Eric Weinstein - Are We on The Brink of a Revolution?

[Secular Sanity]

Thoroughly enjoyed this discussion.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/PYRYXhU4kxM

[Syne]

That host looks a lot like Sam Worthington.

[Secular Sanity]

That host looks a lot like Sam Worthington.

You're right. He does. 

It's pretty long, but I think you'd enjoy it.

[Syne]

Not bad so far. Just commenting as I watch.

Eric seems to conflate "conspiracy" with "secret." There are certainly many people keeping many secrets, even in concert with one another, but that is not the same as assuming many nefarious things are being done in concert for large, overarching goals. People who keep secrets, even in concert with others, are usually doing so solely for personal gain. The "conspiracy theory" is that the secret-keeping is going beyond immediately personally enriching motives.

[C C]

VIDEO EXCERPT (1:38:43 mark): I think Kamala has some communism in her appeal. It may not be native to her, but I know that the under 30 crowd is playing with Neo-Marxist ideas and that I've been told by the Democratic Party we need their votes. "Don't worry, they won't get anywhere inside the party. We just let them mouth off, and they don't get any legislation passed."

I've been told: "Here's the plan. We need you to stop coming after us. Of course, we're hypocritical, we're courting communists because we need their votes to win. But I guarantee you they won't be able to do any damage if we are elected."

[...] Equity is communism. It's equality of outcome.

The support for October 7th is revolutionary. It's not.[???] You're not talking about liberalism or progressivism. You're talking about calling the murder of parents in front of their children, resistance.

These sorts of things are confusing us because we have these very strange amalgams.

I can tell you that part of Kamala is the appeal to the Hampton's crowd that she will continue the carried interest exemption in the tax code. That doesn't feel very communistic.

Another part of her is speaking to radical Islamists. Saying: "Don't worry, we're going to be portraying this as bigotry and Islamophobia. You're just another religion like any other, and you're being subjected to prejudice."

So how do you deal with an amalgam where you can't go long and short?

I can tell you that there are parts of Donald Trump that I very much appreciate, and there are parts of Donald Trump that make it impossible for me to imagine voting for him.

When he was at a rally and there was a protester being led out, he said: "You know, back in the day, we knew how to take care of such people. And if anybody wants to rough these people up, I'll pay your legal bills."

And I thought, Wow you have no idea what you just unleashed, and you're comfortable with it...

COMMENT: Playing the social democrats (his "communists") to get their vote, and privately appeasing the wealthy, is what I mean by traditional progressives. They're capitalists going back to the early part of the 20th-century, who appropriated the social justice activism of the Marxist parties of those days to supplement their own do-gooder facade. But there are so many social democrats masquerading under the progressive label nowadays, that I'm not sure the latter fully realizes how close to the edge they are to losing control. You know it's becoming a tenuous distinction when even mainstream pundits are now using "progressive" to be inclusive of the far-left.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

LOCATIONS OF "CHAPTERS"

00:00 Will Trump be Allowed to Become President?

12:02 MSNBC’s Editing of Joe Rogan to Support Kamala

16:48 The Media’s Gaslighting of Modern Politics

31:07 Is Google Influencing the Election?

43:03 How Physics Became Boring & Safe

52:40 Is String Theory Just a Shiny Distraction?

1:03:44 Why String Theory Still Gets Funded

1:07:41 Science’s Big Problems

1:13:45 The Danger of Criticism Capture

1:26:19 Eric’s Antidote for Cancelling People

1:36:15 Why Having Public Opinions is so Exhausting

1:53:21 What Chris Gets Criticised for Most

2:06:10 The Dynamics of Interviewing & Conversation

2:16:18 Trying to Become a High Agency Person

2:25:53 Eric’s Advice for People Who Don’t Fit in

2:33:38 Overcoming Impossible Situations

2:38:17 4D Complex Shapes, Geometry & Dimensions

2:49:09 The Internet is Destroying the Sacred

3:02:44 Reacting to “What Can Be, Unburdened By What Has Been”

3:19:06 Eric’s Thoughts on JD Vance

Abbreviated short of first chapter: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JceS1SxEDXg

Isolated segment: Is Google Trying To Influence The 2024 Election?

[Syne]

With Google, both can be true, and still without any conspiracy. The pool of articles can be biased by those writing the articles AND leftist Google employees can be putting their finger on the scale. All without any cooperation. Just leftists in journalism and at Google working independently from their own similar motives, without any further reason than they think they're right.

---

Not familiar with the others mentioned, but I would agree that Susskind and, especially, Kaku are basically propagandists in physics.

[confused2]

Looking at ..could Trump (be allowed to) be president again..
Coincidentally I was wondering whether a property developer/game show host .. chosen by plebs .. could order (say) an attack on Russia? Would 'something else' happen?
Edit..
While I was contemplating CC picked out this short summary
(link below copied from CC's post)
"I don't know if Donald Trump will be allowed to become President"..
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JceS1SxEDXg

[C C]

Looking at ..could Trump (be allowed to) be president again..
Coincidentally I was wondering whether a property developer/game show host .. chosen by plebs .. could order (say) an attack on Russia? Would 'something else' happen?
Edit..
While I was contemplating CC picked out this short summary
(link below copied from CC's post)
"I don't know if Donald Trump will be allowed to become President"..
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JceS1SxEDXg

Fortunately... there is probably only a slight chance of the Establishment having to reveal the actual hand of cards it possesses. There is enough pervasive propaganda machinery at work that it should prevent Deadly Don from being voted in. No need to break the fourth wall after the fact, and expose the puppeteers' true level of power.

In effect, if not fact, Trump is more or less serving the same function as Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's 1984.

Though the Republican Party is real, it only has as much power as the Establishment allows it to have. The latter needs the appearance of a threatening opponent to rally supporters and create drama around. Every political hegemony must have that domestic rival/menace to keep its underlings stimulated, otherwise they fall asleep or slip into indifference or (God forbid) start rebelling themselves. Advertising external dangers alone is not sufficient.

The GOP has a limited reach that the Establishment has permitted, so to add a degree of suspense to the show. The GOP has a handful of news outlets, some social media channels and accounts, that part of the business community strong enough to take and survive the risk of social justice condemnation, and a shrinking part of the church community.

In contrast, the majority of employees in government, mainstream journalism, the academic and educational community, the entertainment industry, and the "image conscious" heads of the business community... vote Democrat. The Establishment is ultimately in charge and managing the scope of the theatrical production. The fourth wall must and will be successfully preserved. No "invisible hand" having to intervene on stage and halt Deadly Don should his own hand stray to groping the wrong button (or so the hope and confidence among the faithful goes).

[Syne]

CC, what happens if Trump wins? Will that change your seeming conspiratorial view, or will that suddenly be part of the Establishment's plan?

[stryder]

There is no magic conspiracy, or super secret organisation.

If you look at the history and the bigger picture, you can actually see what is going on.

After the First World War which was a truly messy affair, the League of Nations (wikipedia.org) was formed. This wasn't likely done just because a bunch of politicians got together and thought it would be a good idea... no.. this was an idea sprung from "Gentlemans clubs" about how to fix the impending disaster of another round of war. They would of likely backed and funded the academic structuring to make it possible for the politicians to actually pull it off.

However with any plan developed by certain fraternities, there is always going to be opposition groups with opposing views or more importantly imposing wills.
Thats why what it attempted to do, didn't actually work as Nazism the second world war loomed. From that the United Nations (wikipedia.org) sprouted, again the same concept of trying to keep the world from erupting into war and global chaos.

The UN again being backed by specific clubs, groups, organisations and certain load bearing countries. Which would then over time induce opposing views and imposing wills. (Such as the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans and their attempts at manipulating everyone else likely aimed at the load bearing Western states.)

So you have a bunch of clubs, groups, organisations and countries that want the world a particular way, not as some conspiracy, but as a missive. Then you have those that want to undermine that missive, either because they don't understand it and assume it's some conspiracy, or because they think they should be able to install their own missive. (...and that is where the brink of WAR looms again.)