I keep hearing how Einstein, the most revered Ashkenazi, was a HUUUUUGE plagiarist and psyop scam. I hate that this sounds anti-Semitic, but I'm actually anti-liar, anti-psyop, anti-scam, and anti-Zionist.
I defy you to prove those voices wrong - OR - look into it.
I'm looking forward to watching this and @LarrySwinger 's video.
Einstein is a fraud, as he was used to transition physics from a strictly empirical and applied science... into theoretical science of mystical bullshit.
There's other examples of this in history. Newton was another. These characters and their legendary reputations are created as narrative devices to transition the world into another era of THE SYSTEM.
Webster Tarpley has an entertaining discussion on Newton, and his time capsule, which was resealed for another 100 years. They punted the ball.
I'm not suggesting Newton was incorrect. However, he wasn't the legendary genius we learned of.
A massive secret institution has always been in the background for all of human history.
How can knowledge of the indivisible atom be explained as far back as the time of the Greeks?
Mystical narratives are the best words for it. Yes, I've heard that too about Einstein and that Newton was key-ray-zee - not the beyond-Mensa of lore.
Tarpley used to be so good. And like a handful of others, fell off the sane-train. An odd phenomenon.
The "indivisible atom" is just one of countless wild Greek ideas that just happened to be correct. If you don't put a stop to it, it's turtles all the way down.
"Institution" is too singular. The hierarchical network is a rigged matrix of corrupt systems for maximum control addicted to exploiting and privatizing wealth and knowledge.
I haven't watched the video till the end yet so I can't say anything about it. I've encountered the notion that Einstein was a fraud before but I gotta say that those did seem motivated by antisemitism. One of the documentaries that mentions it is Hitler: the Greatest Story Never Told. Either way, the treatment of the subject in that documentary was way too superficial. Einstein did other things too. Is everything he said a lie? I doubt it.
There's something curious going on here that must be pointed out, however. The mere possibility of 100 year old ideas being either true or untrue, and it being unclear to the layperson, shows how opaque science can be. So long as there aren't applications, you can build idea upon each other and they could all be wrong. We distinguish between hard and soft sciences where the former are characterized by direct observations and a reduction to Math. This distinction is useful but we need another metric. It actually seems that engineering provides more certainty because you can't deny the reality of the products people build.
I haven't seen that Greatest Story yet but I've seen Einstein skepticism many places and their stories sound compellingly legit, though I've never followed up. Apparently IIRC, his first wife was the brains and he gave her the Nobel Prize money, he didn't provide citations for non-original ideas, and took credit for stuff he didn't originate, etc. I liked that he's said to be about peace and was against Zionism - but I've also heard there are huge caveats to that. If I really cared I'd dig up more than vague recollections - but in general there are very few I trust that the corporatocracy props up (ie. Mark Twain).
Well stated about the soft sciences (ie. social) and hard sciences (ie. engineering). I don't recall what I was listening to earlier this week about how each needs to employ more of the other to heal the disconnects and improve the future for humanity.
Log in
I keep hearing how Einstein, the most revered Ashkenazi, was a HUUUUUGE plagiarist and psyop scam. I hate that this sounds anti-Semitic, but I'm actually anti-liar, anti-psyop, anti-scam, and anti-Zionist.
I defy you to prove those voices wrong - OR - look into it.
I'm looking forward to watching this and @LarrySwinger 's video.
Einstein is a fraud, as he was used to transition physics from a strictly empirical and applied science... into theoretical science of mystical bullshit.
There's other examples of this in history. Newton was another. These characters and their legendary reputations are created as narrative devices to transition the world into another era of THE SYSTEM.
Webster Tarpley has an entertaining discussion on Newton, and his time capsule, which was resealed for another 100 years. They punted the ball.
I'm not suggesting Newton was incorrect. However, he wasn't the legendary genius we learned of.
A massive secret institution has always been in the background for all of human history.
How can knowledge of the indivisible atom be explained as far back as the time of the Greeks?
Mystical narratives are the best words for it. Yes, I've heard that too about Einstein and that Newton was key-ray-zee - not the beyond-Mensa of lore.
Tarpley used to be so good. And like a handful of others, fell off the sane-train. An odd phenomenon.
The "indivisible atom" is just one of countless wild Greek ideas that just happened to be correct. If you don't put a stop to it, it's turtles all the way down.
"Institution" is too singular. The hierarchical network is a rigged matrix of corrupt systems for maximum control addicted to exploiting and privatizing wealth and knowledge.
I haven't watched the video till the end yet so I can't say anything about it. I've encountered the notion that Einstein was a fraud before but I gotta say that those did seem motivated by antisemitism. One of the documentaries that mentions it is Hitler: the Greatest Story Never Told. Either way, the treatment of the subject in that documentary was way too superficial. Einstein did other things too. Is everything he said a lie? I doubt it.
There's something curious going on here that must be pointed out, however. The mere possibility of 100 year old ideas being either true or untrue, and it being unclear to the layperson, shows how opaque science can be. So long as there aren't applications, you can build idea upon each other and they could all be wrong. We distinguish between hard and soft sciences where the former are characterized by direct observations and a reduction to Math. This distinction is useful but we need another metric. It actually seems that engineering provides more certainty because you can't deny the reality of the products people build.
I haven't seen that Greatest Story yet but I've seen Einstein skepticism many places and their stories sound compellingly legit, though I've never followed up. Apparently IIRC, his first wife was the brains and he gave her the Nobel Prize money, he didn't provide citations for non-original ideas, and took credit for stuff he didn't originate, etc. I liked that he's said to be about peace and was against Zionism - but I've also heard there are huge caveats to that. If I really cared I'd dig up more than vague recollections - but in general there are very few I trust that the corporatocracy props up (ie. Mark Twain).
Well stated about the soft sciences (ie. social) and hard sciences (ie. engineering). I don't recall what I was listening to earlier this week about how each needs to employ more of the other to heal the disconnects and improve the future for humanity.
https://youtu.be/cpWq_gw31ao This one doesn't have the unnecessary commentary.