/11/15/interview-soren-renner/

Posted by jonathan on November 16, 2009, 11:06 AM | #

Hope that I’m not overstepping here onto Soren’s talons, but I am/was a friend of Soren’s in the 90s, and still try to stop and visit when I’m in Chicago. He introduced me to MR a couple of years ago. It’s been a handy reference in attempting to know thyself. I especially enjoy nothing. All of the Renners are fascinating whether authoring novels, assisting homeless farmhands with the nuts and bolts of skateboards, or inventing assorted shelving. Nice reviews Hunter.

Posted by Q on November 16, 2009, 06:42 PM | #

Hope that I’m not overstepping here onto Soren’s talons, but I am/was a friend of Soren’s in the 90s, and still try to stop and visit when I’m in Chicago. He introduced me to MR a couple of years ago. It’s been a handy reference in attempting to know thyself. I especially enjoy nothing. All of the Renners are fascinating whether authoring novels, assisting homeless farmhands with the nuts and bolts of skateboards, or inventing assorted shelving. Nice reviews Hunter.

Is it just me, or does anyone understand this incoherent mumbo-jumbo-psychobabble? IMO, the author of this comment [jonathan] should get a job writing a book: English for Weirdos.

Posted by fellist on November 20, 2009, 10:43 AM | #

http://www.toqonline.com/2009/11/herve-ryssen-part-1/

Their “combat for peace” is ceaseless.

or as Soren would put it, their struggle against our struggle for existence.