Dan Michaels’ current TOO article on Jewish-German conflict in physics raises some fascinating issues about intellectual styles between the two groups. He quotes Johannes Stark, a Nobel laureate and leader of the German Physics movement as follows:
The dogmatic approach seeks to extract scientific knowledge from the human mind. It builds thought systems based on human concepts of the outside world and sees in these only manifestations of their own thoughts and formulas. Our pragmatic approach [i.e., experimental physics] draws its knowledge from careful observations and planned targeted experiments. Our own imagination is used only as a means of planning the experiment. If the plan does not confirm the experiment, then it is replaced by another concept that better corresponds to reality. … The pragmatic [experimental] approach seeks to understand reality in patient, often yearlong laboratory work and limits itself to the publication of the results so obtained..
This struck a chord with me because one could say the same about the ideas in the Jewish intellectual movements described in The Culture of Critique. Psychoanalysis is a paradigm: Freud and his followers projected their own ideas of reality onto the world and then spent the next century elaborating on the ideas without ever being bothered that no one could prove the ideas one way or the other. For this effort in mental gymnastics, Freud was deified not only by his followers but lavishly promoted in the media as a genius.
Meanwhile, American behaviorists of the early 20th century began slowing building up knowledge one experiment at a time — using rigorously controlled methods and altering the theories as new data became available. Behaviorism finally ran out of steam when psychologists showed that human learning couldn’t be explained without cognition, and since then cognitive science has been slowly and gradually accumulating knowledge of the inner workings of the human mind.
It was the same in American sociology, where Jews committed to Marxist ideology conflicted with native Protestants committed to an empirical science framework. From Ch. 2 of The Culture of Critique:
The ethnic conflict within American sociology parallels to a remarkable degree the ethnic conflict in American anthropology that is a theme of this chapter. Here the conflict was played out between leftist Jewish social scientists and an old-line, empirically oriented Protestant establishment that was eventually eclipsed:
American sociology has struggled with the contrary claims of those afflicted with physics envy and researchers . . . more engaged in the dilemmas of society. In that struggle, midwestern Protestant mandarins of positivist science often came into conflict with East Coast Jews who in turn wrestled with their own Marxist commitments; great quantitative researchers from abroad, like Paul Lazarsfeld at Columbia, sought to disrupt the complacency of native bean counters. (Sennett 1995, 43)
The struggle of the Frankfurt School to produce empirical data that would be acceptable to American social scientists (reviewed here) provides an interesting saga in its own right. In the end, they managed to produce data that at least had the appearance (and only the appearance) of supporting their a priori commitment to producing a politically effective intellectual rationale for White displacement.
It is tempting, then, to think of Einstein as part of this Jewish tradition in the social sciences, and several commentators over the years have mentioned this to me as a research project. There may be something to this. But one problem is that, unlike psychoanalysis, Marxism, or the ideas of the Frankfurt School, the subject matter of Einstein’s theories cannot be seen as directly furthering Jewish ethnic goals (even though Einstein himself was a strong Zionist and had the usual Jewish fetishes about Jewish racial purity and racial superiority; see here). For example, the theories of Freud and the Frankfurt School were used in the battle to make people think that Whites with a sense of White identity and White interests have a psychiatric disorder and pathological family relationships. These theories were also used to fashion malignant and self-serving theories of anti-Semitism in which Jewish behavior is irrelevant. This was not the case with Einstein’s theories.
Further, whatever else one may say about Einstein’s theories, they have produced an enormous amount of research attempting to confirm them — unlike the Jewish intellectual movements discussed in CofC where agreement was enforced by simply expelling and ridiculing dissenters. In the end, providing a theory that produces a lot of new research is perhaps all that any good theory can do. Of course, this does not absolve Einstein from the allegations that he didn’t adequately acknowledge the contributions of his predecessors — always an issue in the academic world where priority is everything.
Still, there seems to be a difference in intellectual style between Jews and non-Jews. One of the quotes that was left out of Culture of Critique (because I didn’t know quite what to make of it) was from John Maynard Smith, the prominent British biologist. He made the following statement on contrasting intellectual styles in evolutionary biology:
By and large, those who held that [natural] selection played a major role in evolution were English country gentlemen, but…those who were not have largely been urban Jews….I mean urban intellectuals, people like Stu Kauffman and Steve Gould . It’s the search for universal truths. They seem to say, if there are not universal truths, how can you do science? Natural selection appears to be too ad hoc for them, just opportunistic adaptation. For me, that’s the way nature is.
Again we see the contrast between the Jewish style of universalist abstraction and the style of patient naturalists like Darwin steadily accumulating data over many years — fascinated with finding out how nature works, developing their theories inductively on the basis of evidence and not having any preconceived ideas about how nature works. E. O. Wilson titled one of his books The Naturalist and another Biophilia, reflecting his fascination and love of the natural world and how it works. Sociobiology, his 1975 synthesis of theory and data on the social behavior of animals and humans, remains a paradigm of powerful theory firmly grounded in empirical reality.
Of course, people like Gould also had ethnic reasons for disliking natural selection since, as Jewish leftists, they feared the development of a robust evolutionary science of humans. (Gould is a major villain in Ch. 2 of CofC.) Gould was a well-known critic of sociobiology and research on race differences.
Indeed, it is interesting that the only example in CofC where Jewish social scientists deviated from a commitment to weakly grounded universalist abstraction comes in the attack on Darwinism as it applied to the human social sciences. Here the method was radical skepticism and the enshrinement of an anti-theory of the differences between cultures and differences between human races. Gould is a prominent example, but the most important figures historically were Claude Levi Strauss and Franz Boas whose influence meant that anthropology would deify the minutiae of cultural differences rather than seek the sort of unifying theory that had been elaborated by the Darwinian anthropologist Louis Henry Morgan on the basis of patiently accumulating and synthesizing data.
As is the case in other arenas, Jewish intellectual style can be altered radically to suit Jewish interests. Whatever is good for the Jews and all that. As I note in Ch. 6 of CofC,
Within the intellectual world, the greatest potential danger for a collectivist minority group strategy is that science itself as an individualist enterprise conducted in an atomistic universe of discourse could in fact coalesce around a set of universalist propositions about human behavior, propositions that would call into question the moral basis of collectivist minority group strategies such as Judaism. One way to prevent this is for science itself to be problematized and replaced by a pervasive skepticism about the structure of all reality.
As I argue elsewhere, the decline of the non-Jewish intellectual elite inspired by Darwin was a critical factor in the decline of WASP America and the West generally.
Apart from this destructive effort directed against Darwinism, the thesis of Culture of Critique is that Jewish intellectuals have a long track record of developing theories in the social sciences and humanities that are very difficult, if not impossible, to test. Rather than empirical testing, group cohesion was maintained by ingroup consensus and fealty to god-like figures, with dissenters being expelled. This was also true of traditional Jewish groups: These groups saw the world through the lens of a non-falsifiable, abstract theological theory, and they were centered around charismatic rabbis, with heretics and other non-conformists expelled from the group.
At the same time, these theories — both the religious and secular versions — have been very useful to Jews politically. In traditional societies they enabled cohesive, effective groups where any event (e.g., anti-Jewish persecutions) could be explained by the theory (e.g., Jews had strayed from God’s law). And since the Enlightenment, these theories have been used as weapons against non-Jews and their culture. Conceptually, these theories are similar to Einstein’s theory in being internally consistent and difficult to verify. But Einstein’s theories have resulted in a lot of novel research attempting to confirm them and it is my (unsophisticated) understanding that aspects of his theories have been confirmed. And I rather doubt that Einstein’s theory satisfied Jewish political aims in quite the same way as the theories discussed in The Culture of Critique. Nevertheless, I await comment by people trying to make a case for a stronger relationship.
Finally, whatever one thinks of Einstein as a scientist, the media hype for Einstein is unquestionably intense, and there can be little doubt that the pervasiveness of the cult of Einstein as a Jewish genius has overtones of Jewish influence. For example, in 2000 Einstein was Time Magazine’s “Person of the Century.” Einstein is useful not just as a Jewish intellectual genius (and all the positive aura that provides for Jews generally). He is also useful because he had values typical of a very large section of the Jewish Diaspora in Western societies then and now – the same values that publications like Time wish to celebrate and that dominate the mainstream media and elite intellectual and political discourse now. The implicit logic is that really smart people have left/liberal attitudes — just the sort of person all non-extremists want to be. Indeed, this suggests that a really interesting Einstein project would be to try to figure out how influential Einstein and his cult were in molding elite opinion during the crucial 20 years following World War II.
This is from the Time article, written by Frederic Golden, who is careful to quote non-Jews who worship at the altar of Einstein:
Following World War II, Einstein became even more outspoken [with his leftist political views]. Besides campaigning for a ban on nuclear weaponry, he denounced McCarthyism and pleaded for an end to bigotry and racism. Coming as they did at the height of the cold war, the haloed professor’s pronouncements seemed well meaning if naive; Life magazine listed Einstein as one of this country’s 50 prominent “dupes and fellow travelers.” Says Cassidy: “He had a straight moral sense that others could not always see, even other moral people.” Harvard physicist and historian Gerald Holton adds, “If Einstein’s ideas are really naive, the world is really in pretty bad shape.” Rather it seems to him that Einstein’s humane and democratic instincts are “an ideal political model for the 21st century,” embodying the very best of this century as well as our highest hopes for the next. What more could we ask of a man to personify the past 100 years?
I’m guessing Prof. Holton is a philo-Semite.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Prof. MacDonald, I’m curious as to the ratio of anti-Euro Jewish movements to non-anti-Euro Jewish movements.
To put this in context, I often have to make the argument that, as in your Freud vs. Einstein comparison, Jewish “black ink” is ethnically neutral (generally, examples are technological inventions), whereas Jewish “red ink” is almost always ethnically-targeted (assaults on European man).
(Owing to this, I find discussions of Jewish “black ink” obviated, since they require Jewish proximity as much as Chinese use of the light bulb requires Thomas Edison)
Do we have any examples of Jewish “black ink” being ethnically-targeted? Do we have any examples of Jewish “red ink” being ethnically neutral?
In short, can you name any Jewish intellectual movements that have had more positive effects (or intentions) for Europeans than for non-Europeans? Failing that, can we name any Jewish intellectual movements that did not, in whole or in part, represent an attack on European man (leaving aside the obvious – movements so far removed from the fight, like physics, that they’re immaterial)?
It’s not so much the theory of general relativity itself that furthers their aims, but rather the persona of Einstein himself, overblown as he is into a sort of physics Messiah. Einstein represents a pre eminent Jewish genius who has single-handedly torn down classical western science and replaced them with a Jewish paradigm. That Einstein, the Incorrigible Plagiarist book makes this case. The line of reasonining goes somethng like, Einstein is the greatest genius who ever lived, plus Einstein is the most kind and moral soul who ever lived, plus Einstein is an ardent Zionist= Zionism is the morally and intellectually correct choice!
As such, I grow more and more skeptical of the Einstein persona. How much of general relativity was really due to Einstein? When do you ever read of special relativity not referred to as “Einstein’s special theory of relativity” when most of special relativity was the work of Poincare and Lorentz? You never see a person’s name so assidulously attached to a scientific theory in any other context. One would need a Phd in theoretical physics to confront these questions, of course.
For example, the Gerber formula for the perihelion effect of Mercury is the exact same as Einstein’s, down to the constants and all. And it is a very complicated formula. Maybe this sort of thing is common in theoretical physics, but I just don’t see how two distinct lines of reasoning can give exactly the same formula. While I totally agree the Deutch Physic movement were reactive kooks, maybe they were onto something with the Einstein issue.
I’ve always wondered about Einstein. In news clips, he was always at the blackboard, covering it with symbols. And he came up with the most bizarre ideas about bending light, slowing down time, etc. Was this science or mathematical games? But I could not comment, my degree is in biology.
How can one know nature interacting with a blackboard? At some point it would seem one must interact with nature–with experiments.
From the article:
But one problem is that, unlike psychoanalysis, Marxism, or the ideas of the Frankfurt School, the subject matter of Einstein’s theory cannot be seen as directly furthering Jewish ethnic goals (even though Einstein himself was a strong Zionist and had the usual Jewish fetishes about Jewish racial purity; see here).
[...]
Conceptually, these theories are similar to Einstein’s theory. But Einstein’s theory has resulted in a lot of novel research attempting to confirm it, and I rather doubt that Einstein’s theory satisfied Jewish political aims in quite the same way as the theories discussed in The Culture of Critique.
Two things.
First, the overthrow of Newtonian physics and its replacement with Einsteinian physics via special relativity theory was quite as traumatic in its impact on society as psychoanalysis or Frankfurt School theories derived from it. For one thing, just the idea of perceptions being relative to an observer, being conditioned by, and only having meaning at all relative to a given observational framework, is clearly subversive. An application to all of society’s values, morals, and epistemological systems is clearly suggested by it, and even contained within it. Moreover, the universe as depicted under Newtonian physics was still a comprehensible system that yet might be seen as something over which the old gentleman, God, might rule. Under that view, it continued to be possible to think that it was He who kindled the stars, and who stood guard over the Earth, and maintained the established order of things. But the dramatic demonstration at Hiroshima of the interconvertibility of matter and energy — something new with the special theory — acted as a force to shatter that placid universe once and for all. The new physics had given to man the power of the sun, which was the power of the old god, Sol Invictus. Thereby man actually, through his science and technology, became like God himself, and his first act was mass murder. Nothing like incinerating 70,000 people to make your point. It was an impressive way to start off the new era.
Second, it is true that at the time he developed them Freud’s theories were difficult to confirm. But recent developments in brain imaging have changed some of that. Freud might say that you yourself, in your paper on Effortful Control, could be said to locate the superego in the PFC. It’s also possible that the same sort of brain imaging data you reference in that paper could be used to explicate a Freudian concept like “reaction formation”, or “conversion hysteria”. In any case, the lasting contribution of Freud was to introduce the concept of the unconscious; to show that people have motives for their actions of which they are not themselves conscious. You even accept this yourself. It’s an essential part of your theory of Jewish motivations in CoC; in a sense you are just turning around the Jewish critique, pointing and exclaiming “Your motives are base, and not at all what you say they are!”, just as they earlier did to whites in critiques such as The Authoritarian Personality.
well ‘relativity’ did make it’s way into the vernacular, and helped to undermine the idea of absolute truth or morality…
can you name any Jewish intellectual movements that have had more positive effects (or intentions) for Europeans than for non-Europeans
no but strangely enough one group always benefits from these ‘universalist’ movements.
also einstein became sort of the yardstick and icon of Genius, to replace previous western icon of Newton.
central event of western history then:
Christ crucifiction
now: holocast
hope for mankind:
resurrection
now: israel
then: virgin mary
now: anne frank
then: cathedrals
now: holocaust museums (pilgrimage required)
art:
then: rapheal, michaelangelo
now: name your favorite modern ‘artist’
music:
then: mozart
now: mahler
I think it’s important to point out that Einstein’s theories were part of a larger transformation and that “Copernican” revolutions always have (philosophical) consequences far beyond. Picasso, for example, was inspired by Einstein and non-Euclidean geometry. Revolutions have unpredictable, long-term side effects.
“It has been suggesed that the formation and evaluative assessment of systems in relativistic or quantum physics and atonalistic or dodecaphonic music are inspired by the same operative principles and insights, and that there is ‘a historical-cultural link between these two system mutations as such and the new world-view they produced’ (e.g. probability taking over from determinism, the pivotal role of the observer, theoretical pluralism, etc.). In many respects the determinism inherent in tonality theory reflected the determinism in classical physics. In a similar fashion, quantum physics and atonality share an indeterministic rationale, affirmed in the principle of probability and in the disappearance of external determinism (tonality).”
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Knutsson-PostmodernismIII.html
No, Freud’s theories remain pseudo-science on the level of L. Ron Hubbard’s.
“explicate” in this case meaning, we can write some “theories” that sound impressive to lay persons with little more than a passing reading from the popular press. The Sokal Hoax, we see how this works. I remember a book titled “Quantum Physics and the New Age” which is in the same tradition.
Hysterical, as if Freud even introduced a single new idea about the unconscious, which has been a major topic of interest to humans since classical times and earlier. Analyzing dreams was somehow introduced by Freud?
Freud’s lasting contribution can be seen everyday on Oprah’s “The Secret” and “Dr. Phil” – if L. Ron Hubbard had been Jewish, he would have been the darling of the media and his particular brand of pseudo-science would be hailed today as “ground-breaking.” by housewives.
Freud’s innovation was in “donning a lab coat” and pretending to be a serious scientist for the media.
Adam said:
“In any case, the lasting contribution of Freud was to introduce the concept of the unconscious”
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pierre_Janet
That would be another case of
“didn’t adequately acknowledge the contributions of his predecessors — always an issue in the academic world where priority is everything.”
Which Freud was famous for. And:
“Finally, whatever one thinks of Einstein as a scientist, the media hype for Einstein is intense.”
Let’s call this “Jewish Sensationalism”
Personally,
I think Kevin is too dismissive of analytic psychology (Janet-Jung), and, more generally, German idealism from Kant on. As a corrective measure, I would advise reading some good healthy Aryan psychology: http://www.archive.org/stream/memoriesdreamsre007394mbp/memoriesdreamsre007394mbp_djvu.txt
If you have access, here’s a discussion the touches on some of the differences between the Freudian approach versus the Analytic approach http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a786586331&db=all
AmusedEuro says:
[some nonsense]
I thought you said you were going to ignore me. Please do.
Lesacre says:
Adam said:
“In any case, the lasting contribution of Freud was to introduce the concept of the unconscious”
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pierre_Janet
That would be another case of
“didn’t adequately acknowledge the contributions of his predecessors — always an issue in the academic world where priority is everything.”
Which Freud was famous for.
I disagree. In Interpretation of Dreams Freud tried to tie his theory of the unconscious to what was then known about the brain. His theory had a dynamic aspect applicable to everyone, normal and abnormal alike, that explained facts about human consciousness that went way beyond Janet, whose work, according to your cite, was focused only on dissociative personalities. Janet and others, including (for example) Schopenhauer, may have danced around the issue of the unconscious, but Freud put it at the center of his theory and tried to tie it in to the science of the day.
In any case, whomever you want to credit for it, the idea of the unconscious and the existence of unconscious motivations was a subversive one. It did a lot to undermine the old way of looking at things. After that blow, Western man could no longer presume to know even his own thoughts with the same confidence he used to have. The result was a radical re-structure of epistemology.
As for Freud being famous for not acknowledging his predecessors, this is the first I’ve heard of it. He acknowledges quite a few of them in Die Träumdeutung, if I’m not mistaken. What else do you allege he stole?
Another excellent post, Kevin; no matter how much of a genius Einstein was (or was not), the perpetual promotion of his image and hero-worship of him is stomach turning. How many average folks know who Niels Bohr is, for instance?
By the way, “Adam” is obviously Abe Foxman’s highly paid catamite. I suggest that those of us who read this blog that don’t work for the ADL or perform licentious acts for old Abe’s twisted pleasure ignore “Adam’s” nonsensical comments.
Do you get paid by the word, “Adam”?
I hope for your sake that the cheap old miser Foxman at least pays for your KY or Vaseline, you creep.
First, the overthrow of Newtonian physics and its replacement with Einsteinian physics via special relativity theory was quite as traumatic in its impact on society as psychoanalysis or Frankfurt School theories derived from it
You overstate this tremendously.
While it did cause some thinkers to give pause, the bulk of society did not take notice except for the lavish praise the media has given to Einstein. Most people do not understand the concepts and even if you explain it to them, it has no practical effect in the course of their lives.
While Einstein did pave the way for nuclear warfare, this is a mere technological advancement; an incremental step in a process that was occurring long before him. At most, the affect was political, for it gave us a temporary advantage in global dominance, as opposed to some sort of world-changing paradigm shift that you proclaim.
On the other hand, the Frankfurt School and its brother in psychology had profound influence essentially everyone in society; it poisoned the cultural institutions from the top and its effects are seen in the in-progress destruction of Western civilization and the white race.
“tried to tie his theory of the unconscious to what was then known about the brain”
In the same way an astrologer tries to tie his “theories” to astronomy. Anyone can write rhetoric, science means experimentation and reproducible results. Theologians make unfalsifiable claims. Freud was show business.
“His theory had a dynamic aspect applicable to everyone”
Dynamite! Just kidding. “Dynamic aspect applicable to everyone” meaning what, exactly? I’m not joking when I say Dr. Phil said the same thing.
“explained facts about human consciousness”
But Freud did not explain any facts about human consciousness. He said a lot of things, but none of it had any truth value. Neurologists might quote some quip from Freud when doing a press interview, but it’s not as if Freud contributed a single thing to modern understanding of the human brain.
“existence of unconscious motivations was a subversive one”
Yes, it sure was subversive – in 300 BC. In the modern West? Not so much.
“It did a lot to undermine the old way of looking at things. After that blow, Western man could no longer presume to know even his own thoughts with the same confidence he used to have.”
The media and academic promotion of Freud did have that effect, but it had little to do with the scientific merit of any of his “theories.”
“The result was a radical re-structure of epistemology.”
No.
I’m no longer ignoring because you are amusing again. I’m hardly qualified to discuss Einstein, but the fact people are still promoting Freud as anything other than a circus act – it’s too easy of a target to pass up.
I had two semesters of college physics, and it was fun. I wish now I had taken more. I was just a little scared of the walk in safe in the lab where they kept the nuclear radioactive stuff. I even would walk on the opposite side of the hallway when I walked past that lab. LOL. Seriously.
My physics professor had worked on the Manhattan Project during WWII, and he had been an all American football player in the early 1920′s. He had a nickname from his football days, but, that’s a little personal.
There are a lot of smart people out there…
Darren says:
First, the overthrow of Newtonian physics and its replacement with Einsteinian physics via special relativity theory was quite as traumatic in its impact on society as psychoanalysis or Frankfurt School theories derived from it
You overstate this tremendously.
That’s a matter of opinion.
At most, the affect was political, for it gave us a temporary advantage in global dominance, as opposed to some sort of world-changing paradigm shift that you proclaim.
The destruction of the idea of time and space as absolute dimensions of human experience, and the idea that the truth of observations are relative to the position of the observer, gradually percolated throughout philosophy and the social sciences. The effect was to destroy the idea of absolute truth, and by implication, an absolute order as ordained by God. The proof that this theory was correct, a proof that everyone could understand, was the incineration of 70,000 people at Hiroshima.
In any event it is quite clear — whether you and others like it or not, or think it was scientific or not, or whether some undeservingly got credit or not — that the old ways of thinking were radically re-structured in the 20th century. God as he had been known certainly died, or at least largely faded away as he was replaced by the Moloch of the global technological system. Accordingly, the thinking of the common man progressively became much more science and technology-oriented than religion-oriented. Whether you can convincingly set forth a different conceptual topography, with different headwaters for these transformative ideas than Einstein, Darwin, Marx, and Freud, is an open question. I doubt you or anybody else here can, but it might be interesting to see you try. So let’s ask, if their ideas were not the most influential, who else shall we credit (or blame)?
On the other hand, the Frankfurt School and its brother in psychology had profound influence essentially everyone in society; it poisoned the cultural institutions from the top and its effects are seen in the in-progress destruction of Western civilization and the white race.
The idea of the relativity of truth introduced by Einstein worked synergistically with the ideas of Freud, Marx, and Darwin. It bolstered and underpinned them all, with an undeniably real, impressive proof in the form of an atomic explosion. Synergistically with Freud, because the ego as observer of the mind’s internal processes could no longer be certain that it had complete information, or that its observations were not distorted due to its relative position; with Marx, because observations and cultural truths were held to be relative to one’s economic class; and with Darwin because one’s very idea of truth, or capacity even to apprehend it, was relative to one’s state or level of evolution. These changes in thinking were necessary for people to accept if the technological system were to continue to expand.
Adam:
“In any case, whomever you want to credit for it, the idea of the unconscious”
This is a classic work.
http://books.google.com/books?id=LE_IML-OHPQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Discovery+of+the+Unconscious&source=bl&ots=MyKDzCxyMr&sig=mzQK3OY-yaS_8WqFqGnUuBQ8Elo&hl=en&ei=liW0S4zSHoKBlAeN3YUz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=freud&f=false
“After that blow, Western man could no longer presume to know even his own thoughts with the same confidence he used to have. The result was a radical re-structure of epistemology.”
There were several blows: Copernicus, Newton, Kant, and Darwin — all challenged the West’s particular Spiritual-anthropocentric view of things — displacing Western man’s sense of centered-ness So things were spinning even before psychoanalysis was developed. Your Hegels, Haechels, Fichtes, Marxes, and Nietzsches need to be contextualized in that regards. But I agree, the overall result was a “radical re-structuring of [the ontoaxio]epistemology,” a result to which Freud contributed to. In regards to Kevin’s CofC thesis I would add, that unlike Janet-Jung, Freud did not seek an integration. Like many of your contemporary Jewish intellectuals, Freud stood as an outsider in his criticism — Jung’s description of this comes to mind:
“Freud himself had a neurosis, no doubt diagnosable
and one with highly troublesome symptoms…Of course he had taught me that everybody is somewhat neurotic, and that we must practice
tolerance. But I was not at all inclined to content myself with
that; rather, I wanted to know how one could escape having a
neurosis. Apparently neither Freud nor his disciples could un-
derstand what it meant for the theory and practice of psycho-
analysis if not even the master could deal with his own neurosis.”
“Like an Old Testament prophet, he undertook to
overthrow false gods, to rip the veils away from a mass of dis-
honesties and hypocrisies, mercilessly exposing the rottenness of
the contemporary psyche. He did not falter in the face of the
unpopularity such an enterprise entailed. The impetus which he
gave to our civilization sprang from his discovery of an avenue
to the unconscious. By evaluating dreams as the most important
source of information concerning the unconscious processes, he
gave back to mankind a tool that had seemed irretrievably lost.
He demonstrated empirically the presence of an unconscious
psyche which had hitherto existed only as a philosophical postu-
late, in particular in the philosophies of C. G. Cams and Eduard
von Hartmann.”
(For the record: I usually don’t come at this from the Jews are insidious perspective — just that many give unsympathetic destructive critiques of tendencies which many of their co-ethnos also themselves plainly manifest; whether or not this can be said to be a culturally adaptive strategy [in the non-Lamarckian (non-consciously intentional) sense] is another issue.)
Kevin M,
Can you can stipulate what counts as subversive in the CofC sense?
Copernicus, Newton, and Darwin clearly had impacts which caused, what Adam calls “radical re-structuring.” It seems you would say that they were not subversive because the ideas that they spread were essentially factual, and as factual discovers they can not be seen as assaults of some sort.
Yet, thinkers such as Descartes, Kant, and Nietzsche clearly also had impacts which also caused a “radical re-structuring.” And their ideas were theoretical and speculative.
So, unless you want to say that the ideas of Freud and the members of the Frankfurt School were subversive by virtue of them being Jews who caused the “radical re-structuring” — you have to be able to stipulate what about their ideas were subversive instead of just Western revolutionary, in the manner of any of the above.
In general, I think your thesis has merit, but for it to be a thesis and not just an analogue of cultural Marxism — a counter CofC — you need to be able to qualify it and stipulate what would falsify it. With regards to what I was asking above, what qualifies Jewish critiques as (not being) subversive? Or, if nothing, what qualifies radical thinkers who happens to be Jewish as (not being) persons who are manifesting a Jewish collective strategy, say, as opposed to just person who happen to be radical thinkers.
I guess what I am saying is your CofC presupposed an group competitive paradigm, in the way that Cultural Marxism dogmatically presupposes a hegemonic paradigm. To go beyond dogma, you need to qualify — and maybe you have — when this paradigm applies and when it does not. Further, to go beyond paradigm — and maybe you have — you need to explain what would falsify the group-competitive perspective itself.
I will add,
I think the lack of clarification — or at least the awareness of it — has led to some confusions about your thesis. Again, I have no doubt that on average that Jews (an other Semites) work more as a group than Europeans (Having, grown up in a Jewish neighborhood, it’s pretty easy for me to sense when a given person is an individual who happened to be born jewish, when they are Jewish and informed by that sense, and when they are acting as Jews. (States which roughly corresponds to being European Liberal, conservative, and far-right). Further, I have no doubt that the various levels of identity inform behavior, and have and do express themselves — and that our ethnos has been negatively impacted by this, in a way that would not have happened in absence of this influence.
Nonetheless (perhaps, in my all-too-Goy fashion) I like to make the proper distinctions.
Speaking of paradigms:
“These changes in thinking were necessary for people to accept if the technological system were to continue to expand.”
Adam,
You’re selling this using the wrong language. Read up on Heidegger and the philosophy of technology.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fHccIneCJq4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA171&dq=Ernst+junger+%22The++machine%22&ots=rYt8FVRdtk&sig=GofCdLtIl2he4U2gJYGS0VcqvQg#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Then just go reframe your ‘technological system’ crap in terms that actually speak to most of us. If you’re going to be subversive, at least be intelligent about it.
And therein lies the problem. Prof. MacDonald has a long track record of developing theories in the social sciences and humanities that are very difficult, if not impossible, to test. Rather than empirical testing, he takes one anecdote from Austria 1930 and one half sentence by a Greek sophist two thousand years ago, and erects on them a selfcontained intellectual tower. On the top of the tower a large neon signpost: The Jews are our misfortune. His problem is NOT genetic, Prof. MacDonald is capable of quality empirical research and used to publish good papers, but his mind was affected by his subject-matter, what else, the Jews.
Dr. MacDonald,
I have no problem with Einstein except (!) that his relativity theories are bogus. It’s important to remember that these theories won acceptance FIRST in the media (we know the reinforcing effects between our friends in academia and the media) in 1919 when the deflection of light by the sun supposedly confirmed his general theory of relativity. Even in 1921 when he won the Nobel Prize, his relativity theories were still not accepeted in the scientific community and so he was awarded the prize not for relativity, but for his most important contribution to science which was explaining the photoelectric effect.
Only after the media turned him into a celebrity did the scientific community begrudginly accept his relativity. And unlike some claims made here and elsewhere, the A-bomb does NOT prove his relativity theories. Quantum mechanics was sufficient alone for this work. In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories were useless for all practical purposes and basically ignored until well after WWII when it was ‘rediscovered’ by cosmologists. Perhaps the greatest use of his relativity theories was in providing Sci-Fi writers with interesting things to talk about like black holes and the Twin Paradox. Most of the so-called experiments that supposedly confirm relativity are cosmological and plagued by confirmation bias in which the results presume relativity to be correct. Indeed, general relativity is not even compatible with quantum mechanics. Physicists have tried for decades to unify the two coming up with strings and worms and all kind of complicated theories that violate Occam’s Razor that the simplest explanations tend to be closest to truth. If I had to bet on which one were correct, I would place my money on quantum mechanics.
One last thing: relativity stands or falls based on the velocity of light being constant. At first glance that appears reasonable, but Einstein’s relativity assumes this to be true regardless of the body of motion. That means that, for example, if someone shines a flashlight at a distant brick wall while standing still, and another shines a flashight in the same direction while running, the beam of light of both will reach the brick wall at the same time (!) because the velocity of the runner and the speed of light are not additive! The velocity of light must always be the same according to relativity. But how can that be? If you believe relativity, TIME itself slows down for fast moving objects.
In classical mechanics, velocities are additive. But not so with light. And this is why Einstein’s relativity threw the entire scientific community into confusion.
Einstein’s relativity makes light this eternal constant. And yet when a scientist named Miller provided evidence to the contrary, Einstein dismissed the results as experimental error (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment).
I really wish there were some ‘mainstream’ physicists that would come up with a more intelligible and intuitive theory to replace relativity. I remember the excitement in physics class when we reached the chapter on relativity, and the disappointment after I realized it was nothing but a bundle of contradictions and paradoxes that lead to no deeper understanding of the universe. It is anything but elegant. But the cult of Einstein means it will be around for some time. They say that no mainstream physicist doubts relativity. Well that’s not a surprise! Acceptance of relativity is a pre-condition to acceptance as a mainstream physicist. Doubters are immediately treated as kooks! And yet, ironically, relativity was also considered heresy in its infancy.
In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories were useless for all practical purposes
One of the apollo program astronauts said something like “einstien may be right but newton got us here’
I guess all of you are aware that no one knows what gravity really “is”, or really understands the wave/particle duality of light.
Some might think how could the theory of relativity be wrong when the entire establishment of physicists believes it to be true?
Well, as race realists, we all know the power of group think and the Naked Emperor effect. The entire cultural elite insists against all reason, fact, and common sense that NO meaningful genetic and/or cultural differences exist between the races, and they will shame, shout down, humiliate, belittle, and deride anyone who says otherwise. Instead, they come up with all sorts of sophisticated ad hoc theories – with ‘racism’ a central component of most – to explain differences in outcome between the races. Simpler (but more honest!) explanations – like maybe Asians have slightly higher IQs than whites who have higher IQs than blacks – are crass beliefs left to the common man.
In a similar vein, I think theoretical physicists don’t want a simpler theory of the universe. The overly complex, paradoxical, and contradictory nature of relativity allows them to play ‘high priest’ and pretend to be privy to the ‘truth’ of the universe which no lay man could ever hope to understand.
So I’m not really intimidated by the fact that relativity is ‘established theory’ among physicists. After all, the geocentric worldview was established theory a couple of centuries ago.
If you talk to scientist friends and they go on about all the fantastical implications of relativity, there is one easy way to see whether they have really made an attempt to understand the theory on its merits or whether they have bought the theory as ‘established science’ without ever questioning its correctness. Ask them: what are your thoughts about the speed of light being an absolute constant? Because this is the thread that holds the whole theory together. If they have made no attempt to think through this – the one and only postulate of relativity – in any serious way, and just enjoy talking about black holes and all the other Sci-Fi implications of relativity, then they’re just naked emperors.
It’s interesting that no one ever bothered to experimentally test whether the speed of light might change depending on the speed of the source of light (like the guy running with a flashlight as I mentioned above) until the 1960s! Only after relativity became established science! Strikes me as strange that relativity was accepted before its core postulate was ever experimentally tested!? Now they tell us after they’ve already accepted the theory as fact that neutral pions ‘prove’ that light’s velocity is constant regardless of the speed of the source of light. Don’t we have the order here backwards? How about testing the theory’s key postulate before accepting the theory as truth! For those interested in this topic, see this excellent website (although be warned the physicist is a relativity ‘believer’): http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html.
Undoubtedly, the academic culture of critique leans heavily on those “paradigms” which can be interpreted favorably to Jews and destructively to White culture. But as Dr. MacDonald seems to imply, these paradigms are not always “scientific”, strictly speaking. The sole outstanding exception is Einsteinian physics, a paradigm which still has its share of problems and has not yet been fully explored or understood.
With regard to the Special and General Theories of Relativity, Einstein was technically not a physicist in the sense then current. He was primarily a metaphysician whose achievement was to apply an extant mathematical language to physics in a grand synthesis based on existing mathematical insight and innovation, and then to claim whatever predictions emerged from this metaphysical application as scientific confirmation for the synthesis. That is, where the interpretation of physics is metaphysical by definition, Einstein’s metaphysical interpretation of classical physics in the mathematical language of differential geometry was an exercise in metaphysics. It became “science” only when it was found to generate falsifiable observation statements, a convenience which Einstein could not initially take for granted.
As I’ve already mentioned elsewhere, the mathematical language applied to physics by Einstein (differential geometry) was discovered and extensively developed by White men (Gauss, Riemann, etc.). Whites have made most of the major advances in pure mathematics from the time of the ancient Greek geometers. But even this cannot account for the entirety of White scientific dominance; most of the great experimentalists and mechanical innovators since the dawn of recorded history, from Archimedes on down, have been White as well. This is how Whites were able to build high-tech Western civilization, laying the groundwork for modern science with no appreciable help from Jews, Asians, or anyone else until quite recently.
What about grand syntheses of the kind for which Einstein is famous? It should come as no surprise that Whites have been responsible for most advances of that kind as well. One need merely think of men like Newton, Maxwell, and even Darwin, next to whom the Jewish Nobel-chasers of modern science are mere wannabes…string-pulling, self-aggrandizing lightweights. In short, when we look to see what Jews have brought to the table that would justify their disproportionate representation in modern science, we find that the answer is “not very much”, at least when held up to the blazing White lights on whose shoulders they ungratefully stand.
Of course, this is not to belittle the achievements of Jewish scientists. Obviously, we would rather have these achievements than not, at least insofar as they are truly scientific (as opposed to glorified engineering projects undertaken by/for Jewish interests, e.g., the atomic bomb, for which the scientific framework existed well before the Manhattan Project, again thanks to Whites). But given that the present Jew-heavy science establishment is strikingly unreflective of the overall history of science, through which marches an unbroken procession of skyscraping White titans, one is forced to wonder how many brilliant non-Jewish minds have been driven out of academia and scientifically wasted thanks to the Jews, whose incessant Machiavellian academic and political game-playing puts them in a position to intercept research funds and to take credit neither owed nor deserved.
Sadly, we may never know whether the Jews have given as much to the sciences as their loud and contentious participation has probably cost. We can only look back at the scientific achievements of our forefathers and imagine what might have been, had our culture not been systematically dismantled around our ears. (Of course, other such questions may be easier to answer. For example: Where would we be in the space program if most of our resources had not been squandered on freebies for the non-White, usually non-Christian “minorities” for whom the Jews “altruistically” opened our borders? What would we know about human intelligence if scientists had not been prevented by sanctimonious Jewish yammering from seeking the causes of racial disparities in average IQ? What would we know about the genetic basis of human behavior in general had it not been for Jewish hypocrisy and fear of embarrassment? Et cetera.)
Regarding MacDonald’s own theories, it was remarked above by “j” – could this possibly stand for “jew”? – that they are untestable, at least as they pertain to Jews. No, they are not “untestable”. Every scientific theory has several related functions including description, explanation, and prediction, each of which has levels of refinement. When we call a theory “testable”, we mean that one or all of these functions can be tested at the appropriate levels. MacDonald’s theory is testable by these standards, and its (descriptive and explanatory) power can be compared to that of other theories.
This is not to say that it has already yielded specific predictions that can be easily distinguished from those of other comparable theories and empirically tested, mind you, but it can do so in principle. Given a sufficiently elaborate study, such predictions could be tested for relative accuracy. Much more than this cannot be asked of a psycho-social theory.
“but his mind was affected by his subject-matter, what else, the Jew”
Hmmmph. Jew-defenders can’t see that their own argument — that criticism of Jews is caused by a mental illness, diagnostically termed “antisemitism” — just provides even more weight to the argument that we Euros need an ethnostate free of them.
After all, if “antisemitism” is a manifestation of mental illness as Jew-defenders claim, then the obvious conclusion is, since proximity to Jews makes us crazy, we need to be rid of them, just as any illness vector (like, say, mosquitoes) needs to be removed through public health measures. Ejection of Jews would be the mental-health measure akin to draining the swamps.
Just a few thoughts on Einstein and his psyche.
With respect to Einstein’s deep-rooted Jewishness, it should be noted that his first wife, Mileva Marić (a gentile), helped him tremendously in the research and writing of the papers that were published in 1905, his “miracle” year. Einstein never acknowledged her contribution and made her life a living hell after he became famous.
Now about Paul Gerber’s formula for the precession of the perihelion of mercury, which pre-dated Einsteins. Physicists are in general agreement that his derivation is faulty and therefore suspect. It is likely that Gerber devised an empirical formula to fit the data and then tried to come up with a theoretical basis. Give Einstein credit where it’s due. A bit of history. There was a discrepancy between the calculated (using Newtonian mechanics) and the observed precession of 43 seconds of arc per century, an infinitesimal amount. But as physics is an exact science, this was bothersome. Einstein showed that the correction stemmed partly from special relativity and partly from general relativity. This is what gave Einstein’s general relativity theory credence when it came out.
David Hilbert (a German despite the name) and a contemporary of Einsteins, actually came up with the formula for general relativity before Einstein. Einstein was having trouble with his formula. Hilbert attended a lecture where Einstein was explaining the problems that he was encountering and as the story goes, Hilbert immediately saw a way to a solution. Hilbert, in the European tradition of fairness, let Einstein claim full credit for the theory when he finally figured out the correct formula. Would Einstein have done the same if the situation were reversed? Doubtful.
The formula for the general theory is stated in terms of tensor calculus, a hairy subject for students of math. Einstein made use of the pioneering work of the Italian mathematician Georgio Ricci-Curbastro. Einstein made a slight modification to the Ricci tensor in his general theory. Years ago, this was called the “Ricci-Einstein” tensor. Now Ricci seems to have been forgotten and it’s called simply the Einstein tensor. I wonder how that happened?
Einstein’s problem was that he failed to understand the consequences of his own “revolution”, by rejected the radical (“postmodern”/probabilistic) Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The effect was to destroy the idea of absolute truth, and by implication, an absolute order as ordained by God.
In whose minds was this idea destroyed? Was there a drop in religosity as a result of Einstein that can be directly tied to him? Billions of people seem to differ.
Einstein’s effect was on the progress of science, not on philosophy or religion. Yes, there were various people who took pause to the notion of relativity, and many people did bristle at it, including the Nazis, but he himself cannot realistically be given credit for all you give him (“traumatic impact on society”).
In any event it is quite clear — whether you and others like it or not, or think it was scientific or not, or whether some undeservingly got credit or not — that the old ways of thinking were radically re-structured in the 20th century. God as he had been known certainly died, or at least largely faded away as he was replaced by the Moloch of the global technological system.
You haven’t really convincingly shown us that this is really to Einstein’s credit.
I don’t disagree with you, at least as a general phenomena, that God is losing his sway (re: the last sentence above), but its not really to Einstein’s credit. If you were to talk about the growing secularism in context with the rising globalist technocracy, as opposed to it being centered around Einstein, you would be making more sense.
Whether you can convincingly set forth a different conceptual topography, with different headwaters for these transformative ideas than Einstein, Darwin, Marx, and Freud, is an open question.
I’m just talking about Einstein as opposed to the Frankfurt School and pscyhoanalysis, as per your original post. Why are you adding additional people in now?
The idea of the relativity of truth introduced by Einstein worked synergistically with the ideas of Freud, Marx, and Darwin
Interesting thesis, but still, I think you are giving too much credit where little is due.
It bolstered and underpinned them all, with an undeniably real, impressive proof in the form of an atomic explosion. Synergistically with Freud, because the ego as observer of the mind’s internal processes could no longer be certain that it had complete information, or that its observations were not distorted due to its relative position; with Marx, because observations and cultural truths were held to be relative to one’s economic class; and with Darwin because one’s very idea of truth, or capacity even to apprehend it, was relative to one’s state or level of evolution. These changes in thinking were necessary for people to accept if the technological system were to continue to expand.
Relativity is a physical concept, not a philosophical framework. You are conflating physics with metaphysics.
Furthermore, I think you are stretching the works of these men to make it seem congruent with relativity; as if they “go together” in some sort of all-encompassing framework of physics and metaphysics.
Finally:
For Marx, there is only one truth; otherwise he wouldn’t proclaim the moral righteousness of his vision. For Darwin, truth is embedded in science, not in your “level” of evolution, which demonstrates a poor understanding of Darwin on your part.
These changes in thinking were necessary for people to accept if the technological system were to continue to expand.
But these weren’t the changes people internalized. The dominant paradigm of the technocracy is utilitarianism, not relativity. If increasing technological and global economic dependence can be reasonably shown to make people happy, then it will be accepted, religious and unreligious alike. Some of the biggest defenders of the globalist technocracy are the highly religious middle class.
Sorry, still not convinced.
barb, There is no need for such extreme measures to “cure” Prof. MacDonald. He could decide to stop obsessing about the Jews (enough to politely dislike them) and return to experimental evolutionary psychology.
If “antisemitism” can be cured by deciding to “stop obsessing” then it’s not a mental illness. (Because people suffering from OCD are UNABLE to stop obsessing.)
And so, if “antisemitism” is not a mental illness, then that suggests…hmmm…. that it’s a reasonable, rational response to actual facts.
So if what Jew-defenders really want is for Whites to ignore facts, well, you’re not going to get it.
It’s really very simple, “j”.
Theoretical evolutionary psychology is an absolutely legitimate field of study. Jews are legitimate objects of study in theoretical evolutionary psychology. Kevin MacDonald is a theoretical evolutionary psychologist. Therefore, MacDonald is absolutely justified in studying Jews, current experiments or no.
In fact, MacDonald’s work in theoretical evolutionary psychology applies directly to the gigantic “social experiment” being run on the American majority by Jews … very possibly, by Jews exactly like you.
Dear Prof. MacDonald,
thank you very,very much for positively responding to TOO author Daniel Michaels’s article. I would like to contribute strategic infos so you
can see clearly the Jewish evolutionary character of the falsifiable relativity theory.
1.) There is the first complete Einstein-critical English and international
bibliography on the web comprising thousands of scientific
titles
(http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/126122,albertowi-einsteinowi-poswiecam-cz-2
).
2.) Relativistic clock experiments since the 1970s have purportedly shown
that moving clocks are slower than resting ones (e.g. the famous
Haefele-Keating clock experiment; the twin in the spaceship is claimed to
age slowlier than the twin on earth; “twin paradox”). Both the
clock-transporting airplanes and the atomic clock mechanisms themselves are
moving. Physical movement is expressed in “meters per second”. So, time is a
condition for physical movement. So, any measurement of velocity can never
be interpreted as showing a “distortion” of time as time is one of the
conditions of velocity (heavy circular reasoning).
3.) The fast-travelling twin in the spaceship ages purportedly slowlier than
the twin on earth. But if we introduce a further twin travelling with an
even faster spaceship, we get six different observer situations which are
all differing. But it is claimed by relativity that the differences in aging
are real (heavy logical contradictions). So Einstein tried to avoid to use
more than two mutually-observing objects.
4.) The relativistic dogma of the constancy of the velocity of light is not
experimentally proven. To prove the non-existence of something which is not
basically illogical is especially difficult as it means to search the whole
cosmos for it. To prove the existence of something is much easier as only
one clear evidence could prove it. It is said by relativists that Einstein
“freed the goddess of light from a cage into which German genius Immanuel
Kant had forced her”. The light could be interpreted as Yahwe and his Chosen
People. In Jewish thinking everything is designed to illogically fit their
particularist dogma to be the “light among the peoples”, to be the “measure
of all things” involving half-conscious self-deception as elaborated on by
you.
5.) Alexander Friedman was a Jew from St. Petersburg who introduced
relativity to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is similarly
illogical reflecting the Jewish Creation myth: one almighty God shows his
almightyness by the creation of the world out of nothing. The creation is
totally depending on this almighty God which is a projection of the choleric
oriental patriarch into heaven who punishes and massacres the Gentiles with
fervor. This is in contrast to polytheistic religions (Indians) that think
of an endless process of movement and creation involving goddesses, too. If
Einstein is assumed to be wrong, the cosmos must have been existing at least
for 50 billion years (!) as the observable universe is 50 billion years in
every direction from earth. Time, space and mass are infinte. Any finite
space, time or mass as proposed in the Big Bang could not be explained
reasonably: why would an assumed finite mass of the cosmos not be twice or
half the value ? (cf. Immanuel Kant’s famous “antinomies”).
6.) Einstein has become t h e God of science and is considered by many as
the greatest genius of all time what he is definitely not. He had a
sub-average size and deformed brain and two of his three children were
heavily disabled (Liesl Einstein had Down syndrome, Eduard was incurably
mentally sick). People, many of them Jews, came to Albert Einstein’s
lectures to touch him or his shirt sleeves as a blessing. He even made a
significant impact on Franz Boas (whom we both kown all too good) who was a
learned physicist (!) and knew relativity theory from the beginning. Ten
years after Einstein he launched his racial relativity sharing the same
empirical and logical flaws. Einstein also asked Boas to care for Prof.
Hugo Iltis who got a tenure in the US soon after during the Nazi era.
Einstein addressed also Boas’s cultural relativism in a radio interview.
Famous Jewish French relativist Henri Arzeliès called critics of physical
relativity “mentally sick”. Jewish Russian Abram Ioffe suppressed critics in
the Soviet Union after 1960. In Germany critics have been labelled
anti-Semitic until 2010 risking their job. “Softies” like Heisenberg and v.
Weizsäcker even appeased the Nazis (!)concerning Einstein in the so-called
“Munich Religious Peace Pact” (not to talk of their sabotaging the German
Manhattan Project, the “Uranprojekt”). The dominant Jewish Ullstein press in
Berlin was crucial to Einstein’s success in Germany. Until 1923 thousands of
positve German newspaper articles appeared (collected by Ernst Gehrke). Dr.
Chappell, founder of the biggest scientific American anti-Einstein alliance
until now (www.worldnpa.org), reports e.g. suppression in all Ivy League
Universities, especially in Berkeley where Jews purged the physics
department as early as the 1920s.
Thank you very much, Prof. MacDonald ! I hope you are the one to completely uncover the truth about relativity !
I’d like to add that Jews have been studying us intensively throughout history. Now it’s time we start to learn more about them, too. After more than half a century of monopoly, Jews will have to learn to live with ethnic competition in every corner of the world, in every realm of science, and in every sector of the economy.
And therein lies the problem. Prof. MacDonald has a long track record of developing theories in the social sciences and humanities that are very difficult, if not impossible, to test.
It has uses, regardless of falsifiability. The whole of Jewish movements in or related to the social sciences are as far as I can tell, unfalsifiable (in addition to being anti-European). So you have your work cut out for you in your crusade against unfalsifiability. Start with your own tribe, eh?
Back to those uses:
1) counteract Jewish malfeasance.
2) predictive power (which borders on experimentation IMO, and something Jewish movements lack).
3) an excellent history lesson (I for one see MacDonald’s theories as interesting, and the history lesson as the real meat).
And therein lies the problem. Prof. MacDonald has a long track record of developing theories in the social sciences and humanities that are very difficult, if not impossible, to test.
You have indeed identified yet another problem, more support for the idea that gentiles and non-gentiles just can’t get along. Non-gentiles as a tribe create an entire edifice of unfalsifiable anti-European dogma, and along comes a non-gentile to complain that one non-jew is measuring off a plot to pour a foundation of his own.
“… the media hype for Einstein is unquestionably intense …” The mainstream media response to Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard is to either ignore them or smear them. Here are two books on Jews from a Roman Catholic viewpoint:
(1) “The Jews” (1922) by Hilaire Belloc
(2) “The New Jerusalem” (1920) by G. K. Chesterton.
Can Professor MacDonald recommend several books on Jews from the viewpoint of theoretical evolutionary psychology?
“Some might think how could the theory of relativity be wrong when the entire establishment of physicists believes it to be true?”
Well, general relativity is so abstruse both physically and mathematically that only a special subset even of physicists are really able to understand it, let alone do original work in the field. And those who are in the field, well, they are sort of like the priesthood of ancient Egypt, in that they have a vested interest in the status quo. They all support one another.
There have been elaborate alternative theories to general relativity, such as that of the american physicist Robert Dicke. Some have alleged that he was excluded from the Nobel prize for cosmic microwave background radiation with Penzias and Wison because of his criticism of general relativity. Dicke predicted the effect and invented the device to detect it, but was excluded from the Nobel prize!
There have been times in science when everyone believed something that was totally bunk, sometimes for long periods, as with the luminiferous ether, the nonexistence of which gave rise to the whole relativity thing.
@TGD,
That’s interesting stuff. How do you know it? I wonder if you know who first predicted gravitational time dilation?
Thank you, Geiseric, for your positive response to my post.
—The Trotzkyist Jewish movements a r e falsifiable as Prof. Kevin MacDonald, Prof. Phil Rushton, Oxford lecturer John Randal Baker (Race,Oxford University Press , 1974; a “royal one-man commission”) and Prof. Richard Lynn clearly prove. These scientist have their place in the scientific all-time Pantheon. — As Prof. MacDonald has shown the Europeans are prone to altruistic punishment and self-destruction (cf. biologist Fritz Lenz; “Siegfried’s tilia leaf”). So my scenario for the near future is as follows to open the “Second Front” in physics and philosophy the most easiest to win at in contrast to tabooed anthropology on Jews, human races, IQ and sexual dimorphism. Please allow me the following fictitious scenario to stimulate our creativity: A follower of “The Culture of Critique” could be:
“Einsteinian relativity theory as a Jewish group evolutionary strategy”(Prof. Kevin MacDonald,Praeger, 2012, First Hardcover Edition):
Contents:
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….3
The main 100 physical and philosophical arguments against relativity…………………………………………………………………………….35
Einstein’s strong Jewish self-identification……………………………………86
Einstein’s motivations for producing the theory……………………………115
Theoretical Physics: the most unquestioned bastion of Jewish power..167
Theoretical physics: the least tabooed bastion of Jewish power……….234
German physics and Jewish physics revisited……………………………..269
Gauging Jewish power promoting Einstein, suppressing the critics….334 Alexander Friedman and the Genesis-inspired falsifiable relativist Big Bang theory……………………………………………………………………………….389
Whither Einsteinianism and the West ? or Do we want our children to understand the cosmos ?……………………………………………………….434
Will the American-Chinese technocratic elite get it right finally in 2050?………………………………………………………………………………..457
Annotations and literature………………………………………………………489
Complete English anti-relativist scientific bibliography………………………………………………………………………..534
Western civilization is unique, maybe unique in the whole cosmos. ….the racially superior homo heidelbergensis in Germany (Bilzingsleben) 350000 years ago (!!!!)…..the unique European stone age observatories….the unique bronze age star map of Nebra……….the Atlantis myth as a reflection of the feats of the superior Cro-Magnon man ……..the unique cave of Chauvet – French National Cultural Heritage…………..Let me end with a beloved German song by German genius Mathias Claudius who expressed all ideals of the West and the Northern Europeans in one beautiful poem/song: “Evening song”. Even if you don’t understand German, just enjoy the mystic sounds of the youtube link and the deep feelings. It is untranslatable:
Abendlied
Der Mond ist aufgegangen,
Die goldnen Sternlein prangen
Am Himmel hell und klar;
Der Wald steht schwarz und schweiget,
Und aus den Wiesen steiget
Der weiße Nebel wunderbar.
Wie ist die Welt so stille,
Und in der Dämmrung Hülle
So traulich und so hold!
Als eine stille Kammer,
Wo ihr des Tages Jammer
Verschlafen und vergessen sollt.
Seht ihr den Mond dort stehen?
Er ist nur halb zu sehen,
Und ist doch rund und schön!
So sind wohl manche Sachen,
Die wir getrost belachen,
Weil unsre Augen sie nicht sehn.
Wir stolze Menschenkinder
Sind eitel arme Sünder
Und wissen gar nicht viel;
Wir spinnen Luftgespinste
Und suchen viele Künste
Und kommen weiter von dem Ziel.
Gott, laß uns dein Heil schauen,
Auf nichts Vergänglichs trauen,
Nicht Eitelkeit uns freun!
Laß uns einfältig werden
Und vor dir hier auf Erden
Wie Kinder fromm und fröhlich sein!
* * *
Wollst endlich sonder Grämen
Aus dieser Welt uns nehmen
Durch einen sanften Tod!
Und, wenn du uns genommen,
Laß uns in Himmel kommen,
Du unser Herr und unser Gott!
So legt euch denn, ihr Brüder,
In Gottes Namen nieder;
Kalt ist der Abendhauch.
Verschon uns, Gott! mit Strafen,
Und laß uns ruhig schlafen!
Und unsern kranken Nachbar auch!
(to listen to the song :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A89VN1W85l0)
High level discussion going on. Like to make a few points.
TGD: “Einstein showed that the correction stemmed partly from special relativity and partly from general relativity. This is what gave Einstein’s general relativity theory credence when it came out.”
But I think it is important to remember that it was the MEDIA that made him a hero in 1919. The scienfitic community was still not impressed because even two years later in 1921 when they gave him the Nobel Prize, they said in no uncertain terms that the prize was for his theory of the photoelectric effect and NOT for his ‘controversial’ relativity theories.
Ludwig Neuenburg: You noted ‘heavy circular reasoning.” I agree with you completely. Relativity is a big mess of tautologies. For example, we’re supposed to believe that time is relative and can slow down, etc. But we are told with ‘certainty’ that the speed of light is absolute – it never changes. So ironically the theory of relativity is premised on a postulate of absoluteness. I mean, think about it. We’re warping time and space with this theory on the assumption that the velocity of light is ABSOLUTE. We’re presuming that the speed of light itself – also composed of distance and time (circular reasoning!) – is the one fixed and absolute straight-edged ruler in the universe by which we can measure everything else! The relativists tell us, don’t worry about distortions in space and time when measuring light. But how self-serving! They’re telling us the theory applies to everything in the universe except the one postulate upon which the theory is based!! What a tautological mess! But Einstein’s a ‘genius’ and the rest of us are just mere mortals so he must be right. Right?!?
Neuenburg: I love your proposal for a new book about relativity! Gave me a good laugh. I particularly like “Whither Einsteinianism and the West?” and “Do we want our children to understand the cosmos?” and also “Will the American-Chinese technocratic elite get it right finally in 2050?” Brilliant! Yes, I think if we can rid ourselves of the tautological nonsense that is relativity, whites and Asians can put together a far more sound and elegant theory of the universe.
Some people, ahem, want to derail the conversation and place the attention on Freud. Probably because they have little understanding of physics, not to mention little factual knowledge of much else. The most telling remark about Einstein is that remark about him playing the violin when physicists would come to visit, spending the time talking about music. Then when musicians were around, he would talk about physics. As has been noted before, it’s more jewish myth-making, like the awful hack Frank Gehry or Richard Meier being touted as the greatest architect of our time. Funny but sad. Both jews. Both hacks. Lots of jew hacks. But the jews will have a team of people work on something, anything, and let one front man take the public glory or credit, as long as they all get their cut. Keep that in mind next time you see another bs story about a lone jew climbing from the bottom to do whatever. It’s always horse apples.
Some people, ahem, want to derail the conversation and place the attention on that Frank Gehry. Awful hack, agreed. We are talking about ethnic tensions in German physics community in the late nineteen thirties. Exceptionally talented Jewish mathematicians and physicists were filling most of the academic posts, desplacing dumber natives. Germans felt the situation untolerable and invented something called “German physics”, a something undefinable that only non-Jews posessed, to free up those post. A generation later, a similar situation developed in the Soviet Union. The Russians dealt with the “problem” differently, the accused Jewish scientists of “cosmopolitanism” and transferred them to the Uzbekistan Institute of Advanced Physics and similar places. Now, if you are are thinking of ways of making Harvard, Princeton, etc. judenfrei, good luck to you and welcome to the Technion, but it will not solve your problem, as nowadays Chinese and Indian scientists are filling most of the positions. There is dearth of White American science candidates. Maybe it is consequence of a hundred years of dysgenic reproduction in America, I really dont know.
I though this was kinda cute, or as they say in physics elegant.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question30.html
Thank you very much, Kevin, for your last post that indicates you overthink the “paradox” that Einstein was an ardent Jewish activist , but his theory should puportedly have nothing to do with furthering Jewish interests !! Thank you also very much, Race Realist, for positively responding to my post !! I will prepare the 100 reasons against physical relativity for you, precise, but also understandable to every senior highschool student !!! When absolutely necessary I will provide a 350-pages book in evolutionary psychology against Einsteinianism and post the link here !! The relativists abused complicated “mathematicisms” to hide the basic nonsense of physical relativity. So, many scholars from other disciplines did not deal with Einstein, even many physics today are reluctant as the senseless and illogical “mathematicisms” makes it so complicated ! Einstein is the Jewish Grail of Nonsense, The Third Temple. Let’s not be scared by its holy aura !!! It’s like in the “Wizard of Oz”, just an old sissy manipulating the world !!!—On the day Kevin will publish “Einsteinianism as a Jewish evolutionary strategy” (Praeger, 2012) , World War 3 (“Armageddon”) will break out in Long Beach, Heidi Beirich and the whole $PLC will get simultaneous deadly heart attacks (“Kevin does Heidi”). We have absolutely nothing to lose !!! Who thinks we could lose something has not yet understood our eternal enemy !!! The Jewish messiah will come a f t er the Gentiles (including China)have been totally crushed b y those Trotzkyist Jewish movements around A.D. 2290 according to the Jewish calendar !!! *** Lancelot bore my guilt…Percival bore my honor for too long….Come on, Knights , for the Last Battle !!!***
Theoretical physics is Kabbalistic Judaism masquerading as empirical science. The Big Bang theory,relativity,Heliocentrism, expanding universe etc is all rooted in the Zohar.
The Big Bang Is Religious, Not Secular (Part IV 1st Session)
http://www.fixedearth.com/audiosessions.html
April Fools!
Er…that is the point of the above discussion, isn’t it?
At least the heliocentrism-as-”rooted in the Zohar”-part…
Hi Kevin , here’s my next strategic info saving you valuable time: the 100 arguments from the German activist group G.O.Mueller
(“http://www.wbabin.net/science/mueller.pdf”, it is the best English-language source worldwide which could be extremely useful to you) describing also the First German World War (2001- ) against relativity (no exaggeration, just check it !). This World War alone is interesting as an evolutionary counter-strategy against Einsteinianism ! And could you please not forget the heavily Jewish Big Bang theory by the Jew Alexander Friedman inspired by the Jewish creation myth! Friedman is Einsteins intellectual twin brother, Friedman focusing on the macrocosm, Einstein on the microcosm !
P.S.: The petition letter by Einstein to Franz Boas for Jews Hugo Iltis (being also a huamn race reality denier) : http://www.amphilsoc.org/exhibits/treasures/images/e2b1.gif
I would be glad again for feedback, Kevin ! Our cooperation is starting to get highly effective at the moment ! Thank you very much!
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
One further thought : Yes, Boasianism and relativity theory are very similar ! Both have heavily suppressed dissenters, as e.g. acclaimed Jewish physicist Max Abraham and mathematician Friedrich Adler have remarked long before the 1919 Einstein media hype. Boasianism may have produced minor knowledge advances in Eskimo ethnological details etc., but the core of it is a false deadly Jewish anti-Gentile ideology aiming at physically annihilating all Gentiles; relativity theory also may have produced some detail advances, but the core is a falsifiable ideology harming Gentile interests in many ways).
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Most amusing is the wealth of info from GPS systems that show Einstein to be wrong in several areas, never mind his plagiarism, which is par for the course for the tribe. Some on the web try to counter the GPS materials with verbose, mealy mouthed arguments that are circular or empty upon examination. Even more interesting is how legit websites can disappear that challenge “Einstein’s” theories in some areas. In areas where Einstein (or those he stole from) is wrong, the tribe states that he had inaccurate info from lesser mortals. In areas where Einstein (or a few who saw their work stolen by this clown) is correct or has yet to be proven wrong, it’s all Einstein and his thought experiments. The thought experiments were cover for his use of other’s work without giving credit.
Crediting Einstein with leading the way, showing the path to the Atomic Age, to the Atomic Bomb, is erroneous. That’s another part of the contrived legend behind the man. Looking at what Einstein actually did, the little he does deserve credit for, shows he’s a nothing when it comes to the originators of the “Atomic Age”, Jews and Gentiles alike.
“j” is funny. We all know that the tribe has yanked the purse strings closed on white scientists in the US, unless they agree to give a tribal member credit for anything positive that arises, credit as co-authors on papers and so on. The Asians are short on innovation, the jews short on imagination in certain areas, big on imagination in others, as in sliding the work of others into folders and touting it as their own, which I saw with my own eyes at UCLA. Jews in fact work hardest to keep funding from whites in medical research and in physics, unless able to somehow worm their way in for credit.
In computer science, where they’ve also exaggerated their achievements, they keep Uncle Sam’s hold a little more loose, but monitor things all the more closely to be able to hop in and offer “help” when something nice comes along. It hasn’t helped them much here as most advancements in that arena have been lone white males or small numbers of white males working together. All the while the – on average – uncreative, unimaginative Asians had to join forces with the Israelis in getting Willy Clinton to open up the US patent system. Now we have Asians and jews, in no small numbers, pouring through the items in process, stealing the info, backdating the paperwork and then looking for tribal elders, commonly known as judges, to see things their way in court. If the adjudicator isn’t part of the tribe, the wheels are greased backstage.
Yes, j, we know all about hacks. Jews seem to be preeminent among them. Just open your eyes and look. Oh wait, it’s that self-deception of yours. You can’t see it, won’t see it. Never mind. Get those tickets ready for the one way run to the Middle East. It’s coming in the next decade. Because the geniuses have wrecked the country. People are correct. The jews can’t run anything for too long before it falls apart.
Somebody said:
“When we call a theory “testable”, we mean that one or all of these functions can be tested at the appropriate levels. MacDonald’s theory is testable by these standards, and its (descriptive and explanatory) power can be compared to that of other theories.”
I was asking about falsifiable, not being able to find evidence in support of. The latter just means being descriptive and having explanatory power. Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Freudian psychodynamics, and European Oppressionism are descriptive and have or once had some explanatory power. That’s, in part, why they are popular paradigms. What makes them non-scientific is that they were not and are not falsifiable. What conditions prove that those paradigms are false, what demonstrates that a case falls outside of the paradigm? It’s doesn’t matter if the champions of the ideas religiously hold them; it only matter if the champions can articulate the conditions under which their theory as a whole is false or in part is non-applicable.
Science, itself, of course, when taken as a paradigm, instead of as a method of exploring the world, is not falsifiable. It’s a way of thinking about the world which has a great deal of descriptive and explanatory power. But, ultimately, it’s ‘proof’ comes in terms of it’s ability to give insights about the world and provide ways to manipulate nature. So, in that regards, I am not saying that a paradigm should be falsifiable — just that it needs to be, to be considered science.
With regards to Kevin’s thesis– the paradigm is to view revolutionary ideas or actions made by Jews as not just stemming from group conflicts or group tendencies but as promoting group fitness. Right?
There really are two separate ideas here:
1) the revolutionary Jew is actually promoting group interest
2) the revolutionary Jew is acting out of tendencies which once promoted Jewish interest, but are not currently promoting interest.
Obviously the paradigm is false to the extent that individual are or were acting in a way that are not promoting group interest (imaginably not all ethnic behaviors promote group interest). Which is shown by?
Then there is the issue of seeing Jews as intentionally promoting group interest (in a Lamarckian sense) or seeing group interests as being promoted indirectly visa via some equivalent of natural selection, that works on the group level (most likely a group tendency to promote those individuals who benefit the group and exclude those who are deleterious to the group)
Again two separate ideas here:
A) the revolutionary Jew who is promoting group interest is doing so intentionally, in some way.
B) group interest is being promoted by through the revolutionary Jew, through ethnic selection, promotion, and expulsion, ect.
Obviously the paradigm is false to the extent that individuals are not intentionally promoting group interest /or who are not being selected for when promoting group interest and not cut out when acting contrary to group interest.
So with regards to Einstein, and his theory, we are looking for evidence that he and his ideas support 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B and are not expressions of individual radicalism or idiosyncratic but not ethnopromotional behaviors.
In more general terms, persons should be more specifically classified.
The people behind and reasons for promoting certain people should be more specifically classified and assigned. All the truth deniers will do is call those on the mark names. You see it here constantly when Adam is tagged. He merely calls his tormentors names and then runs, never able to counter.
We know the smelly haters at the top of the ziggurat are pursuing their policies knowing damn full well that if they were to somehow succeed, there would be no more of the cycle of jews up, gentiles awaken, kick jews out, jews on bottom, start again.
Thank you again for Kevin’s and the others’ support to my posts.— Yes, the Trotzkyist movements are falsifiable as Kevin did (major evidence by Phil Rushton, John Randal Baker, Richard Lynn also) !!! The movements are pseudo-science basically, no matter if you regard them as “paradigms” etc. Some of the bloggers here are applying Jacques Derrida’s Jewish method of deconstructivism to this discussion. Einstein had a pathological hated for the Germans (cf. Ronald Clark’s biography).We have now all evidence necessary: hate for Gentiles/Germans, strong Jewish self-identification (disguised to the Gentiles), Trotzkyist nonsense theory disguised by hyper-difficult mathematics (like the hyper-difficult Talmud studies before the release from the ghettos without relation to to reality), a Jewish average visuo-spatial IQ of 92 (!) (http://www.pasher.co.il/articleDetails.asp?id=146, the Jews themselves admit it !) showing their ancient racial inferiority before the choleric megalomania-inspired eugenics, verbal and general IQ of 115-125. Einstein like Boas self-deceived (see Kevin’s elaborate ideas towards that in CoC): sometimes Einstein even uttered uncertainties towards his own in general theory or made minor changes. Einstein’s sick, sub-average brain and 66 % of his children with incurably inherited diseases. Wanna more stuff ? Of course, Einstein did not write in the “Annalen der Physik” in 1905 how much he hated the Germans and Immanuel Kant, just as Jews responsible for the holodomor killing of 7 to 10 million Ukrainians and others from the bordering regions did not write directly on their orders how much they hated the Ukrainians and Russians:
“A quarter of the rural population, men, women and children, lay dead or dying” in “a great stretch of territory with some forty million inhabitants,” “like one vast Belsen.” “The rest, in various stages of debilitation,” “had no strength to bury their families or neighbours.” “[As at Belsen] well-fed squads of police or party officials supervised the victims.”
P.S.: To blogger “j”: Nice regards to the shtetl ! (cf. “j”‘s web link)
Lesacre: “I am not saying that a paradigm should be falsifiable — just that it needs to be, to be considered science.”
Popper’s falsificationism is not the only game in town anymore, and his demarcation criteria have been abandoned in many scientific circles. Sorry to disappoint you, but it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish science from non-science without getting trapped in a quagmire of paradoxes.
It is very easy to distinguish science from non-science, only the deconstructivist Jews like Derrida have tried to obscure the frontiers of science and pseudoscience for 100 years. CoC clearly separates science from pseudo-science.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
You’re right: It certainly CAN be very easy to distinguish science from non-science. The problem is that you’ll then have to ignore virtually every epistemological work written the last hundred years (forget about Derrida). Dr. Neuenburg goes even further: he denies the truth claims of relativistic and quantum physics. If you have a PhD: Why don’t you publish your work criticizing Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg? I’m sure the world would be interested in considering your Newtonian evidence.
I have heavily published against relativity theory (my German World War against relativity cf. http://www.wbabin.net/science/mueller.pdf”). I have never said anything against quantum physics, I have only criticized “softy” Heisenberg’s stance towards relativity theory (“Munich Relativity Peace Pact”) and his sabotaging the German Manhattan Project (Uranprojekt). If quantum physics is not overinterpreted ( nonsensical “real acausality”) it is acceptable science. So, quantum physics is okay, relativity theory and Big Bang cosmology are falsifiable as I said numerous times.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
“Popper’s falsificationism is not the only game in town anymore … it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish science from non-science without getting trapped in a quagmire of paradoxes.”
Right on both counts.
From a logical perspective, falsificationism is clearly oversimplistic … an often-useful perspective, but one with innate limitations that are increasingly incompatible with the conduct of modern science.
Remember, the scientific method does not mandate observation alone, but a blend of observation and inference … the model-theoretic correspondence between observation and cognitive theorization based on unfalsifiable tautologies and other a priori mathematical truths admitting of no possible counterexamples. Thus, as strictly defined on the scientific method, science consists of much more than simple observation statements and observational attempts to falsify them.
Well said, eurodele.
Help me out, here (I barely made it out of high school): you are basically saying that tribalists thru their relativity theory are simply applying the theory of there being no truth, it’s-all-relative to physics now.
Now some bloggers try to divert to the epistemological roots. Maybe the solipsist school is right and the Jewish subversion described in the Culture of Critique only exists in Kevin’s mind who is misled by a Deus Deceptor (;-). The ancient Greeks and Indians knew more about epistemology than 100 Karl Pooppers and Einsteins.The ancients had introduced e.g. a sensible form of relativism that every rule may have its exceptions some time. Einstein had by the way a strong dislike for philosophy and epistemology (in contrast to me) and while claiming to do good empirical science he introduced the worst kind of non-materialistic philosophy. In this thread there has been a number of subversion tactics until now (partly by former inhabitants of the shtetl as remarked by other bloggers also):
1.) divert to Einstein as a person
2.) divert to other Jewish “geniuses” who don’t deserve their reputation
3.) to attack the Jews by vulgar slang to make the critics look like vulgar anti-Semites to academics
4.) to connect the criticism with nonsensical anti-evolutionary thinking
5.) claiming that the Jews cannot be removed from the top jobs while at the same time claiming illogically the Asians hold now these jobs
6.) divert to an epistemologist debate (so Kevin’s Jews would be maybe only in his mind if e.g. solipsim is right)
7.) try to connect criticism of relativity theory to non-existing and unnecessary criticism of Heisenberg as a scientist, Bohr and quantum physics which are by the way in many respects incompatible with relativity theory
8.) expressing doubts about my personal achievements against relativity while I have been leading the most ambitious project against relativity theory since 1905 worldwide
You try to discourage Kevin to scrutinize it , but as he stated in his recent Podhoretz comment, Theroretical Physics is maybe also a Jewish way of thinking/ideology (e.g. as Boasianism, Freudianism , the New York intellectuals, Marxism, Derridaism etc.)
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
“Help me out, here (I barely made it out of high school): you are basically saying that tribalists thru their relativity theory are simply applying the theory of there being no truth, it’s-all-relative to physics now.”
Physical relativity offers no support whatsoever to the asinine thesis that “truth is relative”.
There’s no incompatibility between relativism and absolutism in any proper interpretation of relativity theory. Space and time are relative; spacetime, the structure of which is associated with the distribution of matter within it, is absolute.
I don’t know about others, but it always kills me when people who choke on the relativity concept simultaneously choke on the existence of an absolute velocity. Is it absolutism they object to, or relativity, or both? They need to make up their minds.
We’ve all seen it countless times. No sooner do Einstein and relativity enter the conversation, than here they come … a swarm of denials from the sour, the disgruntled, the derisive, bees in their bonnets and sometimes bats in their belfries, every one of them with what seems to be tremendous antipathy for early 20th century physics.
Some don’t like the invariance of c; some don’t like its maximality. Some don’t like the synchronization of clocks; others don’t like clocks running at different rates. The very thought repels the mind! (And yet, similar thoughts are “completely natural” when they happen to support a given critic’s viewpoint.)
I know how tempting it is for some Whites to reject Relativity Theory because it was authored by a Jew, especially a Jew who is accused of wrongly taking credit for some parts and aspects of it. But when all is said and done, its authorship is irrelevant to its content.
For those who don’t know enough physics to sort out the controversy, here’s all you need to know about relativity theory.
(1) Special Relativity is based on c-invariance, which drops straight out of Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic field. That’s what put Einstein onto the theory in the first place … that, and the fact that a number of brilliant people, mostly Whites like Poincare and Hilbert, were on the verge of it (or perhaps already on top of it) themselves.
(2) James Clerk Maxwell was both White and brilliant…so brilliant that one would have to be a dummy to dismiss his work, which is basic to everything containing a chip, coil, or bulb.
(3) General Relativity is a straightforward extension of Special Relativity in which consideration is no longer limited to straight (timelike) lines representing inertial motion in the spacetime manifold; that is, curvature of the manifold is allowed (and interpreted as gravity according to the equivalence principle, which is perhaps the most obvious interpretation that it invites). Thus, like SR, GR has a distinguished pedigree leading straight back to the work of Maxwell (and that of Gauss, and Riemann, and a lot of other very sharp White men whose work we don’t want to belittle).
Anyway, while there’s room for legitimate criticism of relativity theory by those who know what they’re talking about, let’s try not to make this board look ridiculous by pretending that relativity is some kind of sick gag pulled on a world of dimwits by a deranged and technically incompetent Jew.
That dog won’t hunt.
Eurodele: “Physical relativity offers no support whatsoever to the asinine thesis that “truth is relative”.”
Yes, but from a cultural point of view the key question is how it was interpreted by posterity (beyond the scientific community).
“There’s no incompatibility between relativism and absolutism in any proper interpretation of relativity theory.”
The real trouble starts with the more “jazzy” Copenhagen interpretation. The latter made Einstein look like a dinosaur.
“…from a cultural point of view the key question is how [physical relativity] was interpreted by posterity (beyond the scientific community).”
That’s the point, isn’t it? That upon taking over academia like a swarm of PC fleas, Jews aggressively promoted this interpretation in order to degrade our culture?
This fact makes it all the more important not to mix apples with oranges by conflating Jewish cultural manipulation with the scientific content of relativity theory. That’s just a continuation of what Jewish intellectuals have been pulling on us for the last century. It plays into their hands by allowing (some) Whites to make themselves look like pathetic morons, and the rest of us guilty by association.
“The real trouble starts with the more “jazzy” Copenhagen interpretation. The latter made Einstein look like a dinosaur.”
True. However, one thing that relativity actually DOES do is tacitly erode the distinction between “objective” reality and our “subjective” observation of it. It does this by making every bit of matter, sentient or not, the center of its own static Euclidean “frame of reference”, and to that extent mathematically and physically equivalent to a human observer.
It requires no great leap to connect this to erosion of the distinction between quantum uncertainty, considered as a cognitive degree of freedom, and an objective physical potential associated with the wave function.
“For those who don’t know enough physics to sort out the controversy, here’s all you need to know about relativity theory. ” “Help me out, here (I barely made it out of high school)”( quotes from blogger eurodele)
Thank you, eurodele, to prove us the truth of relativity with your eroded high school knowledge (as stated by yourself) in 100 words. Now I will falsify that.
1.) The invariance of c must be empirically proven (famous Raymond Chiao and Günter Nimtz think they even have found empirical evidence for superluminal speeds). This is impractical or even impossible for the huge cosmos. Some equations cannot prove anything practical (idealistic “mathematicism”, similar to Talmud studies by the Jews as described by Kevin). If Maxwell had proven the c invariance, why did e.g. Michelson and Morley did their famous experiment after Maxwell’s death checking if there was a constancy of the speed of light ?
2.) Some Whites like Roentgen, Planck, Hilbert and Poincaré supported Einstein due to personal and scientific reasons (e.g. Roentgen felt sympathy for Einstein because of a similar life, Planck was very thankful for Einstein’s interpretation of the photoelectric effect supporting Planck’s ideas). Like Boas was supported by Gentiles like bisexual Ruth Benedict and bisexual Margaret Mead etc. Only after the German collapse of the First World War , the Jewish press hype after 1919 and the Nobel Prize (not for relativity primarily, the committee had heavily resisted for 15 years !) relativity theory could be enshrined. Heisenberg even appeased the Nazis and after Auschwitz criticism was unthinkable in the physics establishment (Auschwitz is also an analogon to the constancy of the light speed).
3.)”Space” and “time” are Aristotelian-Leibnizian-Machian categories of perception. “Spacetime”, “curvatures of the manifold” do not exist due e.g.to the many logical flaws in them. But they are poetic, nice terms who would fit well in the Tora or the Talmud. —The Westerners see a lot of science fiction films which are e.g. deliberately used to make relativity or Big Bang ideas look reasonable. The media shape the way we see (compare Kevin’s The Culture of Critique). No normal US highschool student would ever doubt relativity after having seen “Stargate Atlantis” 500 times etc. which has an anti-White multicultural Boasian subtext also by the way (for the German 2001 World War against relativity on “http://www.wbabin.net/science/mueller.pdf” and on “http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/126122,albertowi-einsteinowi-poswiecam-cz-2″ the first complete English-language scientific bibliography).
Einstein is totally overestimated like Kafka and Walter Benjamin in our daily Culture of the Holocaust (see Kevin’s Culture of Critique), a feminine Jew (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/einstein00.jpg) who did good physics works beyond relativity , but was overburdened by the search for a fundamental theory, having a deformed brain and 66.6 % erbkranke children obviously due to Jewish endogamy. That’s it. I know – it is as incredible as the racial superiority of the Bilzingsleben homo erectus 350,000 years ago in Thuringia.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
A reminder of the most obvious reasons against relativity:
1.)Relativistic clock experiments since the 1970s have purportedly shown
that moving clocks are slower than resting ones (e.g. the famous
Haefele-Keating clock experiment; the twin in the spaceship is claimed to
age slowlier than the twin on earth; “twin paradox”). Both the
clock-transporting airplanes and the atomic clock mechanisms themselves are moving. Physical movement is expressed in “meters per second”. So, time is a condition for physical movement. So, any measurement of velocity can never be interpreted as showing a “distortion” of time as time is one of the
conditions of velocity (heavy circular reasoning).
2.) The fast-travelling twin in the spaceship ages purportedly slowlier than the twin on earth. But if we introduce a further twin travelling with an even faster spaceship, we get six different observer situations which are all differing. But it is claimed by relativity that the differences in aging are real (heavy logical contradictions). So Einstein tried to avoid to use more than two mutually-observing objects.
3.) The relativistic dogma of the constancy of the velocity of light is not
experimentally proven. To prove the non-existence of something which is not basically illogical is especially difficult as it means to search the whole cosmos for it. To prove the existence of something is much easier as only one clear evidence could prove it. It is said by relativists that Einstein “freed the goddess of light from a cage into which German genius Immanuel Kant had forced her”. The light could be interpreted as Yahwe and his Chosen People. In Jewish thinking everything is designed to illogically fit their particularist dogma to be the “light among the peoples”, to be the “measure of all things” involving half-conscious self-deception as elaborated on by
you.
4.) Alexander Friedman was a Jew from St. Petersburg who introduced
relativity to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is similarly
illogical reflecting the Jewish creation myth: one almighty God shows his
almightiness by the creation of the world out of nothing. The creation is
totally depending on this almighty God which is a projection of the choleric oriental patriarch into heaven who punishes and massacres the Gentiles with fervor. This is in contrast to polytheistic religions (Indians) that think of an endless process of movement and creation involving goddesses, too. If Einstein is assumed to be wrong, the cosmos must have been existing at least for 50 billion years (!) as the observable universe is 50 billion years in every direction from earth. Time, space and mass are infinte. Any finite space, time or mass as proposed in the Big Bang could not be explained reasonably: why would an assumed finite mass of the cosmos not be twice orhalf the value ? (cf. Immanuel Kant’s famous “antinomies”).
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Hello, Dr. Neuenburg. I’m afraid that you may be confusing me with the person I was quoting.
Nevertheless, I’ll comment briefly on your numbered points. (1) Funny you should mention Michelson and Morley. Their famous experiment is usually considered to be hard empirical evidence of c-invariance (as tacitly implied by Maxwell and explicitly assumed by Einstein). (2) I have no argument with your historical observations; however, as I’ve already stated, I consider them irrelevant to the content of the Theory of Relativity. (3) Space and time are more than just “poetic”, an adjective that paradoxically suggests a bit of postmodernist influence on your thinking. But perhaps it was merely a turn of speech.
Good luck in publishing your research, which may (for all I know) have some kind of substance to it.
“Popper’s falsificationism is not the only game in town anymore, and his demarcation criteria have been abandoned in many scientific circles. Sorry to disappoint you”
“Now some bloggers try to divert to the epistemological roots.”
Look,
Kevin made a distinction between science and ideology. Or at least between what Jews tend to do and what non Jews tend to do.
I was trying to get some clarification. One idea seems to be that the Frankfurt school was a pro-Jewish ideology masquerading as science. He said:
“In the end, they managed to produce data that at least had the appearance (and only the appearance) of supporting their a priori commitment to producing a politically effective intellectual rationale for White displacement.”
In which case I wanted to know what he meant by ‘science,’ since he seems to use both Popper’s and Kuhn’s model –
About Psychoanalysis, he says:
“Psychoanalysis is a paradigm: Freud and his followers projected their own ideas of reality onto the world and then spent the next century elaborating on the ideas without ever being bothered that no one could prove the ideas one way or the other.”
The idea is that it is illegitimate science because it is non-falsifiable.
But he also say:
“In the end, providing a theory that produces a lot of new research is perhaps all that any good theory can do.”
Well did Freudianism, Marxism, and the Frankfort school produce a lot of research or not? Those schools surely did. So are they good theories, if not why?
Now either Freudianism, Marxism, and the Frankfort school were illegitimate because they were unfalsifiable, in which case I was asking what falsifies the thesis presented in CofC
or –
They were bad because they were/are deconstructive of our ethnos, in which case I was asking what distinguishes that destructiveness form our own indigenous deconstructions — which is an import question since Jews, especially the Ashk, are us-thems, that is, they are half us and fully them, which makes them rather problematic and it makes clarity and balance on these matters all the more important.
………….
In general, I would say, based on the ideas of CofC, it’s unlikely that you are not going to be able to out fox Jews or out morality them, let alone out guilt them. So you might was well just stick to clarity and upfrontness. That means clearly delineating what is acceptable and is not, as applied across the board, rigorously defining terms and ideas, making sure they are given equal application, and so on.
If we’re going to make it out of this — especially if you are correct — it’s through being Western, not trying to be otherwise.
And yes, I know that not everyone else does that — that’s why it’s called the European man’s burden.
Edit: This should read: It’s unlikely that you will be able to able to out fox Jews or out morality them
Until now, you have , eurodele, given no proof that there must is an eternal omnipresent constancy of c. Even if c is constant at the moment on earth (but Nimtz and Chiao refute that) , this is no proof of an eternal omnipresent constancy of c . E.g. there could also be a change beyond our accuracy of measurment.
constancy of c pros:
1.)some measurements on earth showing constancy
constancy of c cons:
1.)experiments of Nimtz and Chiao etc.
2.) all 6 conditions of Michaelson-Morley experiment only done in the Dayton C. Miller experiments (Pinch’s book “The Golem…”)
3.)constancy of c could be beyond the accuracy of measurement
4.) experiments must be done everywhere at any time in the cosmos (impractical, if not impossible)
5.) if we assume a constancy of the lightspeed why is it not e.g. double or half the value ? (cf. Kant’s famous “antinomies”)
6.) Einsteinian constancy of c is basically a pseudo-constancy (cf. calculation example in “Hundred authors against Einstein”) because all speeds are relative towards one or more observers (leading also to further logical contradictions).
Can you see how systematic this argumentation is ?
I said “spacetime” is a poetic word, not “space ” or “time”.
May I ask you something, eurodele. Are you Jewish ? You have nothing to fear , I have a very differentiated view on the Jews, there are also good ones like Noam Chomsky who never participated in any anti-White activities or dear Walter Babin who is one of the individuals hosting the anti-relativity World War material on the web for us.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
I wonder how people like Wiener, von Neumann, Gamow and Mandelbrot fit into the Neuenburgian cosmology.
Eurodele:
“[O]ne thing that relativity actually DOES do is tacitly erode the distinction between “objective” reality and our “subjective” observation of it. It does this by making every bit of matter, sentient or not, the center of its own static Euclidean “frame of reference”, and to that extent mathematically and physically equivalent to a human observer.”
I was always under the (erroneous?) impression that it was the Copenhagen fraction (Bohr-Heisenberg) that eroded the above mentioned distinction. I was also under the impression that we were talking non-Euclidean, Riemannian space here.
Lesacre has not understood yet that Boasianism is finished. All empirical research shows (all data compiled by Lynn) that Black Africans have an average IQ of 70, Afro-Americans have 85, Europeans 100 and Eastern Asians 105 and the racially Armenid Ashkenazim 115-125 despite their poor visuo-spatial capabilities (which could be maybe connected to this relativity “spacetime” nonsense). John Randal Baker (Oxford University Press, “Race”, the most detailed and profound studyever on race) has shown that the brain morphology of Australids is especially primitive (e.g. sulcus lunatus gape, ape characteristics) and the gyri of Sanids (bushmen) are much less folded and complicated (neotenous taxon). Bambutids (pygmies) have the smallest brains of all races (coming near to the animal-human divide being 750ccm). Additionally Blacks (including Australians) according to Baker and Phil Rushton have only 85% of the brain weight of the Europeans which also effects the mass of neopallium/neocortex being especially important for the higher functions.
Boasianism is finished.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
To Knutsson:
So-called mathematical “conventionalism” allows for things like Riemannian space or “imaginary numbers ” which have no physical reality . But, it must be stated, they are useful for calculations or proofs, this is undeniable. But there is the basic problem of “conventionalism” that it has mainly no connection to reality (4th dimension in the cosmos etc.). This “conventionalism” basically produces “thought zombies”, and genius and Nobel committee expert Robert Andrews Millikan (Nobel Prize in Physics 1923) also agreed that Einstein is totally incomprehensible for anybody. The contradictions in relativity lead to a polyvalence of meanings and consequences depending on how many flaws of the theory you acknowledge, therefore the theory cannot be proof-exhausted either.
But 20, 30 or 50 years of individual brainwashing cannot be removed instantaneously from an intellectual.
But some of the 1960s left-wingers “woke up” in the 1990s to understand e.g. Jewish evolutionary movements, their illogicity so perfectly diguised by prestige , money, splendor, guilt feelings and coercion.
Ludwig Neuenburg: “I said “spacetime” is a poetic word, not space or time.”
Spacetime is not merely poetic. Unlike poetry, it has a detailed mathematical description. I trust you know what that is – it’s a tensor equation relating the structure of spacetime to the distribution of matter. This equation, together with that distribution, determines the geometry of a manifold.
Regarding the speed of light, perhaps c-invariance could somehow be deduced using logic alone (there would seem to be nothing preventing it). Then again, maybe not. However, this is not the forum for that discussion. For present purposes, it will suffice to note that there is currently more reason to believe in c-invariance than not to believe in it, both mathematically and empirically.
If you dispute this – and I’m pretty sure you do – then it would be up to you to show how the weight of the available evidence confirms that the speed of light changes with time or location. But again, this forum is probably not the right one for that kind of discussion. I would suggest a forum of which the primary topic is physics or the philosophy thereof. There are plenty of those out there.
“May I ask you something, eurodele. Are you Jewish?”
Funny – I was about to ask you the same question. After all, many Jews have criticized Einstein. (Not that I know of.)
Yes, Knuttson, we’re talking about “non-Euclidean, Riemannian space” here, the points of which are associated with flat tangent spaces. That’s why spacetime is a “manifold”; manifolds are locally Euclidean by definition. (This offers a number of conveniences; e.g., it lets us get curved trajectories by integrating a series of infinitesimal vectors or “straight line” displacements.)
In quantum mechanics, measured systems and measurement devices also take the same mathematical form. This is roughly analogous to the conflation of observers and observed objects by the formalism of Special Relativity, in which their mathematical representations are (again) formally identical.
But why stop there? The same representational identity between observers and observed objects holds in Newtonian mechanics. The laws of classical mechanics “don’t care” which of two colliding objects is measuring the collision, or whether it is measured by neither or both; the applicable laws take their arguments on exactly the same mathematical footing.
In other words, Cartesian dualism or no, the same mathematical conflation has always been implicit in physical formalisms. No hard mathematical distinction between observers and observed objects, or the subjective and the objective, has ever been systematically applied in physics or cosmology. The Jews simply noticed this obvious fact and ran (a bit too fast and too far) with it, that’s all.
Unfortunately, too many Whites were, and are, too ignorant and/or apathetic to stop them. But let’s not compound our difficulty by perpetuating the delusion that somehow, Western Civilization is now magically dependent on a hard distinction between observers and that which they observe. If it is, then modern science confronts us with a no-win situation.
Unless we’re irrational, that’s not what we want.
Has ever a Jew been the preemininent critic of Boasianism, Einsteinianism, Freudianism, Derridaism, Schönberg’s degenerate music , Adorno etc. ? No.That I am not a Jew is easy to guess. But your thinking is through and through Jewish which makes it very likely that you are one. That you want to deduce the c invariance from logic is instinctlessly Jewish.Riemannian geometry does not refer to the real physical world (cf. my “convertionalism” explanations), you ignore that also. Show me any Riemannian object I can touch ! Nope.That you want me to go to another blog is also Jewish. That you are immune to my summing up thousands of years of Gentile research is also Jewish. You ignore also the superiority of the con reasons against the pro c invariance reasons. You again and again prove notoriously the Talmud Jew way of thinking as described by author Dan Michaels getting nearer and nearer to Einsteinian femininity. But you cannot stop me or Kevin uncover the truth.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
@eurodele: You really seem to have profound insights into these “things”. Any literature you’d like to recommend?
Eurodele: “The same representational identity between observers and observed objects holds in Newtonian mechanics.”
I think I agree if you’re saying that the Newtonian version was “subject-blind” (abstract realism). The observer’s role was not questioned or problematized. Copenhagen-style QM is to my knowledge a completely different ballgame.
Ludwig Neuenburg: “Has ever a Jew been the preemininent critic of Boasianism, Einsteinianism, Freudianism, Derridaism, Schönberg’s degenerate music , Adorno etc.? No.”
Forgive me if I missed something, but are you calling yourself “the preemininent critic of Einstein”?
LN: “That I am not a Jew is easy to guess.”
Not really. That Jews are licensed by the Talmud to gainfully practice deceit against non-Jews is common knowledge. So is the fact that the Jewish race has produced more than its share of highly accomplished dissemblers. Indeed, many Jews seem to take pride in this ability.
LN: “But your thinking is through and through Jewish which makes it very likely that you are one.”
Likely to whom? As I’ve explained, my thinking (in this field) is based on and informed by the insights of Whites. I’ve even given you their names. That you seem so determined to hand that kind of thinking over to the Jews almost makes it look as though you’re working on their behalf.
Either that, or you’re selling White intellectual heritage far too cheaply.
LN: “That you want to deduce the c invariance from logic is instinctlessly Jewish.”
I didn’t say that I “wanted” to deduce c invariance from logic. But in any case, wouldn’t logical deduction be the only way to settle the matter for good? After all, empirical confirmation runs up against the problem of induction.
LN: “Riemannian geometry does not refer to the real physical world.”
So the mathematical world is not the real world? OK.
But on second thought, let’s take a closer look at that. If Riemannian geometry refers only to the mathematical world and excludes the physical world, then insofar as reality has geometric structure, there would have to be a more general kind of geometry to which the physical world conforms. Unfortunately for your perspective, Riemannian geometry IS a generalization of classical physical geometry. That is, Euclidean geometry is merely a special form of Riemannian geometry in the sense that it can be embedded in the Riemannian formalism.
So if what you are saying is logically consistent, you must mean that classical Euclidean geometry is the only form of Riemannian geometry that can hold. But that’s something you can’t possibly prove, because the parallel postulate of Euclidean geometry is neither provable nor exclusively self-evident. (That’s what we mean when we call it a “postulate” rather than an “axiom”.)
LN: “Show me any Riemannian object I can touch!”
Sure – reach up and touch your face. As I’ve just explained, it has a formal representation in Riemannian geometry.
LN: “Nope. That you want me to go to another blog is also Jewish.”
I said “forum”, not “kosher deli”. You seem to be confusing “blog” with “bagel”.
LN: “That you are immune to my summing up thousands of years of Gentile research is also Jewish.”
Really? Then what a waste. It seems that I’ve missed celebrating a lot of Jewish holidays. (Can I please have a break for Passover?) Worse yet, I’ve been making things far too hard on myself by actually doing physical work for a living instead of feeding on the goyim.
LN: “You ignore also the superiority of the con reasons against the pro c invariance reasons.”
I haven’t ignored anything. All I did was invite you to state your apparently ironclad case in support of c-variability, preferably on another blog … one devoted to physics.
LN: “You again and again prove notoriously the Talmud Jew way of thinking as described by author Dan Michaels getting nearer and nearer to Einsteinian femininity. But you cannot stop me or Kevin uncover the truth.”
Gosh darn it! There I was, working under the assumption that you and Kevin were independent parties, and now it appears that I was dead wrong about that.
But you know what? If you don’t mind, I’ll just keep on fooling myself until Kevin officially announces that you’re his partner in scientific truthseeking.
Now, may I be equally frank? Be you Jewish or Gentile, it looks to me like you’re a frustrated amateur physicist who hopes to piggyback his personal pet theory to glory on the White Awakening. (Not that this would necessarily be a bad thing, mind you, provided that your theory were correct, which unfortunately may not be the case.)
But insofar as this is Kevin’s blog, don’t you think you’d better ask him if that’s OK with him?
Geiseric: “You really seem to have profound insights into these “things”. Any literature you’d like to recommend?”
Let me think about that – there’s so much good literature out there. (I have many books on theoretical physics, most of them pretty good – I hate to waste money on the bad stuff.)
Knutsson: “I think I agree if you’re saying that the Newtonian version was “subject-blind” (abstract realism). The observer’s role was not questioned or problematized. Copenhagen-style QM is to my knowledge a completely different ballgame.”
Right. What was more of a passive omission in classical mechanics becomes explicit (but remains mostly passive) in relativity theory. In both cases, state transitions are fully determined by laws whose arguments are assumed to be inert. In quantum mechanics, where observables become operators and states become wave functions requiring “collapse”, it takes on an active dimension. Hence, the interpretation controversy.
Ludwig Neuenburg, eurodele, interesting posts. But here’s a side note for Ludwig: The ashkanazi ‘average’ IQ is about 108 according to Richard Lynn (although some quote him as stating it’s 110, the interview I have from him states 107.9 – overall, not just the verbal). The 110 and higher averages are claims from jews themselves, based on one study of jews from a “gifted” program, haha. It’s also worth noting that Vining and others have put together compelling studies that show a narrower SD among E. Asians than in Caucasians, and more than a few others suspect the same among jews but the info gets buried, the research halted. And you know why.
Jews have made some grand contributions to certain areas of science. But the incessant trumpeting and exaggeration has gotten out of hand, never mind the fact that most jewish researchers and professors in today’s world owe their positions to the tribe’s ethnic network, to its connections.
Wiseacre says:
All the truth deniers will do is call those on the mark names. You see it here constantly when Adam is tagged. He merely calls his tormentors names and then runs, never able to counter.
We know the smelly haters …
Hello again, Captaindoofus. Speaking of calling names and running, that’s your favorite tactic and you’re doing it again now. Who do you think you’re fooling with this childish nonsense of using a different sockpuppet every time you attack me? Grow up.
Such an ostentatious display of brainpower on this thread, and yet few if any seem to understand (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that no one wants to admit) that Einstein’s contribution could be both true AND have been “good for the Jews”. There’s no rule that every scientific development must aid the white race, AFAIK. Certainly the fruit of the scientific endeavor, the expansion of the global technological system, itself has been a disaster for the natural category of human race, and perhaps one day may even wipe out all life on earth. There are quite a few signs that it might.
From KM’s intro above:
Psychoanalysis is a paradigm: Freud and his followers projected their own ideas of reality onto the world and then spent the next century elaborating on the ideas without ever being bothered that no one could prove the ideas one way or the other.
This seems to be the substance of KM’s complaint against psychoanalysis and other Jewish theorizing such as Marxism: that they don’t produce testable hypotheses. This could be true of a philosophical system such as Marxism (but then one must ask if it’s really fair or even meaningful to ask a philosophical system to produce testable hypotheses), but I don’t think it’s necessarily true of psychoanalysis.
It’s not Freud’s fault that brain imaging didn’t exist when he was drawing up his theory of personality, or that knowledge of the brain’s functional neuroanatomy was primitive in his day. If he had had access to modern research tools and information perhaps he would have, as I suggested, located the superego in the prefrontal cortex. This would have led to many testable hypotheses, among them that patients with damage or neurological abnormalities in the PFC would show deficiencies of conscience and self control. In fact, some work has already been done in this direction:
http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/solms-biological_basis.html
“There’s no rule that every scientific development must aid the white race, AFAIK”
As if 5 people in the white world think that. Although many jews behave in such a manner themselves, apparently believing that advancement must aid the jews first and then hopefully not help or can eventually be kept from all others. Which is why they work extremely hard to retard advancement in so many areas. Bizarre people at best. Many have nice gifts that are unfortunately overpowered by the most vile confluence of negative psychological traits that can be found in human beings.
Many still try to rehabilitate Freud after all this time. They attempt to rationalize his carefully contrived views. The scatological old perv was discredited years ago. In simple terms, the old crud hated non jews, and projected his fetishes, his strange longings on to those who didn’t share the same lineage. Never mind the darker reasons behind using his area of study as a method to attack gentiles.
1.) As the Euclidian space is the only one without mathematical conditions, it is basic even for the Riemannian space. You need curvature measures relative to the Euclidian space to transform anything into the “zombie world” of conventionalist mathematics.
2.) As Euclidian space is a special case of Riemannian space, as Newtonian physics is postulated a special case of Einsteinian, you cannot show me an explicit, genuine Riemannian object in the physical world.
3.)Nobody until now has sensibly countered my arguments against relativity and constancy of the speed of light above.
4.) No , I am not an amateur. I hold a PhD in physics and had a professorship. I worked with Helmut Gröttrup and followed him to the Soviet Union for the Soviet Space Programme, the Russian Project Paperclip. We were treated very well there with our own facilities and recreational resorts. Incredible that a 92 year old man is contributing to TOO ? It is as incredible as the racial superiority of the homo erectus in Bilzingsleben with his unique culture 350,000 years ago.
5.)Again for your reading: “http://www.wbabin.net/science/mueller.pdf” and on “http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/126122,albertowi-einsteinowi-poswiecam-cz-2″.English complete anti-Einsteinian bibliography done by me. So, you don’t have to ask again for further literature. There are also introductory reading recommendations.
6.)A German philosopher even solved the riddle in 1942 why the universe exists solving the age-old problem of the infinite regression of causality without nonsensical dogmas like “God” or “Big Bang” etc., a question physics and Big Bang cannot answer by definition. But this will stay my personal secret, I will take it into the grave. In Harvard, nobody will ever know why the world exists. This is my revenge for the world which has crippled Germany after 1945. Germany was on the verge not only to salvation itself , but the whole world. —So, only the Northern Europeans have proven by their IQ and their character that they understood the enigma mundi, that their “Faustian” character had the deepest insight into the cosmos no Jew or “Magian man” etc. could ever compete with.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Eurodele: You clearly have done your homework. But I think even you would acknowledge that the emission theory of light (that the speed of the emitting object (v) can be added to the speed of light (c) as in c+v) got short shrift at the time. The emission theory of light was far more logical and provided a far more simpler explanation of the universe than Einstein’s theory and did not require the warping of time and space. And not a single experiment was performed to ‘disprove’ the emission theory until the neutral pion experiment in the 1960s! Don’t you have a problem with that?? I’m assuming that’s the same reason why Neuenburg cannot accept relativity. Simpler explanations were abandoned in favor of more complex ones. Why? Because you take relativity away from physicists, and they no longer have black holes, time paradoxes, and the ‘warping’ of time and space to play with. What are they left with? Boring truth. And nothing to separate themselves from the common man. They lose their ‘high priest’ status. A theoretical physicist once said something to the effect that “Relativity may eventually proved to be wrong, but we’ve sure had a lot of fun with it!” Assuming you’re a race realist, you know how easy it is for the ‘establishment’ to abandon boring truth for sophisticated lies. For example, the media and educational establishment hate the truth about race and would prefer to come up with all sorts of complex and contorted theories about why blacks among other groups consistently underperform whites and asians in IQ tests and academic achievement. Who wants boring truth when you can have exotic lies!?
I would love to see some young heretical physicist try to build a new framework of theoretical physics around the emission theory. But alas, they, like all relativity doubters, would be relegated to the ‘peanut gallery’ by yourself and mainstream physicists.
Dr. Neuenburg: If your account is true, it is indeed impressive. Recent research also suggests that you have a point about the Big Bang as “Kabbalistic”. I can understand your bitterness about the destiny of Germany.
Thank you, Knutsson and Race Realist for supporting me !!!—
The German philosopher’s ideas who solved the riddle of the Prima Causa in 1942 is by the way crucial to our question as they provide key stone arguments against relativity and the Big Bang. I hereby promise to share these findings with you if someone contributes 250,000 US$ to Kevin’s The Occidental Observer (or e.g. ten people giving 25,000 US$) and Kevin would confirm that in a personal email to me (he has my e-mail address). Then Kevin could decide freely if my project deserves a little percentage of this donation and could transfer this little percentage to my bank account in Switzerland. I know a lot of you are wealthy businessmen and self-employed or have some freaky friends from Silicon Valley. Come on folks , we will all benefit ! The Occidental Observer needs funding !
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
“Ludwig Neuenburg: “Has ever a Jew been the preemininent critic of Boasianism, Einsteinianism, Freudianism, Derridaism, Schönberg’s degenerate music , Adorno etc.? No.”
Forgive me if I missed something, but are you calling yourself “the preemininent critic of Einstein”?”
Grrr. I hate strawman arguments. Just because Neuenburg asked the question does not logically compel the conclusion that he’s holding HIMSELF out as the preeminent critic of Einstein.
C’mon, Eurodele.
If you are NOT Jewish, please demonstrate it to the rest of us by arguing honestly.
Barb: “Grrr. I hate strawman arguments. Just because Neuenburg asked the question does not logically compel the conclusion that he’s holding HIMSELF out as the preeminent critic of Einstein. C’mon, Eurodele. If you are NOT Jewish, please demonstrate it to the rest of us by arguing honestly.”
Good grief. If Ludwig was not “holding himself out as the preeminent critic of Einstein”, then what was the meaning of his comment? Unless he was referring to himself, to whom could he possibly have been referring? Apparently, not to anyone relevant to the present exchange.
The fact is, if Kevin MacDonald values the scientific credibility and respectability of his work – and that’s a concern that I think most of us share – the last thing that he/we can afford is to have his ideas associated with something that 99.99% of the academic community, and those who value its opinion on matters of hard science, would regard as sheer crankery (and for good reason – no offense to Ludwig, whose work I don’t know well enough to pass judgment on it). The going is rough enough as it is. If you find this unpalatable, then don’t blame me. Blame the cruel, cruel world.
After all, I’m not attacking Ludwig, but only trying to keep the discussion on target. It was Ludwig, and now you (barb), who have been saying or implying that I’m a “Jew”. (Good thing for me and my wife that they didn’t realize our awful little secret in the all-White non-CZ country church from which we both just returned!) All I’ve been trying to do is explain what you need to know about the content and history of White science in order to accurately assess the risks of seeming to reject relativity theory, a White-grounded mainstay of modern physics, on inadequate grounds. In doing that, I’ve performed a service … a useful service, given that most non-specialists know next to nothing about this topic.
On the other hand, if you already have a firm grasp of the situation and don’t need my help, that’s fine too – I’m not asking you for a medal. But being as it’s Easter, maybe you should think about the intellectual welfare of those participants who lack your (deep?) understanding of the mathematically complex theory forming the topic of this thread. (In fact, maybe you should think about them even if you don’t give a hoot about Easter.) And remember that TOO has nothing to gain from hosting science-related discussions that seem plagued by scientific illiteracy.
As far as honesty is concerned, I think that’s about as honest as it gets.
Eurodele, I think what’s happening is a lot of the discussion is getting out of hand for the average reader. Some things should be left as; Einstein used the work of whites while failing to credit them, and the Jewish establishment went right along with the plagiarism.
There are other areas in which I do not have the knowledge to argue, which some other people should admit. I’m a computer science person, not a physicist. But maybe to put it simply, the speed of light, as the absolute fastest anything can travel, has already been disproven in a fashion, on several occasions. Where does this actually leave Einstein and his true believers? Generally you see them say things like “… well, he wasn’t actually wrong,” or “He’s still correct, it’s just that…” or we have mathematicians, other physicists, semitically correct Wikipedia, the whole group of faithful saying and doing anything and everything to keep one of the secular gods of the Jews at the top. I am aware of those who will go into the Cherenkov effect, of said experiments being conducted in a vacuum – but isn’t space a vacuum, lol – the EPR paradox which is more Einstein b.s., and more — the web gets filled with posts and articles defending Einstein, all with the exact same wording. So they’re likely coming from common sources, as we all know. But other physicists state flat out that the info traveled faster than light, and even ignoring those experiments, Einstein has been disproven in many areas but it isn’t safe to say so. It’s like being a gentile in the news media and pointing out the majority of spies caught in the US are Chinese and … Jews. Mention the Jews and you’re done. Point out Einstein, while capable, is an exaggeration, and you’re shown the door.
To “outsiders” a lot of theoretical physics seemingly has turned into an exercise in Pil Pul with very few conclusions actually grounded in fact, just like Marxism. And Marxism has been proven to be unsustainable, like everything else run by Jews as many have pointed out. I guess a better question is where will physics go once the Zionist system in the West goes under? They are intentionally slowing down research in other areas in the West, especially the US, through control of grant money and stuffing the US full of third world scientists and engineers (ever wonder why NASA and now the aerospace companies seem to have more and more problems and mistakes?) and ruining the culture and school systems in an attempt to stop new white talent from arising in science.
95% of society and 99,99% of academe are against Kevin’s views on Jews, IQ and race. In any case we are a tiny minority. It is ridiculous to think that Kevin could lose anything, what he needs (and he is now a director in the American Third Position Party also) is publicity, publicity and publicity , because with growing publicity he is also gaining supporters and donators and the modern NKWD cannot backstab him so easily in scecrecy. So, the Party and he can pass the treshold of financial and media significance. So, the final method to destroy us is to keep us quiet and scary like you, Eurodele, want us. If you, Eurodele, cannot judge my arguments (as you stated before) just leave the dicussion. Who thinks we could lose anything has not yet understood our eternal enemy who wants to make dog fodder from our corpses and sell it for 3 dollars at WalMart! D u e to the Jewish Trotzkyist movements, the Jewish messiah will come through the now closed Golden Gate in Jerusalem with big lightning and thunder around A.D. 2290 according to the Jewish calendar after the Gentiles (including the Chinese) have been crushed ! And he will only come according to tradition , a f t er the Gentiles have been annihilated completely !
But the Chinese are waking up at the moment, due to the economic crisis. Song Hongbing’s “anti-Semitic” book “Currency Wars” has become a million-bestseller in China also popular with political leaders exposing the Fed Reserve and Shlomo Bernanke etc.—
I am responsible for the 2001 German World War against relativity , as explained in detail on the linked websites. But the same subverters like you, eurodele, have tried unsuccessfully to infiltrate the project since 2001. I am the preeminent critic. —No bastion of Jewish power has been lesser secured and tabooed ever than physical relativity and the Jewish Big Bang. You could now lecture based on serious criticism at universities and schools and institutions and the audience would silently listen to you, but if you would lecture about human races citing Kevin, Lynn or John Randal Baker, activists would attack you also physically. — Kevin, the Party and me will make a difference ! Donate and vote for the American Third Party !
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Ludwig Neuenburg wrote:
Dr. Neuenburg, have you ever heard of P.A.M. Dirac? In 1928, Dirac applied special relativistic terms to Erwin Schroedinger’s famous equation, you know the pure mathematical thing that finally cracked open the secrets of the atom. And out of Dirac’s own pure mathematical equations came the “intrinsic spin” of the electron, which finally explained the “fine structure” seen in high resolution spectroscopy. Also coming out of Dirac’s equations was “anti-matter,” something no one had ever heard of or predicted the existence of before. And finally (and this is something to warm the cockles of your teutonic heart), there came out a phenomenon called “zitterbewegung.”
In the past few decades, physicists (notably Stephen Hawking) applied general relativity to Schroedinger’s equations and a new branch of cosmology was born called “quantum gravity.” Well, even thinking about the term “quantum gravity” gives me a headache, so I think I’ll sit down in my easy chair, pour out some bier and put on one of my Wagner CDs and I’d advise you to do the same.
“the last thing that he/we can afford is to have his ideas associated with something that 99.99% of the academic community, and those who value its opinion on matters of hard science, would regard as sheer crankery”
Sheer crankery? The suggestion that academia is honest, anymore, such that accusations of crankery mean something, is laughable.
Academic credibility? Academia, who insisted that global warming debate is settled (until the whistleblower published his emails, anyway) and dissenters were dismissed as “deniers”? Academia that insists race is a social construct and and anyone who says otherwise is dismissed as an ignorant racist? That academia?
Academia has lost credibility because its much-trumpeted assertions of its commitment to the truth have repeatedly been demonstrated to have been a sham. Academia today is corrupt all over the place; it’s become all about agreeing with — and getting funding to further — “the consensus” and silencing dissenters.
Why should anyone who cares about actual facts give particular weight to what “academia” pronounces as the truth, anymore?
I have no standing to decide whether Neuenberg is talking nonsense or not. But merely that “the establishment” won’t give him a hearing is not proof.
Just because someone is alone in their theory does not prove them wrong.
Alfred Wegener was laughed at for continental drift. Oooops.
There are many such examples in the history of science.
E.g. “There is as yet no logically consistent and complete relativistic quantum field theory.”, p. 4. — V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, L P Pitaevskii (1971). J. B. Sykes, J. S. Bell (translators). Relativistic Quantum Theory 4, part I. Course of Theoretical Physics (Landau and Lifshitz) . Until now a lot of incompatibilities have been detected.
Steven Hawking has an IQ of more than 140 estimately, but as the recent “tulku” or “avatar” of Albert Einstein he displays the same instinctlessness and pre-disease-cum-post-disease femininity as Albert Einstein (http://files.myopera.com/edwardpiercy/blog/Einstein-Laughing-1.jpg) which hinders him from a sound stance on science and cosmology. He is just an “expert” , not a “Prussian mandarin” of the 19th century who saw the whole picture. He never noticed e.g. the logical contradictions of relativity theory, obviously he has never heard of any scientific criticism. Because he was brainwashed like most of us. Brainwashed as the anthropology professors who think all races are equal. As the ancient Greeks said all real knowledge starts with having doubts. Nobody has until now falsified any of my physical arguments against relativity from above. What about a refutation of the circular reasoning in the relativistic from-speed-to time conclusion ? I am waiting.
A Reminder : Relativistic clock experiments since the 1970s have purportedly shown that moving clocks are slower than resting ones (e.g. the famous Haefele-Keating clock experiment; the twin in the spaceship is claimed to age slowlier than the twin on earth; “twin paradox”). Both the clock-transporting airplanes and the atomic clock mechanisms themselves are moving. Physical movement is expressed in “meters per second”. So, time is a condition for physical movement. So, any measurement of velocity can never be interpreted as showing a “distortion” of time as time is one of the conditions of velocity (heavy circular reasoning).
I know , some bloggers want to divert from the falsification of physical relativity to quantum mechanics and the “mathematicist thought zombies” using Derrida’s deconstructivist techniques.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Eurodele,
Please. If you are really here because you are interested in KMac’s ideas, if you are truly not Jewish, if you truly care about White interests and the continuance of this blog, then you surely realize that Jewish deceptiveness is ubiquitous and we must all be on guard to prevent this nascent pro-White movement from being hijacked by pro-Jewish dissemblers, like so many movements before.
Therefore it behooves you, and all of us who wish to promote White interests, to be scrupulously honest such that other readers do not need to ask, “Are you Jewish,” because it is plain though our arguing style that we are not.
Be reasonable. Eurodele has given many valuable contributions here. Grow up, barb. Your recipe looks like a Michael Jackson kind of strategy, wearing masks and gloves. Try maintaining the immune system instead. You don’t have to turn on the Jew-alarm clock 24-7. Just stay normal, remain ethno-conscious without descending into wholesale paranoia.
Thank you again, barb, for supporting me !
Now real existing zombies are introduced as Michael Jackson ( guilt by association strategy, blogger “barb” is compared to this sicko, incredible). Given the fact that Kevin also just launched the American Third Position Party, I think the percentage of Jews in this thread will be stunningly high. Did you really like my outline of “Einsteinianism as a Jewish evolutionary strategy” (Kevin MacDonald, Praeger, 2012), Geiseric ? Or is it only a Jewish masquerade ?
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
By the way Michael Jackson’s immune system towards the Jews was very vivid (Video “They don’t really care about us”, telephone interviews), to cite him for a defunct immune system towards the Jews is totally inadequate.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Neuenburg should know better than to misrepresent the statements of his “opponents”. We have seen a demonstration (“Anschauungsunterricht”, as the Germans say) of one of our problems: the lack of balanced messages, and normal communication. The success of the A3P or TOO depends on the ability to persuade lukewarm “non-believers.”
No, we don’t want to persuade, we want to convince the voters and supporters, we want to be real, therefore the poll by the A3P street teams about life getting worse and worse in urban America due to non-White immigration. Black Pharaoh Obama (Nobel Peace Prize holder (!), here with his buddy, “tulku” Hawking http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/08/12/presaward7.jpg) is a persuader, in reality he expanded American aggressions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Venezuela and elsewhere. Obama also quoted physical relativity to support his views. The Black Pharaoh even (hahahaha ) worked on relativity theory according to puppeteer Axelrod (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012403014.html). It is no exaggeration to say that the devil is ruling our world, everything is upside down, time is out of joint, the kaliyuga as the Indians say. Geiseric, the potential acceptability among American Whites of criticism of physical relativity is hundred times higher than the acceptability of Kevin’s correct views on Jews, IQ and race. So why diverting from the relativity issue ? Are you Jewish, Geiseric ?
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
The Jews show the people photos of mountains of corpses..
But the physical relativists do not show photos of mountains of corpses of physical relativists. You understand our unique chances in the physical relativity issue ?
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Your question makes no more sense in cyberspace than this one: Are you the 92-year old German physicist you claim to be?
The ad hominem remarks are again a try to divert from the issue that physical relativity and Big Bang theory are Jewish anti-Gentile strategies , that I am a useful collaborator for the A3P and Kevin and that Kevin recently acknowledges in the Podhoretz comment (II) that Einsteinianism is “perhaps” a Jewish subversion.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Exactly, Geiseric.
Ludwig Neuenburg: “So, the final method to destroy us is to keep us quiet and scary like you, Eurodele, want us.”
When did I say that I wanted you “scary”? And who’s “us”? (What is this, some kind of rinky-dink cult-inspired “us-against-the-world” mind control technique?)
Aside from what I’ve told you about myself, which is approximately zero, you know nothing about me. Yet you keep pretending otherwise. What’s your malfunction?
LN: “If you, Eurodele, cannot judge my arguments (as you stated before) just leave the dicussion.”
That won’t be necessary. You see, Dr. Ludwig, I’m pretty sure that I’m qualified to judge your scientific arguments, such as they may be, at least to the extent that they’re substantive as opposed to content-free ad hominem attacks (“U R A Jew”!), hand-waving appeals to some sort of nebulous authority (yours), and that sort of thing. I’m just being polite and erring on the side of caution. I suggest that you do the same.
LN: “I am responsible for the 2001 German World War against relativity , as explained in detail on the linked websites. But the same subverters like you, eurodele, have tried unsuccessfully to infiltrate the project since 2001.”
First, I couldn’t care less about your “2001 German World War against relativity”, whatever that is. Subverting that, or any other project of yours that I’ve never heard of, is simply not a priority for me. In fact, I wouldn’t even know where to start. See, I’ve tried all the links you’ve posted in this thread, and as far as I can tell, there’s nothing there. A bibliography in Polish (?), a letter in German, a couple of duds (“Page Not Found”). I even tried googling “Ludwig Neuenburg”. Zilch. I’ve seen nothing whatsoever that would lend any credence at all to anything you’ve said. Not one word.
That’s kind of surprising, isn’t it? One would think that a preeminent 90 year old critic of Einstein would have left some sort of mark on the world … especially someone who implies that he can command all kinds of publicity on behalf of MacDonald and this site (for a percentage of the action, strangely enough). But if you do have a significant web presence under the name “Ludwig Neuenburg”, it’s pretty well buried. On the other hand, if “Ludwig Neuenburg” is a pseudonym, and you’re determined to conceal your real identity, then why start a row over “science” that you’re not in a position to discuss?
Then again, this could all be a simple misunderstanding. Maybe these tell-all links of yours were posted in some other thread. Or maybe I’m just not motivated enough to hunt down the relevant information. In any case, if you actually have a link that works and leads to a page that explains what you’re up to, please feel free to post it here. I’ll be sure to have a look.
What a tiresome thread. Here’s news, pointyheads of all stripes: the Bomb worked. Einstein, no doubt standing on the shoulders of unacknowledged Nordic geniuses, got it mostly right. Some years ago, I was discussing the relationship between fact and theory with a couple of kosher poli sci professors. I expressed the thought that it must be difficult to deduce a theory from a complex data array. “No, No!”, one exclaimed. “First comes the theory, then just plug in the facts….those that don’t fit, you throw away.” Now that’s Jewish. Incidentally, Einstein’s mistriss….was an NKVD spy. But neither this nor his watery communist politics have anything to do with Relativity. If the theory produces testable predictions, and the predictions proove out, then the theory is valid. If you doubt, look at the Hiroshima-Nagisaki photos.
Prof. MacDonald argues that defining antisemitism as a mental disorder is, in fact, a Jewish defense mechanism. He is a psychologist and that makes sense. He may be right. What is his diagnosis regarding the comment above our eternal enemy who wants to make dog fodder from our corpses and sell it for 3 dollars at WalMart!. Is it my Jewish defense mechanism that makes me wonder or is this a special exception to his rule?
“Be reasonable. Eurodele has given many valuable contributions here. Grow up, barb. Your recipe looks like a Michael Jackson kind of strategy, wearing masks and gloves. Try maintaining the immune system instead. You don’t have to turn on the Jew-alarm clock 24-7. Just stay normal, remain ethno-conscious without descending into wholesale paranoia”
Let’s go over the fundamentals again.
Organized Jewry is attempting to subvert, undermine, destroy my nation for my children by pushing for the amnesty of 30 million illegal alien mestizoes. Period. Full stop.
They are a dangerous enemy. Period. Full stop.
They are perhaps my most dangerous enemy, far more so than 90-IQ Mecca-bowers in faraway Iraq.
To be wary of the deceptions such a dangerous and wily enemy may perpetrate is not paranoia — it’s wisdom.
This is an anonymous forum. Any poster can represent himself as truthfully or misrepresent himself as falsely as he chooses. Few of us are personally known to each other, so determining who is and who is not likely a Jewish disruptor is a painstaking task.
The only, only way there is to evaluate the sincerity of a poster claiming to be pro-White is by what they say and how they say it. So it is not unfair, certainly not paranoid to ask my sincerely pro-White fellows to refrain from arguing in stereotypically “Jewy” ways, including such intellectually dishonest tactics of knocking down strawmen.
Where did I say Eurodele has not contributed? I wouldn’t say that, I couldn’t say that, because I haven’t read all Eurodele’s posts. TOO blog has an active commentary — who can, besides admin, read all of someone’s posts? What I did say is, I asked Eurodele to demonstrate his non-Jewish sincerity by always arguing honestly in order to show us all that the answer to the question, “Are you Jewish?” is likely no.
Let me be totally honest, barb: to me, you look like a silly little airhead.
Why do I say this? Because you keep on obliquely accusing me of dishonest “strawman” argumentation even after:
(1) I correctly pointed out that your precious geriatric troll “Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg” had (in effect) called himself a “preeminent critic of Einstein”;
(2) Ludwig came back and reiterated his claim directly in your face (just in case you were continuing to fool yourself about what he’d written);
(3) I pointed out that Ludwig is probably a complete fraud who seems, somewhat Hebraically, to be motivated by financial gain.
Let’s continue being honest, shall we? It seems rather … well, Jewish of you to have ignored the above criteria even after they were reasonably pointed out to you. In fact, it almost looks like you’re trying to create a diversion by means of a sustained, calculated misdirection of suspicion.
What kind of person creates a diversion for Jewish trolls? Would we not in fact be guilty of a deplorable lapse of vigilance were we not to consider the likelihood that such a person is … yet another Jewish troll?
But then again, that might be unfair of me. You might merely be someone who has a soft spot for the elderly, despises Einstein, hates anyone who shows any comprehension of relativity, and doesn’t bother to read anyone’s posts but her own.
So instead, I offer the following “compromise” solution: inasmuch as my only real crime here is knowing a little bit of science and trying to stop this site from being used for comedy purposes by people like “Ludwig”, who is probably laughing his little Jewish ass off right now at your expense, why don’t you stuff a sock in it?
There. (Man, it sure feels good to be honest!)
Good points, eurodele.
CompassionateFascist, it isn’t really Einstein’s work that worked that led to the bomb. He had little do to with it all in point of fact. Droves of others can be pointed out, a good percentage of them Jewish, but not Einstein. Even Oppenheimer gets more credit than deserved, just look at the words of Teller who was Jewish himself. That said, Oppenheimer and crew are the folks behind the bomb, behind most of the theory. Not Einstein. I have to admit I think it’s stretching it if some people think any advancement from Jews is purely for Jewish gain. The leadership of organized Jewry may wish to use some advancement that way, but there are certain traits in all people, even scientists, when it comes to wanting to be recognized. Forgetting the behind the scenes chicanery that sometimes goes on, there’s little doubt a lot of Jewish scientists simply want to be “the guy who” did whatever. Same as non-Jewish scientists.
What organized Jewry does is elevate these scientists, some of whom rightly were giants in their fields, some who were not. Then they push and promote, pump out publicity to further their overall community goals, the hell with everyone else. It’s a shame that the Nobel Prizes in the sciences have now become politicized behind the scenes. Everything is becoming poisoned. The Nobel Prizes will soon be as bad as say awards handed out in classical music competitions or literary contests and more, which were undermined decades ago by organized Jewry.
Thank you, barb, for my support.
Given that Kevin is a director of the A3P Party and was voted one of America’s most dangerous intellectuals (the “Marx” or the “Einstein” of the anti-Semites) it is obvious that this thread is full of Jews.
“inasmuch as my only real crime here is knowing a little bit of science and trying to stop this site from being used for comedy purposes by people like “Ludwig”, who is probably laughing his little Jewish ass off right now at your expense” . Eurodele has reached the scatological level of corpses exposition Jew Günther von Hagens (aka Günther Liebchen; http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/oct/05101405.html) and Aryan nude “corpse” Auschwitzesque mountains director Spencer Tunick.
Thousands of brainwashed Aryans take part in this Jewish irony trash foreshadowing the Boasian extermination of the Germanic race. But before the extermination they shall work a bit for Yahwe to make money for the Jews. Why don’t the Jews go to Israel in spite of Auschwitz ? Because they like our money soooooo much. Ah, and “j” is a Volljude from the shtetl according to his weblink. But you cannot suppress truth and divert Kevin. Eurodele and Geiseric is what Hitler meant in “Triumph of the Will” with “das leichte Zeug, was die Partei ausgekähnt hat”. That I am a 92-year old scientist is as true as Hitler’s last bodyguard dear Rochus Misch sitting in Berlin 93-years old, live and kicking. I was , together with Gröttrup personally, e.g. responsible for the cone-head shape of the Russian R-7, the First ICBM, the cone-head which was essential to the R-7′s success and the Russian N 1 moon rocket and if the Russians had not had us, they would not have had the Sputnik one year before von Braun had the first satellite !!! And I hereby accuse America for having heavily sabotaged the Russian N 1 manned moon programme with all possible means !!! The sabotage alone cost billions of US taxpayers’ money !!! They crippled mine and Gröttrup’s work !!! While I was sitting in my Einfamilienhaus in Berlin-Rudow, von Braun was sitting in the so-called von Braun Hilton !!! I know, it is hard to believe for some of you. —Could anyone until now counter my repeatedly stated relativistic clock circular reasoning example ? No.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Yes, “j”, dog fodder is exactly what the Jews made from 7-10 million Ukrainians and bordering peoples in the holodomor. And “Ivan the Terrible” grown up in this devastated desert has given a bit of this love back to them.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
But they do not stop, Dr. L. Only a few years ago, I, a Ukie, was told by an old tribalist that only about 10,000 of my kind died in 32-33 – and it was a naturally occurring famine. Har-dee-har. I recall the old bastard; he was a hopelessly ugly, old baboon with pig eyes.
Well, your pro-Russian attitude is certainly not typical for your generation of Germans. I have never heard or seen a true German return from Russia after WW2 as a pro-Russian.
Thank you for supporting me, Barkingmad !!
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Russia, Geiseric , was,as Asia was and is, a topos of fear and desire for the Germans and German nationalists (cf. young scientist Tobias Hübinette or the German Ahnenerbe expedition to Tibet 1938-1939). Germans were welcomed with salt and bread in the Ukraine as liberators from Stalin and the Jews. The Ukrainians as a whole knew all too good who was responsible for the holodomor. The majority of German soldiers had basically a postive view of the blond Osteuropid people and e.g. women in Russia and the Ukraine despite the extreme German propaganda, but if you look at the propaganda posters about the Asian half-human “beasts” you will not see blond good-looking Osteuropids. Many of the German soldiers in later years admitted regret for the Russian people or as Kevin would put it, they instinctively knew that they were very similar genetically and morphologically to them. In the 1960s and 1970s there was even a hype about Russia in Germany (Alexandra and Ivan Rebroff records e.g.) bought by millions of World War 2 participants. RochusMisch e.g. is also pro-Russian, I am pro-Russia- pro-Putin (Putin who threw out Beresovski, Newslin etc. and killed the pro-Jewish pro-Chodorkowski pro-Newslin agent Litvinenko).
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Hmm… well, a major part of the pan-Germanic, Völkisch-movement was anti-Slavic from Day 1, and most Germans (including the NS elite) preferred to be occupied by the Western powers after WW2. The Nordic-race myth about Osteuropids is ridiculous to anyone with a deeper knowledge of Rassenkunde and the east-west racial divide. Equally ridiculous is the myth that Putinism is anti-Semitic. Jewish oligarchs like Deripaska and Abramovitch are still running the show over there.
“Would we not in fact be guilty of a deplorable lapse of vigilance were we not to consider the likelihood that such a person is … yet another Jewish troll?
But then again, that might be unfair of me”
Okay, Eurodele. Safe to assume you have no intention of granting my request.
Silly girl is an insult rarely tossed at middle-aged women. I do, however, support people’s right to speak, including Dr. Neuenburg. I have no particular insight into if he’s who he says he is or not. I am, however, curious to hear his ideas. Very un-Jewish of me to want to allow people to have their say, rather than tell them to “stuff a sock in it.” I also think that KMac has deserves that we show him enough respect to allow *him* to decide who may and who may not post on his blog. Being as he is in the belly of the beast, I think he’s the most qualified to do so.
To the newbie lurkers: By all means you should take into consideration whether I might be a Jewish troll. You’ll find that there are posters here far more Jew-wise than I who seem to think I probably what I say I am, which is a White Gentile who loves her people, because I’m not good at “Jewy” arguing tactics. (Having not attended Hebrew school nor ever set foot in a synagogue because I’m not Jewish, I don’t have the necessary practice at the requisite deception.)
What would an honorable pro-White European ancestry man (who’s actually of European ancestry, not a Jewish poseur) do when requested to argue honestly? He’d do the honorable thing, admit the point and — clean up his argument. What does a Jewish troll do when criticised? Turns around and hysterically accuses YOU of the very thing you’ve call him out on. What did Eurodele do? Turn around and accuse me of the very thing I called him out on. The inability to accept legitimate criticism is a very Jewish trait. So the likely conclusion is….
No, the Jews are not running the show any more in Russia.
Why be so deceitful, barb?
Isn’t it time for you to face the facts and come clean? Admit it: what you deceitfully called a “strawman” was in fact exactly what Ludwig had said. He had indeed claimed to be a preeminent critic of Einstein. He even came back and said it again, just in case you missed it the first time.
Now, given that the nature of Ludwig’s claim implies that there must be some sort of supporting evidence for it, but no such evidence exists, one of three things must be true. (1) Ludwig lied. (2) Ludwig is deluded. (3) Ludwig is not who he says he is. Your guess is as good as anyone else’s, so take your pick. But in any case, I obviously have every right to question Ludwig about his claims, defend myself from insults and accusations, and correct any scientific errors that others make in addressing me or for that matter anyone else on this list.
Twice you ignored these facts in order to accuse me of “dishonesty”. Twice you were dishonest in doing so. This is precisely the kind of deceptive argumentation for which Jews are notorious. Hence, one would be perfectly justified in assuming that you, barb, are a Jew, and worse, a down and dirty Jew who has it in for Whites and likes to toss an occasional monkey wrench into their discussions.
Of course, appearances can deceive. You may not be Jewish at all. But if your dishonesty owes to something other than Jewishness, that makes it no more excusable. In fact, that makes it less excusable, if only because it reflects badly on all of us. Your lack of integrity makes Whites in general look deceitful, exactly as the misbehavior of a dishonest Jew makes Jews in general look sneaky.
Shape up and fly right, little lady. Whites are in trouble, and playing fast and loose with the truth isn’t the way to get us out of it. Neither is turning your snippy, shrewish, holier-than-thou attitude on White people just because you don’t like the cut of their jibs or resent them for understanding things that confuse you.
It’s never too late to stop being an obstruction and start doing the right thing. If you try, you can do it too.
Wake up ! I have authored the G.O Mueller World War against relativity. “G.O.Mueller” is my pseudonym and as I have also envisioned as a possibility in the statements of “G.O.Mueller” since 2001 I now decide to go public ! A have prepared a full English-language bibliography for you on http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/126122,albertowi-einsteinowi-poswiecam-cz-2. I have given important introductory hints for Kevin and the others saving you valuable time !
The Russians cleared the archives from many German contributions ! About 100 trains full of rocket scientists with helpers were brought to Russia, 7000 people ! Wake up ! Gröttrup, me and some others were the masterminds behind Sputnik and the first ICBM ! We were the first ! Read Dr. Olaf Przybilski papers from the Technical University of Dresden !
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
LN: “No, the Jews are not running the show any more in Russia.”
Only 3 Jewish oligarchs were removed. Most of them remain, and Putin doesn’t mind. Then, of course, there is also a Jewish (and other minorities) presence in the political power apparatus. Putin is not a “racial” or ethnic nationalist. His project is purely imperialistic, and his main concern is geopolitics, territorial expansion etc. There’s no good reason for any of us to assist or support him in that project. They already occupy a territory twice the size of the US (and with less than half of the US population).
LN: “The Russians cleared the archives from many German contributions ! About 100 trains full of rocket scientists with helpers were brought to Russia, 7000 people ! Wake up ! Gröttrup, me and some others were the masterminds behind Sputnik and the first ICBM !”
I believe you. I wouldn’t go as far as Hitler did (“without us, the Russians would still be living like rabbits”), but I do think that Russia would probably have been wiped out of the map centuries ago (or reduced to the more reasonable size of contemporary Belarus), without the hi-tech and know-how stolen or purchased from naive Europeans and Americans. Without Walter Christie, for instance, they wouldn’t have had the T-34 during WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Christie
No, the Jews are not running the show anymore in Russia. Whenever a Jewish oligarch tries to influence politics in an anti-Russian way he is removed. As in 1950, after Stalin as Kevin also writes, had removed Jews from the highest ranks of politics , but remaining a societyl elite. That’s why Beriya killed Stalin for the Trotzkyist Jewish faction (www.cyberone.com).Putin’s FSB is running Russia now. They have the final decisive power, also over the mafia. That is why Putin is hated by Jews worldwide.Some rabbis still celebrate Stalin’s murder on Purim.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
The bacteria flagellum detsroyed Darwinism. Nothing else.
LN :”No, the Jews are not running the show anymore in Russia.”
Let’s just say they still play a major role. In post-Communist Russia, money is power, and Russian Jews have lots of money to buy influence. As already mentioned, there’s no good reason to believe that Putin, FSB & Co are anti-Semites or ethnic nationalists. The Kremlin’s No 1 ideologist is a Chechen (Surkov).
LN: “Whenever a Jewish oligarch tries to influence politics in an anti-Russian way he is removed. ”
Wrong. They are removed if they make a move against Putin’s centralistic power structure. But, of course, they don’t do that, and why should they? Putin is in many ways good for Jews in Russia.
LN: “Putin’s FSB is running Russia now. They have the final decisive power, also over the mafia.”
Exactly, and the FSB doesn’t care any more about ethnicity and race than the CIA or the FBI.
Here’s a short list, btw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Russian_billionaires
Geiseric, I’m not sure anyone knows Putin’s full game plan or goals except Putin. I’ve discussed this with different people and the shorthand version is that Putin works with Jews because he has to at the moment and vice versa. There is no love lost between either party and the Jews have in fact called for Putin’s head and have had some test runs on anti-Putin propaganda in US media. There is a showdown looming at some point in Russia just as there is one looming here in the US and a great deal of the West as conditions worsen.
There is no reason to call someone a Jew if they side with particular tenets put forth by Einstein or other Jewish scientists if they have good reason or faith to do so, whether it’s based in knowledge or maybe lack of knowledge in certain areas. The truth will win out in the very end. Sometimes WN’s go too far in rejecting all things Jewish, when in the case of certain areas of science that might not be the right way to go. We can go on about Einstein and plagiarism, being wrong, which he was in some areas, and being an exaggeration of Jewish media, which he also was and is. But with the situation being as it is, the whole truth will only become clear once things being to tip the other way. That is happening. While this is going on it is important for Whites to look at the bigger picture and concentrate on more immediate problems and preparation. Sorting out the true Jewish geniuses from frauds and media creations can wait. It’s an interesting exercise, but immigration and the Grand Theft going on in the US banking system and Stock Market along with more and more anti-white laws are a more immediate concern.
Einstein was probably wrong in more areas than in which he was right. But that’s not something Whites in general need to worry about at the moment. Areas in which he was correct? Give him credit after things are sorted out in general. After all, he didn’t give credit to many of those whose ideas he used.
Dr Ludwig Neuenberg is what he says he is. Only an authentic 92 y.o. inoffensive Museum-Nazi would use the word “volljude”. :-)
BTW volljude Von Kármán’s Ogive is superior to his nose cone design. :-)
We are diverted again from relativity, but here you can see how “similar ” Russia is to the US www2.nupi.no/cgi-win//Russland/krono.exe?3305 (about an alleged anti-Semitic plot to kill Jew Beresovski) or here http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=94157 when 20 Russian parliament members and 480 prominent Russians signed an “amti-Semitic” petition recently or here thewingsofthecarp.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/commissars-of-the-internet-the-fsb-at-the-computer-by-anna-polyanskaya-episode-34/ where the anti-Semitic webblog spamming by the FSB is described.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Dr. Pill: Amen to 95% of what you wrote.
Richard Sakwa knows pretty much about Putin’s game plan and goals. You should check out his books in your local university library, if you’re interested.
A reminder of the most obvious reasons against relativity:
1.)Relativistic clock experiments since the 1970s have purportedly shown
that moving clocks are slower than resting ones (e.g. the famous
Haefele-Keating clock experiment; the twin in the spaceship is claimed to
age slowlier than the twin on earth; “twin paradox”). Both the
clock-transporting airplanes and the atomic clock mechanisms themselves are moving. Physical movement is expressed in “meters per second”. So, time is a condition for physical movement. So, any measurement of velocity can never be interpreted as showing a “distortion” of time as time is one of the
conditions of velocity (heavy circular reasoning).
2.) The fast-travelling sibling in the spaceship ages purportedly slowlier than the sibling on earth. But if we introduce a further sibling travelling with an even faster spaceship, we get six different observer situations which are all differing. But it is claimed by relativity that the differences in aging are real (heavy logical contradictions). So Einstein tried to avoid to use more than two mutually-observing objects.
3.) The relativistic dogma of the constancy of the velocity of light is not
experimentally proven. To prove the non-existence of something which is not basically illogical is especially difficult as it means to search the whole cosmos for it. To prove the existence of something is much easier as only one clear evidence could prove it. It is said by relativists that Einstein “freed the goddess of light from a cage into which German genius Immanuel Kant had forced her”. The light could be interpreted as Yahwe and his Chosen People. In Jewish thinking everything is designed to illogically fit their particularist dogma to be the “light among the peoples”, to be the “measure of all things” involving half-conscious self-deception as elaborated on by
you.
4.) Alexander Friedman was a Jew from St. Petersburg who introduced
relativity to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is similarly
illogical reflecting the Jewish creation myth: one almighty God shows his
almightiness by the creation of the world out of nothing. The creation is
totally depending on this almighty God which is a projection of the choleric oriental patriarch into heaven who punishes and massacres the Gentiles with fervor. This is in contrast to polytheistic religions (ancient Indians) that think of an endless process of movement and creation involving goddesses, too. If Einstein is assumed to be wrong, the cosmos must have been existing at least for 50 billion light years (!) as the observable universe is at least 50 billion light years in every direction from earth. Time, space and mass are infinite. Any finite space, time or mass as proposed in the Big Bang could not be explained reasonably: why would an assumed finite mass of the cosmos not be twice orhalf the value ? (cf. Immanuel Kant’s famous “antinomies”).
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Constancy of the speed of light pros:
1.)some measurements on earth showing constancy
Constancy of the speed of light cons:
1.)experiments of Nimtz and Chiao etc.
2.) all 6 conditions of Michaelson-Morley experiment only done in the Dayton C. Miller experiments (Pinch ,The Golem: What You Should Know about Science )
3.)constancy of c could be beyond the accuracy of measurement
4.) experiments must be done everywhere at any time in the cosmos (impractical, if not impossible)
5.) if we assume an eternal constancy of the lightspeed why is it not e.g. double or half the value ? (cf. Kant’s famous “antinomies”)
6.) Einsteinian constancy of c is basically a pseudo-constancy (!) (cf. the striking example in “Hundred authors against Einstein”)
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
http://manipulatorzy.salon24.pl/126122,albertowi-einsteinowi-poswiecam-cz-2 for the first complete relativity theory-critical bibliography from the G.O. Mueller World War in easily processable form comprising thousands of anti-Einsteinian scientific works.
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Eurodele,
Because I am of European, non-Jewish ancestry, self-examination is a capacity I possess. So I considered, could I have been wrong? Was Eurodele not setting up a strawman to knock down? Did Neuenberg, in fact, make the statement he’s the *PREEMINENT CRITIC* of Einstein? So I reread all his posts. So, I see I was wrong, more or less. It is possible that where I accused you of a strawman argument, a reasonable person may have made your inference, I suppose.
Prior to you making THIS statement:
Good grief. If Ludwig was not “holding himself out as the preeminent critic of Einstein”, then what was the meaning of his comment? Unless he was referring to himself, to whom could he possibly have been referring? Apparently, not to anyone relevant to the present exchange.
He did say this:
“expressing doubts about my personal achievements against relativity while I have been leading the most ambitious project against relativity theory since 1905 worldwide”
My reading comprehension said that Neuenberg claimed to be leading the most ambitious project against relativity theory since 1905. My conclusion, Neuenberg views his project as ambitious. I did not see where he used the words “I am the preeminent critic of Einstein.”
My reading of what he said at that time, I still feel was a reasonable interpretation, that he was merely asking the rhetorical question, has there ever BEEN a Jew who’s “been the preemininent critic of Boasianism, Einsteinianism, Freudianism, Derridaism, Schönberg’s degenerate music , Adorno etc”?
It wasn’t until AFTER our exchange that Neuenberg said:
I am responsible for the 2001 German World War against relativity , as explained in detail on the linked websites. But the same subverters like you, eurodele, have tried unsuccessfully to infiltrate the project since 2001. I am the preeminent critic
So, you were right. I was wrong. Which is a very European thing to do – admit it. So another tick in the likely-not-Jewish column for me, for readers who are trying to determine who’s a Jewish dissembler and who’s a non-Jewish, genuine pro-White.
You, however, are putting a good deal of effort in defense of Einstein and want Neuenberg to be shunned as a crackpot and shushed and to go away lest the Scientific Establishment find out and disapprove.. Which is quite Jewish behavior. You either are one, or you’ve learned the tactic in order to survive in Big Science.
*** For the lurkers, I do NOT know Dr. Neuenberg. My only reason for arguing with Eurodele is because I detest, in this era where intellectuals with theories and facts and ideas and that do not hew to those granted the Jewish seal of approval ARE being suppressed and persecuted, as Dr. MacDonald has suffered, people with unconventional ideas being shunned. Quote from Eurodele: “The last thing that he/we can afford is to have his ideas associated with something that 99.99% of the academic community, and those who value its opinion on matters of hard science, would regard as sheer crankery”
Surely here, on the Occidental Observer, the so-called crackpots with non-Jewish ideas can have their say. Because the idea that the Neuenbergs of the world will get a fair hearing for their ideas, be allowed to publish in mainstream journals if sound, is becoming more worthy of skepticism every day.
Dennis Mangan did an entire series on what happened to the journal Medical Hypotheses when it published Deusberg’s paper countering the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
http://mangans.blogspot.com/2010/03/charlton-will-likely-be-fired-as-editor.html
So the idea that worthy papers contrary to what the (Jew dominated) Scientific Establishment has branded kosher can get published — well, the evidence is mounting that it’s false.
Professor Logunov’s monograph on the subject of Poincaré’s priority in the working out of Special Relativity is exhaustive and conclusive:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077 .
Poincaré worked out all of Special Relativity ahead of Einstein and it’s not even close. Hendrik Lorentz did the foundational work Poincaré built on.
Einstein worked out General Relativity with lots of foundational input developed by Herman Minkowski and David Hilbert.
Special Relativity is Poincaré’s Theory of Relativity.
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is General Relativity.
Einstein was a great scientist. Special Relativity was not his but Poincaré’s.
Has Einstein been hyped by Jews bursting with pride? That is my impression, yes, although in researching the priority question a couple of years ago I did come across one article conceding Poincaré’s priority, written by a guy with a Jewish name.
Poincaré and Hilbert were Euro, Minkowski was Jewish, Lorentz I don’t know, Logunov I don’t know.
Emmy Noether (Jewish) should also be added to that list.
“in researching the priority question a couple of years ago I did come across one article conceding Poincaré’s priority, written by a guy with a Jewish name.” ( — from my comment)
That’s misleading, makes it sound as if there was only one article conceding Poincaré’s priority. There are tons. (Google Poincaré and relativity and follow the links wherever they take you. You’ll be reading scholarly stuff for weeks.)
Geiseric thanks, I’ll look up Emmy Noether. Henri Poincaré, however, really is the original and central figure of Special Relativity, the genius towering above all other names associated with it. He worked it all out piecemeal, all the concepts and equations, nearly all of it a few years before Einstein’s 1905 paper, some of it over fifteen years before.
The irrepressible barb: “You, however, are putting a good deal of effort in defense of Einstein and want Neuenberg to be shunned as a crackpot and shushed and to go away lest the Scientific Establishment find out and disapprove.. Which is quite Jewish behavior. You either are one, or you’ve learned the tactic in order to survive in Big Science.”
First, barb, you can take your incessant but nonetheless wishful Jew-baiting and stuff it in that sock I advised you to chew on a couple of posts back. The you can chew on it some more.
Secondly, you’re guilty of yet another shameless misrepresentation here. I haven’t told anyone to “shun Ludwig as a crackpot”. In fact, I was attempting to be polite to Ludwig despite his apparent unwillingness to reciprocate. I merely wanted to point out that regardless of how relativity theory is credited, it is rightly regarded as a natural extension of the work of highly respected White philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists. Had Einstein not managed to take credit for it, one or more highly talented Whites would probably have done so not long afterward. It follows that by trying to make Einstein look bad for the content of relativity, we risk collateral damage to the reputations of brilliant White people whose thoughts were running in much the same direction. The sum of that damage might well be greater than anything we stand to gain by making Einstein look incompetent.
But that’s not the only danger I was thinking about. If our attempts to make Einstein look bad were themselves to contain technical errors – and with all due respect to those who have cited experiments in which apparent slight variations have been detected in the speed of light, pretending that it wanders all over the map in such a way as to invalidate relativity theory certainly qualifies as such an error – this could be used to make Dr. MacDonald and his work look bad.
That is, it probably wouldn’t be too long before we’d hear something like this:
“CSU’s notorious Professor of Anti-Semitism Kevin MacDonald, who runs a web site called ‘The Occidental Observer’, claims to be helping Whites achieve an objective scientific grasp of the importance of their shared ethnic interests in the context of evolutionary psychology. However, it will probably come as no surprise that science and objectivity do not appear to be in the cognitive repertoire of those who frequent MacDonald’s site. In fact, the site is crawling with the sort of bitter, maleducated crackpot who contemptuously dismisses relativity as a “Jewish theory” while irrationally denying such well-confirmed scientific facts as the invariance of the speed of light. This provides hard evidence that MacDonald’s site is actually what we Chosen Ones have known it was from the beginning, namely, a Mecca for disgruntled white racists bent on spewing hate speech at defenseless minorities and poor dead Jews like Albert Einstein!”
I’m sure you get the picture.
As far as Ludwig is concerned … as I said, I know nothing about his work and have nothing ill to say of it. It was Ludwig who lashed out at me after I pointed out the liabilities of letting the thread devolve into an unscientific Einstein-and-relativity-bashing session. If Ludwig is really an ex-Nazi scientist kidnapped by the Russians and persecuted by the scientific establishment, he has my sympathies. But that still doesn’t oblige me to let a scientific discussion in which I’m participating run afoul of good sense.
No-one has countered sensibly my arguments until now. The Jewish pro-Boasian pro-Einsteinian consensus is no help in truth finding !!! The acceptability of anti-Einstein criticism is thousand times higher in the general population and the academe than Kevin’s ideas on Jews. Lecture critically on Einstein, they will listen to you silently, lecture about the Jews using Kevin’s ideas, they will beat you as they did with Arthur Jensen etc. ! Back to the facts !!!
A reminder of the most obvious reasons against relativity:
1.)Relativistic clock experiments since the 1970s have purportedly shown
that moving clocks are slower than resting ones (e.g. the famous
Haefele-Keating clock experiment; the twin in the spaceship is claimed to
age slowlier than the twin on earth; “twin paradox”). Both the
clock-transporting airplanes and the atomic clock mechanisms themselves are moving. Physical movement is expressed in “meters per second”. So, time is a condition for physical movement. So, any measurement of velocity can never be interpreted as showing a “distortion” of time as time is one of the
conditions of velocity (heaviest circular reasoning !!!). Do you grasp that you cannot eliminate this circular reasoning ? Only feminine “bodhisatvas” of Einstein “believe” that.
2.) The fast-travelling sibling in the spaceship ages purportedly slowlier than the sibling on earth. But if we introduce a further sibling travelling with an even faster spaceship, we get six different observer situations which are all differing. But it is claimed by relativity that the differences in aging are real (heavy logical contradictions). So Einstein tried to avoid to use more than two mutually-observing objects.
3.) The relativistic dogma of the constancy of the velocity of light is not
experimentally proven. To prove the non-existence of something which is not basically illogical is especially difficult as it means to search the whole cosmos for it. To prove the existence of something is much easier as only one clear evidence could prove it. It is said by relativists that Einstein “freed the goddess of light from a cage into which German genius Immanuel Kant had forced her”. The light could be interpreted as Yahwe and his Chosen People. In Jewish thinking everything is designed to illogically fit their particularist dogma to be the “light among the peoples”, to be the “measure of all things” involving half-conscious self-deception as elaborated on by Kevin.
4.) Alexander Friedman was a Jew from St. Petersburg who introduced
relativity to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is similarly
illogical reflecting the Jewish creation myth: one almighty God shows his
almightiness by the creation of the world out of nothing. The creation is
totally depending on this almighty God which is a projection of the choleric oriental patriarch into heaven who punishes and massacres the Gentiles with fervor. This is in contrast to polytheistic religions (ancient Indians) that think of an endless process of movement and creation involving goddesses, too. If Einstein is assumed to be wrong, the cosmos must have been existing at least for 50 billion years (!) as the observable universe is at least 50 billion light years in every direction from earth. Time, space and mass are infinite. Any finite space, time or mass as proposed in the Big Bang could not be explained reasonably: why would an assumed finite mass of the cosmos not be twice orhalf the value ? (cf. Immanuel Kant’s famous “antinomies”).
Constancy of the speed of light pros:
1.)some measurements on earth showing constancy
Constancy of the speed of light cons:
1.)experiments of Nimtz and Chiao etc.
2.) all 6 conditions of Michaelson-Morley experiment only done in the Dayton C. Miller experiments (Pinch ,The Golem: What You Should Know about Science )
3.)constancy of the speed of light could be beyond the accuracy of measurement
4.) experiments must be done everywhere at any time in the cosmos (impractical, if not impossible)
5.) if we assume an eternal constancy of the lightspeed why is it not e.g. double or half the value ? (cf. Kant’s famous “antinomies”)
6.) Einsteinian constancy of the speed of light is basically a pseudo-constancy (!) (cf. the striking example in “Hundred authors against Einstein”)
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg
Not quite correct, you Nebraska baseball ace:
The Jewish know-it-all approach seeks to extract scientific knowledge from the Jewish racial soul. It builds thought systems about space and the universe upon a feminine visuo-spatial mean IQ of about 92 reflecting the original inferior oriental race traits [……
Dr. Ludwig Neuenburg