Post

More from @EricRWeinstein

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

Oct 1

Iran
Israel
Ukraine
S. Lebanon
Yemen

All in play at the same time.

The U.S. has something like 11 Carrier Strike Groups. At some point, this becomes opportunistic, as the game theory goes multipolar. Similar to when police forces or hospitals are stretched by surge demand.

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/1815095990350921844

Who is the de facto commander in chief?

It can’t be Biden.

Same question I have been asking since the 2020 election. I know it’s boring. But it matters. And it could matter a whole lot more on *very* short notice.

Let’s hope it doesn’t go that way.

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/1815095990350921844

I’ve never seen war. I have seen peacetime and peacetime extraction.

Joe Biden is a peacetime president.

Think about what is going on and reaction times in the era of hypersonics.

Should more theaters enter into play (e.g. N Korea, Taiwan) The person at the helm needs to be 100% percent present with razor sharp decision making on low information.

On very little sleep. Night after night.

Now watch this again:

Read 4 tweets

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

Aug 22

Folks are always confused why the Democratic Party is my party.

Why doesn’t John Wick just get a new dog?

Why doesn’t Ulysses find a wife with fewer suitors?

Why doesn’t Israel move to Beverly Hills?

Why doesn’t Shackleton accept reality?

Why does Shifu train a Panda?

#钉子户

I don’t get it.

Do you want every last one of us who sees the madness to be driven out of your loyal opposition party? Really??

I don’t like bullies. I don’t like cowards who bully in groups. I don’t like psychopaths who wander around wearing the robes of authority and wisdom.

Not every liberal is a commie. Not every progressive is a revolutionary. Not everyone who wants life to be fairer for working families is a Bolshevik.

If the psychopathic left wants my pro-market, pro-merit, pro-free speech progressive sliver, they will have to come and take it. And then we will see. I don’t love my odds, but you aren’t making my life any easier by lobbing insults as if I’m too dumb to know what I’m up against. I’d rather you ask: “How can we help?”. But you do you.

I’m damn proud of what is left of my sliver of the Left. And you on the right have come around to appreciate a lot of what we accomplished together as loyal constructive opposition to each other over the years.

Ask yourself if you are better off with one more “Why I left the Left.” article.

I’d settle for “Thank you.” and a little help and encouragement given the fire from the DNC party leaders and character assassins. But…y’know…suit yourselves. If you wanna help the psychos that’s your call. Go Dodger Blue!

Ain’t freedom grand. That’s America to me. 🙏

Read 4 tweets

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

Jul 27

Given what is going on in our election cycle, I for one would like to hear more from those who consider the US electorate as the leading threat to electoral integrity.

And I am not merely being snide. I believe that my/our betters in the so-called 'Elite', have developed an entire academic theory wherein the US citizen has oddly become the principal threat to American Democracy.

Here:

"Left to their own devices and the tender mercies of candidate ads and outside groups, voters do the best they can, but their abilities are limited." -Brookings

I get it. While that is not wrong, it is not exactly a ringing endorsement of democracy: the *voter* is the weakest link within this Brookings framework.

Am I even reading this correctly?? Help me out here:

"We need not recount here the *devastating* effectiveness with which Donald Trump’s *insurgent* candidacy *steamrolled* the traditional gatekeepers, *commandeered* media attention, and mobilized what some of his backers called his “troll army.” However, the weakening of gatekeeping was not limited to one candidate or one party. The Democratic Party establishment found itself barely able to contain the *insurgency* of Sanders, even though he was not a Democrat and he did not win a majority of self-identified Democrats except in his home state of Vermont and neighboring New Hampshire.

Neither candidate changed the system all by himself. Rather, both saw and *exploited* the invisible primary’s fragility. Candidates could *bypass* traditional moneymen by reaping donations online, tapping deep-pocketed tycoons, or funding themselves. They could *bypass* traditional media by using social platforms like Twitter and Facebook, and they could *hijack* traditional media by behaving outrageously. They could treat their lack of endorsements as a mark of authenticity." -Brookings (Emphasis Mine)

Read 4 tweets

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

Jul 21

You cannot election-proof a democracy’s load-bearing foreign policy.

I believe that a tremendous part of our current US electoral insanity comes from the mere unpacking of this brief 10 word statement.

Looking to @MikeBenzCyber, @shellenberger & others here to see if I have this right.

Here is the beginning of the unpacking.

If a free electorate cannot disentangle itself from foreign entanglements through elections, it ceases to be a sovereign democracy.

If those entanglements are subtle, quiet and strategic, the electorate will not be privy to what those entanglements are doing at a structural level as they may involve state secrets that cannot be widely divulged.

If a candidate is not a priori willing to continue to commit to supporting the multi-decade foreign policies of the nation, they may choose to tear down, weaken or expose load bearing agreements in the eyes of the foreign policy establishment.

The foreign policy establishment may be engaged in a combination of both profiteering from, and the maintaince of essential foreign agreements.

The profiteering and lies may cause the electorate to opt to “drain the swamp” to get at the profiteering while the profiteers may point out correctly that the candidates can’t just knock out what the people don’t like without calamity because so much rides on these agreements.

What I see here is two candidates that are quite likely *not* to continue all the corrupt policies of the US foreign policy establishment even if they *are* load bearing, with one aging and ailing politician who *will* comit to continuing load-bearing foreign policy structures, even if they *are* corrupt.

Read 4 tweets

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

Mar 26

https://twitter.com/nymag/status/1772187955525722177

The technical name for this article’s swift and devastating takedown strategy inside the FBI is “Image Cheapening” which we have known since the 1970s via Davidon et al.

#HumanTerrain
#NoLivingHeroesTheory

https://twitter.com/nymag/status/1772187955525722177

We don’t yet know why it was written. We don’t yet know who commissioned it.

We do know that no independent minded health professional who could contradict the public health institutions and czars has been allowed to ascend to @hubermanlab’s level of popularity, power and influence without “Image Cheapening” coverage.

In fact, since Lindbergh used his popularity to sway public opinion on entry into WWII, no independent minded individual has been
amassed state-level influence without such FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt) campaigns. The theory we have advanced behind this is that the State learned the lesson from Lindbergh’s interference with FDR that all charismatic independent minded individuals (like a John Lennon) cannot be allowed state levels of influence and must be preemptively cheapened and harassed. Here it is applied to medical professionals who could interfere with future Anthony Fauci health czars.

Cc: @DrJBhattacharya, @MartinKulldorff, @RandPaul

This is the medical version of “No Living Heroes” theory:

theportal.wiki/wiki/No-Living…

@hubermanlab It is not that heroes are not allowed. Just not ones that can make active decisions on a going forward basis.

We celebrate the birthday of the target of this FBI “Image Cheapening” campaign as a national holiday.

#NoLivingHeroes
#IHaveADream

Read 4 tweets

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

Mar 14

Twitter over compensates for the very real madness of the institutional world.

Despite being seen as contrarian, here are some mainstream Physics opinions that I hold, which Twitter somehow finds controversial:

I don’t think The Universe is “made of Consciousness.”

I don’t think Dark Energy is “Sus”.

I think Dark Matter is real.

I don’t think the Standard Model is ‘bogus’.

I don’t think “universities are over”.

I don’t think String Theory (for all its problems) or String Theorists are stupid.

Etc.
——

Twitter is kinda just nuts. No matter how extreme my opinions are by real world standards, Twitter is always more extreme. Perhaps it is because people hold things that they claim are “opinions”, but which would require more details and knowledge to elevate to that level. For example, I don’t think I have an opinion on reasons of political economy for recent changes in the credit rating of Macedonian municipal bonds. So it is always surprising to see so many accounts claiming to hold strong heterodox opinions on wormholes, dark matter or the Big Bang.

I will respond to a few responses here to give an idea of what is going on X/Twitter.

Tweet 1. In physics, equations often don’t balance. So we add terms to account for what we can’t YET directly detect. The Neutron, quarks, Higgs field and Neutrino all had such an origin. By now all have been directly observed and fairly well modeled.

This is why I point out that neutrinos are basically dark matter, but for the weak force as the only non gravitational force to couple to them and affect them.

Dark is a spooky and misleading name for these which makes dark energy and dark matter sound similar. They aren’t.

Think of dark matter as being “decoupled matter” and/or “ultra heavy matter we can’t see at current accelerator energies” and it might seem to be less suspicious.

I don’t yet have a comparable suggestion for dark energy. Sorry.

Tweet 2:

“Theory of everything” as an idea confuses people. It’s sorta a string theory branding problem. The store “Just Tires” also does oil changes.

String Theorists relentlessly used “Theory of Everything” to grab our attention just as a store that wanted a simple message. Surely a theory of everything would scientifically explain “Why is there something rather than nothing?” just as “Just Tires” would surely not do oil changes.

Well, both went bust but couldn’t change their branding.

Even if is ultimately accepted as a TOE, Geometric Unity *cannot* explain why there is something rather than nothing. TOE is a term of art meaning that the input is something natural and simple and the output is presumably complete as the rules for the universe.

A TOE is more properly an attempt at the answer to “Why do the rules for everything unpack from assumptions so simple as to defy further scientific interest?” GU attempts to unpack from the assumption of 4-degrees of freedom (a manifold) and a tiny amount of natural structure like orientations and spin structures that are geometric and natural. It doesn’t explain from where that came.

A TOE doesn’t seek to put the theologian and philosopher out of business.

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Eric Weinstein

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @EricRWeinstein

Eric Weinstein

Eric Weinstein

Eric Weinstein

Eric Weinstein

Eric Weinstein

Eric Weinstein

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!