Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 Now that my euphoria about not needing to be evaporated in a nuclear war with Russia has died down, I've gone back to checking out media outlets that never left the "voting is a bunch of bull" camp. James Corbett was one of my favorite guys to tune into, and he is on top of keeping track of just who Trump is keeping around him. Here's the article: Meet Team Trump by James Corbett (Note: the Quote function appears to be buggy right now, so I'm not using it.) "Apparently some people voted for Trump in the belief that he was some sort of anti-establishment truth-telling hero of the working class. I hate to be the one to disabuse you of this notion, so let's just look at his transition team, his campaign team, the people who have already been tapped to be part of the new administration and the people who are being contacted for potential cabinet appointments. Warning: It's not a pretty picture. So who's leading this transition team that's helping to sort out the cabinet and move Team Trump into the White House? Oh, just the usual assortment of bankster-connected corporate lobbyists we would expect to be hanging around any president-elect. This time is no exception. From former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Eric Ueland to Koch Industries lobbyist Michael Catanzaro to Aetna / Verizon lobbyist William Palatucci, the gaggle of corporate cronies manning Trump for America Inc. (the actual nonprofit group set up to oversee the transition) are as establishment as they come. And the whole kit-and-kaboodle is being run by Chris Christie. Yes, that Chris Christie. And who are they reaching out to for potential positions in the Trump White House? Steven Mnuchin - The chief fundraiser for the Trump campaign was not featured in a lot of alt-right cheerleading for the Trump train, and for good reason: He is a 17-year Goldman Sachs veteran who went on to work for Soros Fund Management. Yes, that Soros. Oh, and he donated to Hillary Clinton. But other than that, I'm sure he's a great fundraiser. Which is why he is apparently a frontrunner to be Secretary of the Treasury in the Trump White House. That's right folks, yet another Goldman Sachs vampire squid alumni is within a hair's breadth of taking over the Treasury, just like Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin before him. But don't worry, because another person in consideration for the Treasury Secretary position is... Jamie Dimon - I'm going to assume you know who Jamie Dimon is, but just to make sure everyone is aware, let me spell it out in black and white: Jamie Dimon is chairman, president and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase, the monstrous banking offspring of JP Morgan & Co. and the Rockefellers' own Chase Manhattan. Other than Lloyd "God's work" Blankfein, it would be hard to find a more bankster-y bankster in the world of banksterism. To list Dimon's entire rap sheet would be an editorial unto itself, but let's just remind ourselves of his role in the 2008 bailout fiasco via my Federal Reserve documentary, Century of Enslavement. If there's any ray of hope here, it's that (as I discussed with James Evan Pilato on a recent edition of New World Next Week), Dimon recently said he wouldn't want to become Treasury Secretary due to "Democrat-Republican bullshit." As Pearse Redmond points out, the Trump team may be floating Dimon's name right now to make it seem not so bad when they "only" appoint Goldman/Soros insider Mnuchin to the position, John Bolton - John Bolton is a career Republican insider who served roles in both Bush White Houses, including most recently as UN Ambassador in 2005-2006. He's also the worst kind of crazed, bloodthirsty neocon who has literally never heard of a foreign invasion he didn't lust after. Don't take my word for it, listen to him explain Trump's foreign policy imperatives...for as many seconds as you can stomach it. And yes, he's commenting on Trump's foreign policy because he has been advising the Trump campaign and has been name-dropped for monthsas a possible Secretary of State in the Trump cabinet. So are all of those who voted Trump over Hillary because they didn't like her warmongering suitably upset now? Well if not there's always his picks for Secretary of Defense, like: Stephen Hadley - Hadley is the man who, acting as Bush Jr.'s Deputy National Security Advisor, served as the conduit for the ridiculously fake yellowcake uranium forgeries that were used to help drum up the war in Iraq. He was also the guy who kept the bogus yellowcake story in Bush's October 2002 speech in Cincinnati laying out the case for the illegal bloody war of aggression in Iraq. A share of the million dead Iraqi's blood is on his hands. And he's in the running to be Trump's Secretary of Defense. Reince Priebus - Nothing says "anti-establishment party outsider" like the current chairman of the Republican National Committee, right? Well, guess what: Reince Priebus is under consideration for Trump's chief of staff. You know, the highest ranking employee of the White House? Priebus is apparently competing against the likes of Stephen Bannon (Trump campaign C.E.O. and former head of Breitbart News) and Jared Kushner's (The Donald's own son-in-law who the Times of Israel takes great pains to point out is an Orthodox Jew, as is Ivanka Trump). Regardless of who gets the spot, the very fact that Priebus is in the running shows that Trump's feud with the Republican Party was about as real as Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania. Rudy Giuliani - Rudy Giuliani is an unconvicted 9/11 criminal who illegally cleared the 9/11 crime scene, and who failed to pass on the prior warning that he received about the towers' destruction. He is also hated by the New York Fire Department for having kicked the firemen off the pile as soon as the gold was discovered. As Associate Attorney General in 1981 he was involved in the PROMIS software octopus. He oversaw New York's unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policing policy. He is a ghoul in every sense. So naturally the only question is which spot will he fill in the Trump cabinet: Attorney General, DHS chief, cybersecurity czar, or something else entirely?" Corbett goes on to accurately criticize the concept of voting and roll his eyes over a "change" candidate that we've been promised once again. He implies that Trump was selected, as per usual for presidential candidates. However, I have a hard time swallowing this to be true, especially from the way the media absolutely lost their shit in the process of the election, and how they had to eviscerate every last remnant of their credibility to do so. To say that the shadow elite played another Oceans 11 on everyone, by instilling a grass-roots movement where countless individuals, via social media, encouraged each other to go vote under the pressure of omnipresent SJW scorn and violence, is a bit hard for me to swallow. I can understand that Trump may have been tempted by the devil in exchange for something, or that he doesn't have the political wherewithal to crash into the White House appointing anyone he sees fit, but I'm having a hard time swallowing that this was just another well-planned Illuminati chess move. I haven't seen Stef and James chat for some time now and it would be neat if they could do it again. I would particularly appreciate Stef's view (as well as Milo's and Mike Cernovich's) on this gang of same ol' shitters. James has often said his original inspiration for his site was from listening to Alex Jones, and I think he got a lot of his anarchist philosophy and understanding directly from Stef. It's not like these factions are long-time enemies. But, as James points out in the article, though you can feel the sarcasm seeping through, Trump won't actually be selecting a cabinet until January. Will he surprise everyone with some better members? Despite the possibility that we may be driving down the road of the same globalist swine, there are still a few things I'm happy about with a Trump win. No Hillary Clinton. Like, fo' reals yo. War with Russia is bad enough, even without nukes. Ask Napolean and Hitler. I still feel that a Trump over Clinton presidency gives Western Civ the chance for a few more heart beats. The death of the mainstream media. Hallelujah! Even if Trump surrounds himself with a neocon gangster squad, I'm still crossing my fingers that these fuckers lose their subsidies. Without that, they won't even be able to virtue signal each other. The MASSIVE rise of the "alternative" media. How many new subscribers did FDR get throughout all this? What about Milo injecting free speech back into universities? Now is the time to start your own voice via Youtube or Twitter or Facebook or a blog or a website or whatever. Now is our chance to scream the roofs down with reason and philosophy. Regardless of Trump's intention, the momentum towards freedom has been generated and it needs to be capitalized on NOW. The beginning of the death of the social justice. While I still think it's going to be awhile before this human bilge tube purges itself, it has been surgically removed from its host before it self-destructs. Already companies like Twitter and GrubHub are feeling the direct effects on their stock prices from siding with SJW's over "camp conservative". We are seeing over and over again that these guys simply evaporate in a free market*. This movement will blow up like the German romanticists of the 1800s. We will need to be wary going forward that small bits of their ideology remain unnoticed in the social conversation, just as German romanticism (mainly via Kant) continues to infect our scientific understand of the universe in relativity and quantum theory. As Stef mentioned in one of his videos, let us take a moment to thank the Clintons for becoming the instant litmus test for determining moral character. The zombies in our midst are now openly identifiable, which means we can make better decisions much easier about who to associate with in the future. *If anyone sees another company openly attacking Trump or banning a real conservative pundit ("real" here meaning Milos, D'Souzas, Shapiros, etc. NOT Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs), please contact me about it immediately. The stocks of these companies need to be shorted! We're going to need to get over our euphoria fast and hold Trump's feet to the fire. We're still buried in a corrupt and immoral system and voting is still an opinion with a gun. Curious for others' input. I still feel Trump's election is the first American shockwave of a new resistance to Marxism.
rosencrantz Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 continues to infect our scientific understand of the universe in relativity and quantum theory. How exactly did Kant infect relativity and quantum theory?
Tyler H Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 People who hated Trump still hate Trump - news at 11. I don't follow James Corbett, did he hate Trump? Also, it appears to me that the Trump heroism has eclipsed the conversation on the philosophical argument against a government, which given the concern of a Hillary presidency I can understand, but now that Trump has been elected is the show going to start knocking down the dominoes that were left untouched during the campaign season? My favorite shows are the debates so I would really like to see debates between Stef and some of the new guests that have been on in the past year. A propaedeutic on the immorality of the state for all the new listeners would be nice to see as well. 1 1
sweathog1 Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 Those who have any doubts, watch the body language when both candidates spoke at Catholic Charity function. Yup bitter enemies for sure. Not. Always thought Corbett was a bit on the Palestinian separate partitioned homeland side. Now is that left or right?
dsayers Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 Trump won't actually be selecting a cabinet until January. I can't imagine investing time and energy then. Why bother now? Does it surprise/frighten you that business thus far has appeared to just be more of the same? It's like reaching for fire to put out fire and then expressing puzzlement that there's just more fire instead. now that Trump has been elected is the show going to start knocking down the dominoes that were left untouched during the campaign season? Speaking of pro-Trump/voting FDR'ers in general: I think that the fact that people have NOT gone back to their lives, and have turned to celebration, gloating, and delighting in the suffering of others is the null hypothesis that their position was one of necessity. If you had to rape a person to save their life, you would not be in good humor following the act. 2 1
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 13, 2016 Author Posted November 13, 2016 People who hated Trump still hate Trump - news at 11. Definitely, MMD! I was looking for commentary on his cabinet. I don't follow James Corbett, did he hate Trump? I quit following him at one point, but I do know he made the transition from libertarianism to anarchism at one point, and I think a lot of it had to do with Stef's input (I remember them having discussions about the topic). He remained in the anarchist camp that the whole presidential election was still a dog and pony show all around and Trump was selected by shadow elites, as opposed to him being a grassroots republicanism reaction in opposition to the global elite, made possible by utilizing social media to get around the MSM. He seems to be backing up this argument by looking at Trump's cabinet. How exactly did Kant infect relativity and quantum theory? Early chemists and physicists hooked on to few points of the solipsistic metaphysics that was coming out of German romanticism, primarily originating from Immanual Kant, and projected it forward into the modern chemistry and physics that developed in the 1920s. This is where we get all the crazy perception-is-reality and quantum contradictory states happening at the same time sort of stuff. Check out Peace Revolution Podcast 062 if you want the story from beginning to end.
DaVinci Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 I can't imagine investing time and energy then. Why bother now? Does it surprise/frighten you that business thus far has appeared to just be more of the same? It's like reaching for fire to put out fire and then expressing puzzlement that there's just more fire instead. Speaking of pro-Trump/voting FDR'ers in general: I think that the fact that people have NOT gone back to their lives, and have turned to celebration, gloating, and delighting in the suffering of others is the null hypothesis that their position was one of necessity. If you had to rape a person to save their life, you would not be in good humor following the act. I haven't been gloating.
dsayers Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 I haven't been gloating. Or reading the part where I said in general 1
AccuTron Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 Dylan, thanks for taking the time to post this valuable info.
rosencrantz Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 Early chemists and physicists hooked on to few points of the solipsistic metaphysics So hundreds of physicists and chemists in different cultures, different times fell trap to solipsism and came up with hypotheses that a) are mathematically sound and b) explain the experimental findings and they are all completely wrong? solipsistic metaphysics that was coming out of German romanticism, primarily originating from Immanual Kant German romanticism was an Anti-Kantian movement that came to different answers for the justification of ethics. Schiller wrote 'On Grace and Dignity' in a response to Kant's differentiation of duty and inclination. Schiller wanted to combine those two in a synthesis. If anything, the German romanticists were critical on Kant. I fail to see how Kant's metaphysics is solipsistic. He showed that you can have two modes of knowledge. A rationalistic one (maths, philosophy) and an empirical one (the sciences). In addition, he postulated that we aren't born with a blank slate (which has since been confirmed by neurology) and that knowledge about the real world has to come from the senses. How is that solipsistic? This is where we get all the crazy perception-is-reality and quantum contradictory states happening at the same time sort of stuff. I don't know what any of that means. It's neither Kantian nor a tenef of physics. So far, QM is based on experiments and it explains the observed phenomena. If you can explain counter intuitive phenomena like entanglement in a more Randian way, go ahead. And good luck. Check out Peace Revolution Podcast 062 if you want the story from beginning to end. I did. It was a nice non factual story of physics from a Randian perspective.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 13, 2016 Author Posted November 13, 2016 I did. It was a nice non factual story of physics from a Randian perspective. This is getting off topic from what I posted. So you're saying that I just drank in a bunch of bullshit from the Philosophic Corruption of Reality?
aviet Posted November 14, 2016 Posted November 14, 2016 Now that my euphoria about not needing to be evaporated in a nuclear war with Russia has died down, I've gone back to checking out media outlets that never left the "voting is a bunch of bull" camp. James Corbett was one of my favorite guys to tune into, and he is on top of keeping track of just who Trump is keeping around him. I don't think there is much point in speculating - that's the realm of the dream-makers at the Washington Post, NYT etc. But this is the transition team. Some of the names Corbett mentions are not included in that. Only one member of Obama's transition team went straight into the cabinet, although a few others went in at a later data and a few other had at some point cabinet-level or under-secretary positions. So far we have Bannon as Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor and Priebus as Chief of Staff. The latter is little more than a glorified secretary. The former is not much different. I seem to remember Trump saying that Ivanka will take control of The Trump Org., so I doubt she will have a role. If Obama is anything to go by, we should have a good idea of what the cabinet may look like at the end of the month.
rosencrantz Posted November 14, 2016 Posted November 14, 2016 So you're saying that I just drank in a bunch of bullshit from the Philosophic Corruption of Reality? Yes, here is why. Max Planck discovered that black bodies radiate heat in a different way than was thought before. There is a minimum to what can be transmitted (a quantum). This was different from classical physics who assumed that it was continuous. That has been replicated over and over again and explains the phenomena. The next mile stone was to explain spectral lines that were put under a magnetic field (Zeeman effect). Another experiment that can be done by anybody with a bit of preperation. The problem was that the spectral lines multiplied. There were more of them than was expected. It was pretty obvious that this had something to do with the electrons. Before, it was assumed that electorns move around the nucleus like moons around a planet (Bohr's model). But that old model wasn't compatible with the observed Zeeman effect. A young student called Heisenberg had hayfever and slept poorly. So he kept on working on physics. He soon realized that physics was begging the question. To explain the Zeeman effect (and the atomic model) it was assumed that electrons were like moons, only smaller and that the nucleus was like a planet, also smaller. The mistake, he eventually figured out, was that the parts that constitute matter, like electrons and nuclei were supposed to be no different than macroscopic phenomena. If you disassemble a car you have different parts, like tires, a windshield, brakes, an engine and so on. None of these parts look like a mini car. Only put together these parts make up a car. Classical physics assumed that electrons were essentially mini versions of macro phenomena, while in fact they were completely different. So he formulated the findings of the Zeeman effect in terms of quantum units that Planck had discovered and formulated them in such a way, that the formula gives you a probality field of the position of an electron and not the exact location like in classical physics. This helped explain the Zeeman effect and was later confirmed by experiments that dealt with other problems. Anybody can check with experiments if the data that Planck and Zeeman got were correct. Anybody with some knowledge of maths can come up with different explanations for the observed phenomena. If Harriman had such a theory he would have presented it. If it's valid this would be the biggest surprise in physics for a long time. As long as he doesn't do that he can talk all day long about the corruption of physics. But until he comes up with a better model he is a crank. [Edited for clarity ]
Chad Mitchell Posted November 14, 2016 Posted November 14, 2016 People who hated Trump still hate Trump - news at 11. Not an argument... 1
Spenc Posted November 14, 2016 Posted November 14, 2016 Despite the possibility that we may be driving down the road of the same globalist swine, there are still a few things I'm happy about with a Trump win. No Hillary Clinton. Like, fo' reals yo. War with Russia is bad enough, even without nukes. Ask Napolean and Hitler. I still feel that a Trump over Clinton presidency gives Western Civ the chance for a few more heart beats. The death of the mainstream media. Hallelujah! Even if Trump surrounds himself with a neocon gangster squad, I'm still crossing my fingers that these fuckers lose their subsidies. Without that, they won't even be able to virtue signal each other. The MASSIVE rise of the "alternative" media. How many new subscribers did FDR get throughout all this? What about Milo injecting free speech back into universities? Now is the time to start your own voice via Youtube or Twitter or Facebook or a blog or a website or whatever. Now is our chance to scream the roofs down with reason and philosophy. Regardless of Trump's intention, the momentum towards freedom has been generated and it needs to be capitalized on NOW. The beginning of the death of the social justice. While I still think it's going to be awhile before this human bilge tube purges itself, it has been surgically removed from its host before it self-destructs. Already companies like Twitter and GrubHub are feeling the direct effects on their stock prices from siding with SJW's over "camp conservative". We are seeing over and over again that these guys simply evaporate in a free market*. This movement will blow up like the German romanticists of the 1800s. We will need to be wary going forward that small bits of their ideology remain unnoticed in the social conversation, just as German romanticism (mainly via Kant) continues to infect our scientific understand of the universe in relativity and quantum theory. As Stef mentioned in one of his videos, let us take a moment to thank the Clintons for becoming the instant litmus test for determining moral character. The zombies in our midst are now openly identifiable, which means we can make better decisions much easier about who to associate with in the future. *If anyone sees another company openly attacking Trump or banning a real conservative pundit ("real" here meaning Milos, D'Souzas, Shapiros, etc. NOT Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs), please contact me about it immediately. The stocks of these companies need to be shorted! We're going to need to get over our euphoria fast and hold Trump's feet to the fire. We're still buried in a corrupt and immoral system and voting is still an opinion with a gun. Curious for others' input. I still feel Trump's election is the first American shockwave of a new resistance to Marxism. 3. What evidence do you really have that this is a freedom movement instead of just any other populist movement? I'm glad that FDR has gained new listeners/viewers but it was not done with the message of personal and political freedom that the show was established around. Trump isn't spreading a message of personal and political freedom in any sense other than vague platitudes about deregulation, markets, blah blah blah.... One thing that has stuck with me from the shows about the Untruth About Donald Trump: Stef has talked about how intelligent Trump was that he had people listening to talk radio and tracking the issues people were invested in for over a year. So when Trump comes out and makes his statements about issues, I don't know where his platform came from. Unlike Ron Paul, who had 30+ years of voting record in the House, and who went out and spoke his own message to anyone who was willing to listen, Trump has no record to give his campaign promises credibility and no record of really speaking about core principles that have shaped his positions. And in addition to this, Trump has gone on talking about deep space exploration. I'm always wary of a politician who is the 'conservative, free market' candidate and has a boondoggle attached to his platform. That is not a candidate grounded in principles.
Guest Gee Posted November 14, 2016 Posted November 14, 2016 Hey guys. I pulled this from the Britannica entry on Hermman von Helmholtz; The general theme that runs through most, if not all, of Helmholtz’s work may be traced to his rejection of Nature philosophy, and the violence of his rejection of this seductive view of the world may well indicate the early attraction it had for him. Nature philosophy derived from Kant, who in the 1780s had suggested that the concepts of time, space, and causation were not products of sense experience but mental attributes by which it was possible to perceive the world. Therefore, the mind did not merely record order in nature, as the Empiricists insisted; rather, the mind organized the world of perceptions so that, reflecting the divine reason, it could deduce the system of the world from a few basic principles. Helmholtz opposed this view by insisting that all knowledge came through the senses. Furthermore, all science could and should be reduced to the laws of classical mechanics, which, in his view, encompassed matter, force, and, later, energy, as the whole of reality. I have not read his works myself, but I do know that Ayn Rand read Helmholtz, On the sensations of tone as a psychological basis for the theory of music, because she references reading the work in her book The Romantic Manifesto, pages 56-61. Don't suppose you have a reference for Rand's derivation or first reference of Kant as the great philosophical evil?
Recommended Posts