Posted by firstly on Mon, 16 Dec 2019 06:02 | #

three of them

Posted by Rubin announces the Weinsteins on Wed, 18 Dec 2019 18:18 | #

Rubin (0:20): I am sitting between the famous Weinstein brothers. I’ve got Eric to my left, I’ve got Bret to my right…

As you guys may know, I believe there is an idea revolution happening in this country. I think these two are right at the center of it.”

Posted by Kosher Afro on Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:55 | #

Rubin (1:00): With all the professional stuff you’ve done, you (Eric) in the math world and you (Bret) in the biology world, this is the first time you’ve appeared together…

Pinch us, we can hardly wait to be liberated from the stifling thought control (that their tribe has enforced upon the population for decades and centuries) while these “maverick thought leaders” pretend to be the ones who will lead us out and guide us in our interests, as opposed to (((theirs))).

Rubin briefly notes the Jew-Fro hair that both brothers have inherited…

Posted by Eric Weinstein on Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:05 | #

4:00 Eric tells a story about how he and his brother had a history of learning disabilities, a family story which he somehow verbally migrates into “this group of people”, apparently the “idea revolutionaries” that Rubin was referring to, who naturally come to find themselves as outsiders (“natural rebels”), growing up “outside of standard channels of communication.”

4:17 Eric: We made a joke about the intellectual dark web, but the only part of it that was dark was that the media and the institutions were making sure to avoid any reference to this group of people as much as possible. ..and this intellectualism outside of the mainstream was definitely a part of our family growing up.

Posted by The Weinsteins on Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:35 | #

Eric Weinstein (5:40): There is (now) this channel to go around and to disintermediate this very strong thing that I call the gated institutional narrative.

Brett (8:18): Speaks of their grandfather, Harry, who took them seriously, even as children, answered their questions and so on.. (which is commendable)...“it was like having a personal intellectual tutor ..... sort of picked-up where school left off (for our learning disabilities)...ended up being a sort of jumping off point to places that are hard to get to through the standard model.

Rubin (8:48): You were sort of thrust into this (public spotlight)..

Brett (8:51): Eight months ago..

Rubin (8:53): Did you ever anticipate that you were someone who’d be talking about these things publicly?

8:18 Brett: we had a grandfather who took children seriously, answered questions and so on.. (that’s good)

9:08 (Eric): I don’t think either one of us wanted to be a public figure per se.

I think we wanted to do work and then that the work go into the world…and then it turned out that the opposition to the work (took the stance) that it’s important that this work never be heard. Which is a very different thing than it’s important that this work be heard and that it be evaluated properly; and if its found to be wanting, discarded.

9:45 Eric: (So we had to ask) “why are people so (resistant) angry and hostile to our great new ways of looking at things?”

That created a choice in some sense in which we had to give up a certain amount of our privacy (in order to bring these matters to the public)...in some ways a little bit uncomfortable.

Brett (10:12): Tremendously uncomfortable   .. I think part of what is driving the surprise interest ….is the void of authenticity ...the very fact of anything.. unpolluted by bullshit is so powerful that it causes people who wouldn’t otherwise be interested in what you have to say to listen.

Eric (11:24). I also feel that our hands are somewhat forced, it is astounding all of the interesting and important things that are simply not being said in a world where you go through these news cycles and it just repeats the same mind numbing perspective ...it can’t be made sense of upon reflection.

Posted by The mysterious, invisible who... on Sat, 21 Dec 2019 04:19 | #

“It can’t be made sense of upon reflection.”

The mysterious, invisible international Who? and the [ blank ] hand of right wing/liberal opportunists who go along with the mystery?

Posted by Problem, Reaction and Who? on Sat, 21 Dec 2019 06:28 | #

From what we gather so far, we can anticipate the structuring of classic Problem - Reaction - Solution.

Problem reaction solution.

The problem wasn’t their people’s socially/genetically destructive, exaggerated, distorted and internationalized advocacy that had intersected with them in its anti-Whiteness for their crypsis (blend with and appearance as White); including its intersecting with academic and media blackouts…

No, the problem is mysterious in origin, but roughly this “Left” character that came out of unnatural nowhere, oblivious to truth, reality and science.

How it looks at this point (i.e., I don’t know how involved the Weinsteins were in neo reaction and dark enlightenment, or whether the “the dark web” was an entirely different thing, but I doubt it is unrelated, so how it looks is..

Thus, these types were perfect to lead the counter controlled opposition, flattering the STEM types - particularly White STEMers who had a head start in expressing reaction, as they were first in facility with the internet - thus flattered with a “Dark Enlightenment, Neo Reaction to “modernity” as the problem, the Dark Web as opposed to the controlled opposition that had culminated before the advent of the internet, notably the controlled opposition to what I call “red capes” - misdirections, distortions,  over compenstions, misrepresentations of post modern ideas ...ideas that are the bread and butter of the humanities and group advocacy.

They poison concepts like anti modernity, making it look like a ridiculous dodge of the JQ.

What is happening now is that they are weaponizing reactionary (neo reactionary)
modernist (wailing modernist) positions against weaponized/misrepresented post modernity (when we say weaponized, of course,we mean weaponized against Whites).

They flatter the bureaucratic instincts of right wing reactionary STEM nerds like Matt Parrott this way.

Related at Majorityrights:

Brett Stevens: Not just a Government Issue Patriotard, but a Full-Blown ZOG Disinformation Agent

majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/brett_stevens_not_just_a_government_issue_patriotard_but_a_full_blown_zog_d

Posted by Borders & bounds are not social engineering on Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:06 | #

JF Gariepy demonstrates his intellectual inadequacy once again.

While Gariepy does manage to seize upon an absurd argument (25:49) made by Eric Weinstein, in which Weinstein asks incredulously “why don’t people want immigration?”...

...Gariepy’s overall argument in this discussion with Millennial Woes is for determination and prediction as such (despite dire prediction), apparently for his valuation of science, viz, his commitment to warrant his own authority as a scientist by means of strict determinism and prediction.

To maintain this position requires strawmanning:

He says that “social engineering” is doomed to fail. Ok, well, I am not going to argue on behalf of social engineering.

However, IF he were to say that it is “social engineering” to control borders and boundaries, in the sense that people are necessarily being overly controlled, rigidly compartmentalized and determined to fail as an evolutionary project as such and cannot be intervened with and re-directed in a positive direction, he is simply wrong: controlling borders and bounds is not being overly controlling of evolution, individual liberty, nor even their well rounded functional autonomy.

It is particularly foolish to go with Gariepy’s view of group advocacy as “social engineering” when you realize that the social engineering he rails against comes from Jewry and reactionaries.

It is no more “the reality” of group defense than any of the Jewish misrepresented post modern terms and concepts of social advocacy.

Posted by Eric Weinstream on Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:33 | #

Eric Weinstein (31:28): In order to carry progressivism properly in its best sense, you actually have to start from scratch, almost. Because the main branch of progressivism is the most dangerous branch of thinking currently found in the political spectrum. And the branch that I think you and I..

Rubin: And how would you define that branch?

Eric Weinstein: It’s one that begins from a substrate of thinking about oppression. Which is not a fundamental language. You cannot make a cosmology or an epistemology out of oppression and resistance. It just, it leads to madness.

The most difficult thing is to take the burden of evolutionary thinking and the theory of natural and sexual selection and to realize that that is your tool kit.

And from that took kit you must build something that doesn’t look like evolution has always looked before because we’re now on too crowded of a planet and the toys that we’ve able to produce from science are too powerful. And I think that Bret has called this, wisely, the hard problem, the really hard problem in evolutionary theory, which that you can’t continue to dance with the one that brought you, because evolution gets you here and it almost certainly will end in a self extinguishing event if you keep playing the evolutionary game ; and there is no thought, and I think Bret is the best one carrying this forward, there is no proof that there is a way to use evolutionary building blocks to avoid the evolutionary fate of having unlocked the twin nuclei of cell and atom, because they are just too powerful as tools.

And so this is why, I think both of us come down on the left, even though we now travel in a world that often leans right, because the right is correct about the left generally being in denial, about trying to wish yourself into a better world; where you know, you want sexual equality but you’re not willing to pay attention to what sex and gender actually are, you don’t have any idea what sexuality means because you’re just thinking about what it in humans and your not studying it in a million different species.

So, you can’t wish yourself into a better tomorrow…because you will try to create a utopia, and both of us are strong anti utopians ..utopia always leads to dystopia if you go for it.

But we also don’t have any choice, but we have to get out of this treadmill.

Because as the tools get more and more powerful, it becomes more clear that as we run the evolutionary program, there is no guarantee that we emerge from this.

Rubin: Did you ever expect that it would get this political?

Analysis:

The main branch of progressivism is the most dangerous branch of thinking currently found in the political spectrum. And the branch that I think you and I..

it’s one that begins from a substrate of thinking about oppression. Which is not a fundamental language. You cannot make a cosmology or an epistemology out of oppression and resistance.

Dangerous to whom?

No, you can’t make a cosmology or epistemology out of oppression by itself, but it can and should be an integral concern in the corrective, ergo homeostatic epistemology of praxis.

In order to carry progressivism properly in its best sense, you actually have to start from scratch, almost

He’s taking us out of praxis (which IS in fact corrective in a way that “natural systems” are not) and into a story that social hypotheses don’t deal with reality and not that they don’t deal with reality in Jewish hands as they confront White resistance.

See, to begin he is talking about getting to fundamentals below praxis, but by the end, he is going to assure himself a place atop a holistic praxis, once the danger do Jewish injustice has been sufficiently smothered.

He’s not going to mention who and how they are behind the misrepresentation of left actvism within praxis.. and it is of course, Jewry that has launched an attack on White praxis.

“The really hard problem in evolutionary theory, which that you can’t continue to dance with the one that brought you, because evolution gets you here and it almost certainly will end in a self extinguishing event”

Sounds like a parasite looking for a new host, doesn’t it?

Changing dance partners. Replace Whites now that they are complaining about oppression?

He’s going to look to the international left…

I think both of us come down on the left, even though we now travel in a world that often leans right, because the right is correct about the left generally being in denial, about trying to wish yourself into a better world

He is not going to ask “who” misrepresented the left and weaponized it, so that this praxis of social capacity for hypotheses and advocacy “cannot not deal with reality”, is now strictly against Whites (and “most dangerously” of all, intersecting with Jewish crypsis) and forcing, through this didactic distortion, misrepresentation of advocacy of praxis, anti White belligerence, forcing Whites to identify as right wing reactionaries, whether above or below the accountability, correctability, i.e., homeostasis of praxis.

But be assured, the brothers will come down to present themselves as THE left in the end, mimicking what in essence, if it were ethnonational, would be the correct outlook, the most moral, accountable, corrective, best warranted and most powerful for group advocacy, social stability or directed revolution. But what of a White ethnonational left…we shall see… til then, they will direct White identity into the non corrective runaway, into no-account disasters of right wing reaction.

..holding up red capes to them, which are actually distortions and abuses of advocacy against Whites, but as Whites chase against the abstract concept, they attack the very concept of social organization and advocacy that they need.

Posted by Eric on Thu, 09 Jan 2020 06:12 | #

Eric (37:00): The whole point of this thinquisition concept was to analogize the left with Spain and the right with Turkey and the expulsion of the Jews…

Posted by Weinsteins on Sun, 02 Feb 2020 13:38 | #

Brett (36:38): There are a lot of people if you ask them to list their values, apart from policy [by “policy”, he means Jewish red caping], would fall out on the left. So wow is it an interesting moment that that conversation may be about to get started and to be in a position to actually influence it [misdirect it once again, away into Jewish interests], I must say is pretty exiting.

Eric (37:00): The whole point of this thinquisition concept was to analogize the left with Spain and the right with Turkey and the expulsion of the Jews…

Eric: (37:21) “One of the things that I always want to come to your rescue about and also push you a little bit on is that ‘there’s this army of Twitter trolls that say well, why won’t Rubin criticize the Right?’ We just never gone and done it. ...if you get kicked out of your home, the last thing you want to do is criticize the people who’ve taken you in during a dangerous period.”

Like the dangerous period of intersectionality of Jewish interests following decades of relentless leftist group activism in anti-White/anti Elite PC coalition and the 2008 bail-out….when the right might take them in.

Posted by Weinstain B on Sun, 02 Feb 2020 14:17 | #

Brett Weinstein (45:25): The whole idea that we should not be talking to these people [right wingers] because they are beyond the pale is preposterous on its face.

Rubin (45:40): Is there some biological analogy that you can give me? for what Eric just laid out there, so for the two of us who get catapulted out of this thing that we wind up in a new space and now we see some decency there, so then the idea starts spreading there, there’s got to be some biological something there…

Brett Weinstein (46:00 ): This is a brand new situation. It would be very unusual for an ancestral human to have been ejected from their group and to find a home in another group; that’s not typically the way it works; typically being ejected from your group is fatal circumstance. That is less true, the world we live in is unusual because reciprocal altruism is really, it has taken over. In some ways this is dicey because you have antecedents in The Torah but The New Testament actually prioritizes reciprocal altruism across a larger group.

Now it’s clearly not universal because when the Christians get to the new world they treat the people in the new world as if they are not part of the same species. [Not quite true, colonizers were always trying to convert native Americans to Christianity].

But nonetheless, the ability to forge A UNION, that is NOT BASED ON GENETIC LINEAGE is novel. On the other hand, it is also beautiful.

Posted by Brett Weinstein on Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:00 | #

Brett Weinstein (47:06): if there were genes we would call it hybrid vigor   ..but you put them together and you get superpowers.

Posted by Erik Weinbaum on Sat, 16 May 2020 13:30 | #

Eric Weinstein (1:09): The issue is, this is some surgical stuff. If you are going to fundamentally try to fix, let’s say America’s immigration issues, you’ve got to go in there with a nano-knife and be very very careful because America is multicultural. It is never going to be a White nation - ever. It is never going to happen. And the way in which people who would intuit that something has gone wrong with our immigration policy intuit that it has been used, but they can’t ground that in some sort of analytic framework, deal with it.

Something is wrong with the immigration policy, which we can vaguely intuit. lol.

Ibid: Sooner or later you start hearing, well, the Mexicans are sending us their rapists. Well are there some rapists that are being sent from Mexicans, yes. But you cannot do that without destroying the fabric of this country.

Weinstein is becoming concerned that Americans will become more articulate about patterns, patterns of immigration and patterns of those responsible for immigration policy.

Ibid: This is where I, it is a pleasure to antagonize the far right. You know, the Richard Spencer fantasies about racial purity. The amount of violence that you would have to use if you tried to implement that.

The DNA Nations / sortocracy concept is not a necessary corollary to violence.

Ibid: Let alone the fact that it’s a terrible idea, would be so enormous, we don’t even know what these people are talking about.

Whites being able to defend their kinds is a terrible idea.

Ibid: It’s important that you don’t even want to flirt with this.

Don’t even let them think about it.

Ibid: You don’t want more than a thousand people in the country carrying around citronella candles and saying things about blood and soil. That’s a very dangerous idea to fan the flames of.

But if coordinated blood and soil separatism is the way to head-off large scale violence and other disasters - e.g. to carrying capacity? We should’t allow this conversation, Eric?

Posted by A Jew Jewing on Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:35 | #

I don’t have to analyze this, the absurdity speaks for itself. Obscene.

Eric Weinstein, a Jew Jewing: talk about chutzpah:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfAumoTIeik

Lynching, Police Brutality, BLM and Defunding the Police: a Contrarian Reality Check.

A Jew Jewing about black lives matter

Some Thoughts on Wokeness and Shame in light of events.