Slashdot Mirror

That quote was published by Time Magazine (without source or any indication that their reporter heard him say it). Since I am a terrible writer, I shall quote what "The Manic Street Preacher" ( From http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/einstein-statement-church ) who wrote:

"The statement first appeared in an article entitled “German Martyrs” which was published in Time magazine on 23 December 1940. You will find it posted on many religious websites and repeated by clergymen. Christian historian, Michael Burleigh, quotes it point-blank in his study of religion and politics in the 20th century, Sacred Causes, before rambling into a highly selective and ultimately, disingenuous defence of the Church during the Second World War.

Nevertheless, a superb piece by the analyst, William Waterhouse, first published in Skeptic (Volume 12, Number 3, Fall 2005), has exposed the statement as an exaggeration at best and a fabrication at worst by those eager to abuse Einstein’s prestigious reputation rather than convey his real opinions.

For starters, the statement appeared without any source or attribution when it was first published in Time. It is not known whether the reporter personally heard Einstein say it. The statement does not appear in the definitive collection of Einstein’s sayings, The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Any reference to the treatment of Europe’s Jews is also conspicuously absent.

In addition, the language is too flamboyant compared to Einstein’s usual style, with its reference to “great editors” and “flaming editorials”. The statement is also unlikely to have come from a scientist, stating as it does that Einstein “despised” something immediately after saying that he “never had any special interest” in it."

Highly exaggerated at best and outright fabrication at worst. Christopher Hitches says it better than I can in his his book "God is not great":

“Those who seek to misrepresent the man who gave us an alternative theory of the cosmos (as well as those who remained silent or worse while his fellow Jews were being deported and destroyed) betray the prickings of their bad consciences.”

I looked up the word "church" in the Albert Einstein Archives ( http://alberteinstein.info/ ) and only one document showed up. It is dated 11th of May, 1917:

"...If I were disposed toward the opposition and I saw in the state church an objectionable means of encouraging
people to maintain a mentality convenient for the ruling caste, then naturally I would not support this established
church. But if I loved the established church as a preserving element of the state which was according to my taste
(not mine), then I, as a free thinker, might safely join it .... "

http://alberteinstein.info/vufind1/images/einstein/11-457.tr.pdf

As a scientist he was more interested in the Enlightenment tradition and if the Church was an actor in support of that then he might have joined it, but then this happened:

"On January 1933, Franz Von Papen, leader of the Catholic Party of Germany, friend of E. Pacelli, the Papal Nuncio to Munich, later Pope Pius XII, became Hitler's Vice-Chancellor. Thus, the Leader of the German Catholic Party was second in command only to Hitler in Hitlerite Germany. Von Papen and Pacelli eventually negotiated for a Concordat in which Hitler pledged to support the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church to support Hitler (June 1933)."

From http://www.reformation.org/holoc15.html

I am not an historian or an Albert Einstein expert, but to me it looks like the Church was supporting everything which the great scientist found objectionab

If you magically shifted to 100% domestic production overnight, at the current burn rate of 20 million barrels a day, the known reserves of 20 billion barrels would be all gone in 1000 days. Also known as "about 3 years". All gone forever. So be careful what you wish for.

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

Did you ever notice how many of our great physicists were running from the Nazis? Einstein, Szilard, Teller, probably dozens of lesser scientists. I've always wondered: If the Nazis would have succeeded in getting those scientists, would we have developed the bomb? Was it inevitable, or did it take getting all those super minds in the right place at the right time?

We know that despite what was said during the Manhattan project that the Nazis were far enough behind on Atomic research they may have never built a working bomb, and Japan was wasting time looking at "death rays". The only real advantage the Nazis had by the end was rockets (which we pulled a brain drain thanks to Operation Paperclip) so it always makes me wonder how much different our world would have been if the NSDAP had never existed.

As for TFA the ONLY way I would go for it is if ALL patents created using tax dollars belong to We, The People. But knowing the way business "works" here in the USA today they more likely want mama government to take all the risks, while they take all the spoils. Yeah, no thanks.

A very little know fact is that Japan actually successfully built and tested an "Atomic Bomb" of there own. http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html

Now whether or not they had any means of mass producing them, that's completely up to the debate of history, but they certainly had the knowledge.

As for your points about the benefits of acceptance (speaking of the Nazi Refugees that were welcomed by the United States and who subsequently GREATLY aided in our ultimate victory), I would just like to say that I wish states like Arizona would keep that in mind.

There is a reason why the United States is one of the most powerful countries on Earth and it ISN'T because we build walls keeping people out.

You wrote: "That is shifting the burden of proof. What evidence does Gatto have that Rockefeller denied a belief in a Creator or afterlife?"

That's a good point. And Gatto talks in general about a group of individuals with materialist values. You may be quite right to question how they are lumped together.

One thing on Rockefeller:
http://www.reformation.org/john-d-rockefeller2.html
"""
Or is Mr. Rockefeller true to himself in both roles? Does he believe that money is a paramount duty, a sort of higher law justifying law-breaking, falsehood and extortion? Does he believe that the good his gentler self can do by charity, and his wise bequests to hospitals and to colleges with the money thus obtained more than balances the harm its accumulation works? That is, does the end justify the means, in Mr. Rockefeller's opinion, so that he can, unflinchingly face his own record and say, "I am right." Is it the inner consciousness of his own righteousness that keeps him silent before a sneering public?
It may be so. Or it may be that Mr. Rockefeller is one of those double natures that puzzle the psychologist. A man whose soul is built like a ship in air-tight compartments - to use the familiar figure - one devoted to business, one to religion and charity, one to simple living and one to nobody knows what. But between these compartments there are no doors. The life that goes on in compartment one has no relation to compartment two, has no influence upon it. Each is a solitary unit. It is an uncanny explanation; but it may be the true one.
"""

I think that is why Gatto is probably correct to say that someone like Rockefeller believes in materialist values -- because of the majority of his deeds, not his words. But it is hard to make a simple conclusion, because, according to the religion of capitalism, if we let Social Darwinism work its magic, everyone will be better off materially, and so have more time for spiritual pursuits, and any intervention in the market will bring disaster for all.

The question of ultimate ends is, ultimately, a religious one, as Einstein suggests. People can most likely legitimately disagree on all aspects of that. In a democratic society, we try to come to some consensus about the aspects of those that affect our daily life in positive ways to take communal action in various ways. It's a very messy thing. :-)

Yes, I feel it fair to call schooling a secular religion, along with a "scientism" that is often connected with it. From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion
"Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component, yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by the Church, or another religious authority. Social philosopher Raymond Aron notably uses the term to refer to Communism. Likewise, philosopher of science Michael Ruse has made use of the term in discussing evolution theory. Similarly Thomas Frank suggests that the free market has become a secular religion in the United States."

So, in that sense, Rockefeller had another God he worshiped:
"The Market as God: Living in the new dispensation"
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99mar/marketgod.htm
"""
A FEW years ago a friend advised me that if I wanted to know what was going on in the real world, I should read the business pages. Although my lifelong interest has been in the study of religion, I am always willing to expand my horizons; so I took the advice

Kevin - Let's at least be fair here. Getting a hold of the ballot box (the card from a voting machine is the same thing) has been the way votes have been (link goes to famous picture of Lyndon Johnson with Precinct 13 ballot box) rigged for years.

I don't care how you vote, what matters is that the process delivers a paper, human readable ballot in addition to the electronic count. This allows for a recount, and provides some assurance that the voter's vote was correct (at least on paper).

This is correct. The Federal Reserve creates bubble after bubble by counterfeiting the money supply, even if it's hidden by grossly manipulating official inflation measurement indexes such as the CPI, and removing the M3 total money supply number from official Fed reports. The late '90s internet bubble, the housing bubble, and now the commodities bubble. It's exactly like stepping on bumps in a rug; one bump deflates while another bump pops up elsewhere underneath the rug. Newly printed money and credit is going to be spent, rigorously in economic terms *traded*, for other specific goods first as opposed to the goods where that new money is not traded first.

Oil is a *futures* driven market. If the market fears the USA is going to attack Iran and lead to supply problems in the future, prices of futures contracts will reflect that in the present pricing of futures contracts. Absolutely every single good and service is priced *subjectively*, incorporating fears, dreams, beliefs, fashion, fads, you name it. Map out the price of oil over decades, hell map it out for the last century, and you'll see that price corresponds extremely closely to the devaluation of fiat currency, even in spite of a huge increase in demand and supply.

If the supply and demand remain constant, but you double the supply of money, what you expect to happen? That's right, the same amount of oil will trade for double the amount of money. Read the Creature from Jekyll Island which has a review on this site.

http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/26/1432203

Here's an e-book about government interference manipulation of the supply and price of oil. It's far from a free market if private companies can't drill in Alaska.

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

Nikola Tesla's electric car

After the AC induction motor, we think that the greatest invention of Nikola was the electric car. This was no ordinary battery driven car because this car took its power from the ether just like an automobile antenna picks up radio waves from the ether.

In 1931, under the financing of Pierce-Arrow and George Westinghouse, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow was selected to be tested at the factory grounds in Buffalo, N. Y. The standard internal combustion engine was removed and an 80-H.P. 1800 r.p.m electric motor installed to the clutch and transmission. The AC motor measured 40 inches long and 30 inches in diameter and the power leads were left standing in the air--no external power source and no recharging of any batteries was necessary.

At the appointed time, Nikola Tesla arrived from New York City and inspected the Pierce-Arrow automobile. He then went to a local radio store and purchased a handful of tubes (12), wires and assorted resistors. A box measuring 24 inches long, 12 inches wide and 6 inches high was assembled housing the circuit. The box was placed on the front seat and had its wires connected to the air-cooled, brushless motor. Two rods 1/4" in diameter stuck out of the box about 3" in length.

Mr. Tesla got into the driver's seat, pushed the two rods in and stated, "We now have power". He put the car into gear and it moved forward! This vehicle, powered by an AC motor, was driven to speeds of 90 m.p.h. and performed better than any internal combustion engine of its day! One week was spent testing the vehicle. Several newspapers in Buffalo reported this test. When asked where the power came from, Tesla replied, "From the ether all around us".

Here is a report of the incident from Tesla biographer Marc J. Seifer:

"The car [was] a standard Pierce Arrow, with the engine removed and certain other components installed instead. The standard clutch, gear box, and drive train remained.... Under the hood, there was a brushless electric motor, connected to [or in place of] the engine.... Tesla would not divulge who made the motor.

Set into the dash was a "power receiver" consisting of a box ... containing 12 radio tubes.... A vertical antenna, consisting of a 6 ft. rod, was installed and connected to the power receiver [which was] in turn, connected to the motor by two heavy, conspicuous cables.... Tesla pushed these in before starting and said: "We now have power."

If this tale is to be believed, it would mean that Tesla had also installed one of his powerful oscillators somewhere near Niagara Falls to provide the wireless energy needed to power the vehicle."(Seifer, Wizard. The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla, p. 419).

i agree with you on so much but there is a bit you still lack in knowledge.

first off, i support almost everything that ron paul says he is about-- except the return to the gold standard. and believe it or not that could be the most important issue that he has fully confessed his stance on, it speaks volumes to what and who he really is. ill explain why in a moment. trust me, read through. ill bet you havent heard this one (my opinion) yet.

something important for you to understand is that all fiat currencies throughout all history have either failed to maintain their wealth or failed completely-- the only thing that has stood the test of time is gold, why? scarcity, density, aesthetics and most importantly, the general consensus that it is worth something would be my guesses based on my observations of uh.... us? anyways i digress.

you are completely correct and completely wrong in asserting that no other currencies are backed by anything tangible, thus you miss the real issue.
technically all currencies (excluding a verbal commitment blah blah) are tangible -- even tally sticks were. our currency is based on something tangible. it itself is tangible, and that is all that matters to 99.99999999999999% of the population. its based on, for lack of a better word faith. there is no difference between the person with a piece of paper in their pocket before the 1900s when our currency was based on gold&silver and a person of todays usa carrying a debt note, its a piece of paper and whatever medium it assumes for the most part meaningless as long as it serves its purpose. thats how they beat us, through our comfortability and complacency we walked into our cell and shut the door while no guards were actually present at all.

you can totally get away with printing money "out of thin air", the congress is actually given the express authority by the constitution to coin all the currency necessary for the united states of america, but, it isnt working for us right now. why? well a few reasons- the people that dictate the value of it aren't on the side of the american people, as a matter of fact, they would like to see us all crumble under things like mark to market accounting and fractional reserve banking (yes, fractional)-- but the bigger and main problem is we were con'd into **outsourcing** the printing! no shit!

the money that we use that is printed 'out of thin air' it isnt ours at all, it does NOT belong to the united states even though the constitution makes it the prerogative of congress, it is as unamerican as a new england patriots jersey made in china and as antiamerican as any shithead that would want to fly a plane into a tower of people they had never even met-- we have to borrow it from the privately owned central bank and pay them an interest every time we use it, that is where the national deficit REALLY comes from so it doesnt matter how many laws we pass limiting spending or how many debates we have about it THE CURRENCY WE ARE USING IS LITERALLY CAUSING US TO GO BANKRUPT. WE COULD SWITCH TO ANYTHING ELSE, HUMAN TEETH AS LONG AS EVERYONE WENT ALONG WITH IT, AND VIRTUALLY ALL OF OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED IN LESS THAN 20 YEARS. even if we showed up with the ~17 trillion$ we owe them right now and handed it to them, they would say 'thanks, that just generated a huge chunk of interest for using it, please, keep using it.' a very simple history lesson that you were not taught in school about what jefferson and jackson were really all about will blow your mind: http://www.reformation.org/usbank.html -- they saw that usury would end in tyranny, regardless of who was reaping the profits. it also discusses many of the things from the book 'the creature from jeckyll isle' recently reviewed here.

see the problem is this, believe it or not, even though it sounds like a complete farce, the united states no longer has any gold, at all. it was taken from the people under the pretense of patriotism long ago and sin

http://www.reformation.org/vatican-and-islam.html

or perhaps he meant something along these lines

How does this compare to the popemobile? Do you think he had VoIP? :) (sorry)

Try looking at Deutsche Bank.

Some religions (or at least sects of those religions) believe that cremation is morally wrong.