I’ve found two interviews with Søren Renner: the first is with GuessedWorker of Majority Rights, the second is with Jim Giles of Radio Free Mississippi. I’m downloading both right now. I will update this post with commentary after I listen to the interviews. The Giles interview (the second one) begins 11 minutes into the broadcast.
Running Commentary, Giles Interview:
4:33 PM: Søren is 45. I had no idea he was that old. He has degrees in mathematics, philosophy, and computer science. A smart guy, obviously.
4:35 PM: The earring, the beard, the swazi t-shirt, Adolf Hitler in the background … come on man, I can see now what “uh” was referring to when he made that comment about Søren projecting a ”guru” image. He needs to shed that if he wants to be taken seriously.
4:40 PM: How did Søren find out about the TOQ conference?
5:18 PM: Public organizations are flypaper for dysfunctional types and informants. The bad always drives out the good.
5:49 PM: Who is Søren referring to when he mentions the TOQ writer he dislikes?
6:05 PM: He mentioned Occidental Dissent.
6:07 PM: Søren is talking about commentators sabotaging him on various sites. I went and checked the MR thread and friedrich braun said he looked like a “homeless serial killer.”
6:22 PM: He does need to shave. 41 minutes into the broadcast. Nothing substantial discussed so far.
6:32 PM: Søren’s visage reminds Giles of the Unabomber.
6:35 PM: Søren admits that the image he projects distracts from his message, but says he tries to be “as deliberate as possible about this.”
7:42 PM: I have just realized that Søren was referring to yours truly earlier. In addition to being ”uh,” Søren is now accusing me of being “friedrich braun” as well! We don’t even live in the same country.
8:36 PM: Søren is searching for outgoing, intelligent lurkers. He wants to “wake up sleepers.” This is why he insists “we have to be public.”
8:42 PM: Giles is tripping him up by telling him to speak to the “lurkers” he wants to reach. This is hilarious.
8:50 PM: Søren has a master’s degree from Northwestern in philosophy, but has nothing to say about the connection between ethics and aesthetics.
8:54 PM: Søren can’t define “White Nationalist.”
8:56 PM: Søren is talking about “the collapse.”
8:57 PM: Søren says he has an IQ of 155 to 160.
9:11 PM: Søren doesn’t blame the Jews for everything.
9:14 PM: Søren has no idea where his intelligent lurkers may be.
9:19 PM: No one ever emails him.
Review: Søren bombed this interview. He was nervous, prickly, irritable throughout the broadcast. He couldn’t answer any of Mr. Giles questions. In hindsight, I don’t recall any substantial topic being discussed at length. Aside from his appearance and irritation at his critics, Søren punted on every single topic that was broached. Any impartial observer would agree this interview was a total contrast to the previous one with Elizabeth Whitcombe.
Running Commentary, GuessedWorker interview:
9:48 PM: G.W says Søren is an unusual man who doesn’t express himself clearly.
9:55 PM: Søren isn’t answering G.W.’s question about his ideological development.
10:07 PM: Søren is being impolite to his interlocutor.
10:39 PM: Søren is talking about DieOff.com; a site that is too extreme even for a Peak Oil doomer like James Howard Kunstler.
10:52 PM: Søren finally answered the question: he became a racial nationalist via the Peak Oil movement and carrying capacity arguments.
10:53 PM: He became interested in the JQ through Linder’s Goyfire.
11:23 PM: Søren doesn’t blame the Jews exclusively for our problems.
11:24 PM: Søren claims the discourse of universal morality is an act of war.
11:26 PM: Søren refuses to expound on his theory that “discourse is war.”
12:10 PM: Søren is talking about Alexander Dugin now.
12:11 PM: Søren is getting frustrated at the charge he is “cloistered.”
12:15 PM: Søren again gets angry and claims he is no Jonathan Bowden.
12:22 PM: Søren is proud that he contradicts himself.
Review: This interview was better than the previous one, but I would attribute it mostly to G.W.’s editing. He answered a few questions. After two hours of listening to Søren Renner though, I still know relatively little about him or his views. In both interviews, he was incredibly evasive, combative, and unprepared. I won’t be listening to a third installment unless it gets multiple rave reviews.
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
YouTube
Special Relativity says:
“Question: How much of that wasn’t discovered first by Einstein?”
Answer: all of it. All of it was first discovered by Poincaré.
“What??? But that’s all of Special Relativity.”
That’s right.
”So, what did Einstein discover???”
The same stuff but after Poincaré.
”So how come Einstein didn’t say anything about Poincaré and got all the credit?”
People are still trying to figure that mystery out. Maybe he honestly didn’t know about all of Poincaré’s stuff because he didn’t read French – but some today doubt that explanation.
”How come Poincaré didn’t say anything?”
1) He was very modest, and 2) he had died of cancer long before Einstein got all the credit and became famous.
I believe that Einstein is credited with the so-called Special Principle of the Special Theory, specifying the symmetry, as between mutual observers, of Special Relativistic effects.
Supposedly a new or alternative perspective.
NN,
Thank you for the clarification.
To be frank, the problem of assessing the true nature of the various theoretical pieces that constitute the standard model is a very difficult one indeed. More importantly, it is the kind of problem that only a mature physicist can properly address because issues of soundness and coherence cannot be reduced to the kind of technical legerdemain that is suitable to mathematicians. The problem of assessing coherence has been further aggravated by the considerable amount of abstract machinery that has been integrated into modern physics over the past century (this is where younger researchers almost always end up missing the forest for the trees).
Also, the entire matter is further confounded by the fact that we still don’t understand the full consequences of our theories! In the case of QM, this was spectacularly demonstrated by Conway and Kochen in a recent result that they’re calling the, “Free Will Theorem” (I encourage you to google this result). What a result of this kind means for the metaphysics of QM is anyone’s guess.
Finally, we must also consider the sobering possibility that the problem of uncovering the True physics of the universe may not be tractable. Unlike mathematics, physics needs empirical data in order to develop, the kind of data that may not be possible to obtain.
Enough pessimism on my part! You have my word that these questions fascinate me just as much as they fascinate you and that I have set aside a certain portion of my natural life to the goal of untangling as much of this crap as possible. So there.
Scrooby,
Thanks for the arXiv link to Logunov’s monograph.
@notuswind,
To be frank, the problem of assessing the true nature of the various theoretical pieces that constitute the standard model is a very difficult one indeed.
Indeed. I presume that you write of the “standard model” as the general assembly of theories QM/GR/BB, rather than the specific “Standard Model” of particle physics – which model resists integration with GR in its spectacular discrepancy with observed reality when its [SM] calculations of vacuum energy density are incorporated into GR. Something like 120 orders of magnitude?
Of course GR is treated like scripture and the attempt to deal with this embarrassment always comes at the expense of the SM. I seem to recall that Zeldovich tried to get the Vacuum Energy to “leak” away into “other universes,” many years ago – and the peerlessly gigantic problem still sits there, as far as I know. It’s bizarre and seemingly interminable, and I hope that you will dive in at this angle, to start. Prof. Larry Abbott, then of Brandeis U., contributed an article to Scientific American, years ago, entitled, “The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant”. Enjoy.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988SciAm.258..106A
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/MysteriesParadoxes.htm#Mystery%20of%20the%20Cosmological%20Constant
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24844