A Review: Einstein’s Jewish Science by Steven Gimbel

May 24, 2013

A Review:  Einstein’s Jewish Science

by

Steven Gimbel

 A Study In Religious Relativity

 by

 R.E. Prindle

Gimbel, Steven: Einstein’s Jewish Science, 2012, Johns Hopkins Press

There is absolutely only one place to start in reviewing Steven Gimbel’s Einstein’s Jewish Science and that is at the Revolution’s declaration of Jewish emancipation.  The year 1789 marks the beginning of the Revolutionary era that ended on 9/11/01.

Actually we have to begin the discussion with some background on Jewish and Aryan

 

Steven Gimbel

or European differences.  The Jewish point of view standing from behind is that Judaism is the stock, the parent tree onto which Christianity, hence Europe, was grafted.  Thus Jews confuse Europeanism with Christianity calling all Europeans Christians against all the rules of logic.  As Christianity was grafted onto a Jewish source then, it follows that the sap that nourishes Christianity rises through Jewish roots.

While the view from this perspective from behind pleases Jewish vanity, if one steps into the front of the object and views it through the European vantage point another entirely different prospect is presented to the eyes.  This is called relativism.  In the view of European science, Judaism was only one of several Mediterranean sources that was melded into Catholic Christianity.  Among the most important are those coming from the Greeks Plato and Socrates.  One can even argue that Judaism is Judaism because it drank from the well of Plato.  Hence the water that nourishes the roots of the Judaic tree are from a European source.  Further the religion of Egypt from which Judaism originated was equally important to Christianity as the Egyptian goddess Isis  essentially became the Virgin Mary  and hence Christ a version of the god Osiris.  About the year 1000 Isis triumphed in purely Catholic regions becoming the  immaculate virgin Mary thus actually displacing Christ as the principal religious archetype of Catholicism.

Manichaeism, the religion of the Persian Mani also takes a central role in Catholicism as well as the Persian god Mithras.  In many ways then from the frontal view Judaism serves a subordinate but nevertheless important role in the development of what is essentially a Mediterranean not specifically Jewish religion.  Judaism itself is a hodge podge of Mediterranean influences beginning with their religious birth on the transition from the Taurean to the Arien Age.  Proto-Judaism was a reactionary movement of the Aryan Astral religion.  So, if one takes the relative stance above the object to view it yet another picture emerges, in which Judaism is beholden to ‘Christianity.’  It’s all relative to how you look at it, isn’t it?  Or is there a certain answer as science says?

The Catholic Church tolerated Judaism because of the Mediterranean connection but controlled it as tightly as possible.  In 1789 the Revolutionists emancipated the Jews or in other words freed them from the discipline of the Catholic Church.

Aryan Europeans had been freeing themselves from the Catholic discipline for hundreds of years.  With the triumph of the Enlightenment embodied  in the French Revolution rationalism as evidenced by the scientific mind rejected the religious solutions of society, Catholic or Jewish, completely.

The light of reason completely dispelled the fogs of religion leaving the religions with no means of counter attacking, science was non-fiction, religion was fiction, or, seemingly so.  Even during the savage horrors of the Revolution the scientific mind continued to evolve.  The scientific ethos was in place as the Napoleonic era ended replaced by the productive Bourgeois ethos.

Along with Catholicism and Judaism the Scientific Revolution destroyed the possibility of continuing Aryan European beliefs such as the sprites and fairies.  That religion died too, but their memory lived on in the Romantic Movement.  Those religious beliefs  had existed alongside Catholicism and Judaism.  Their demise is beautifully expressed in Charles Nodier’s tale of Trilby and Jeannie.  In the neo-Romantic revival that arose along with the Jewish concept of Relativism a hundred years later the English novelist, George Du Maurier revived Nodier’s legend in his book appropriately titled Trilby but in a nineteenth century European-Judaic context.

Barbara Spectre

So, as the Napoleonic Era ended Christianity, Judaism, Science and Romanticism contended for pre-eminence.

Catholicism and Romanticism which were Aryan experiences could only be eventually subsumed into Aryan, or what Jews call European, science but Judaism was a different story.  The Jewish people at that time lived in Western and Eastern Europe as well as the Middle East and North Africa.  The Americas were only beginning to emerge as new lands for settlement at that time.

The East, the Pale Of Settlement, was an impermeable block to science.  It is doubtful that Eastern Jews even heard of science until the late nineteenth century when Western Jews attempted to modernize their Jewish brethren of the Pale.

In the West Jews were completely demoralized.  Their relationship to the Church was no longer pertinent while science completely invalidated religious Judaism.  It took the Jews a hundred years to come up with a counter to science and that counter would be the doctrine of relativism developed around the end of the nineteenth century amidst the Romantic revival.

Aryan romanticism had been replaced by the Positive scientific concept of August Comte who was the great systemitizer of the scientific method.  While Comte, a Frenchman, has lost relevance in our times his was the basis on which scientific research developed.  His work was specifically attacked by the Jewish relativists.

Following Comte in the intellectual evolution of science was an Englishman by the name of Herbert Spencer also now superseded and forgotten.  Of course, Darwin, who is given credit for the concept of Evolution and has been  the great bug-a-boo of the Creationists.

In fact during the nineteenth century the Aryan or European mind as evidenced by science had if not evolved far ahead, moved far ahead of all other cultures, most especially religious cultures such as Catholicism and Judaism.  The essence of science is Evolution; the essence of Judaism is Creation.  Thus when presented with the incontestable evidence of Evolution all three Semitic religions based on the concept of Creation found their common enemy in science and collaterally Europeans or Aryans.  Science is the true enemy of Catholicism, Judaism and Moslemism.  The Moslems were outside European culture hence as immune to scientific inroads as the Jews of the Pale.  Christianity being European and disavowed could only stultify with its rationale gone.  The Jews after a hundred year struggle came up with the notion of relativism as a riposte.

The matter of Steven Gimbel’s Einstein’s Jewish Science is the conflict between Evolution and Creationism, Positivism and Relativity.  Einstein’s so called science then is merely Jewish relativism applied to physics.  His so-called science must be Jewish.

2.

How Johns Hopkins, in my youth the foremost American scientific college, could even consider publishing Steve’s rant is too incredible for belief.  The acceptance merely indicates how successful Jewish relativism has been against science and the scientific method.

The cover of the book itself, a very nice design, gives away the conclusion of the book.  What appears to be our solar system depicts an absolute immovable sun in the form of a  Star Of David thus showing Judaism as the immovable center around which all else revolves.

The nine planets, Pluto is included as a planet, orbit the Jewish sun in crazy off center orbits that overlap and collide.  Thus the game is given away without the necessity of reading the book.

The question Steve asks is whether there is such a thing as Jewish science as the Nazis asserted.  If there is a Jewish science then there must be a data base of Jewish knowledge.  While Steve may not be aware of it, although it would be an unaccountable omission, Barbara Spectre began an organization based in and funded by Sweden called Paideia.  Paidea is an Aryan Greek  name for education.  So the European foundations of Judaism are betrayed.  So this very Jewish woman gave her organization an Aryan name.  Strange, but not unusual.

The purpose of her organization is to negate what she calls nineteenth century European knowledge and in the future replace it with its counterpart, Jewish knowledge.  Thus in the future Europeans won’t have the exclusive claims to knowledge that had so humiliated the Jews in the nineteenth century, that claim will have to be shared, at least, with Jewish knowledge.  It is all relative of course but her organization currently in its second decade propagates the notion that there is a specific Jewish knowledge although she is cagy enough to conceal whatever passes for Jewish knowledge so that it can’t be tested and evaluated in a scientific manner..

It would seem then that the Nazis were not too far off base when they call relativism Jewish science.  So that issue is probably more obfuscated than even  Steve thinks.

In fact Steve begins his book with the usual Talmudic, one suspects this is what Babs Spectre calls Jewish knowledge, obfuscations.  Steve asks a question that should have a simple answer, that is, do we really know who is a Jew and who isn’t?  He will hammer away at this non-issue all through his book.  Einstein himself self-identified as a Jew.  But this is not enough for Steve.  Just because Einstein knew he was a Jew doesn’t mean he was.

Steve goes on to quote Einstein, p. 4:

Quote:

Jews are a group of people unto themselves.  You can see their Jewishness in their appearance and notice their Jewish heritage in their intellectual work and perceive a profound connection between their nature and the numerous interpretations they give to what they think and feel in the same way.

Unquote.

Hey, the greatest mind, the greatest intellect in all of Jewish and human history has spoken.  You can see Jewish identity in their intellectual work.  How wrong could the Nazis have been?  One would think that the question was settled and the book finished by page 4.

Steve clearly does not understand the nature of relativity.

I quote Steve, same page 4, as he picks up his narrative:

Quote:

Perhaps stranger still is that the author of this argument that Jewish qualities might be inherent and recognizable in the intellectual work of Jews is none other than Albert Einstein himself.  Einstein’s own words suggest that we must take seriously the possibility that the Nazis were in some sense correct about his theory.  Maybe relativity is “Jewish Science” after all.

Unquote.

No, relativity isn’t science. It can’t be.  Steve’s sub-title is: Physics at the intersection of Politics and Religion.  So we’re not really talking science we’re talking politics and religion, more especially religion.  Well, Steve’s got 241 pages to go so he’s got some hash slinging to do and he is capable of slinging that hash.

The essence of Judaism is creation not evolution.  Something that is created is whole and entire at creation, no evolution is necessary.  There is no evolving to do, thus Steve’s Jewish mind can only deal in Creative relativism but no evolution.

Einstein’s field of expertise was physics thus he is pitted against what was formerly thought of as the greatest intellect in the world, that of Isaac Newton.  Therefore in order to top Newton Einstein had to be billed as the most incredible cherry sitting on top of the sundae possible.  The most astonishing mind the world not only has seen but will ever see.

Now, Einstein lived some two hundred years or so after Newton.  The latter worked in the earliest stage of scientific knowledge with little to go on and the determined hostility of the semi-Semitic Catholic Church.  Much of science and physics originated with Newton but scientific learning evolved rapidly after him, and because of Newton. Einstein’s late nineteenth century youth coincided with the fabulous scientific evolution of the nineteenth century.  Einstein was not the rival of Newton that Steve presents but a successor beginning somewhen after Newton left off.

Thus Steve, in the Jewish way of the juggler’s legerdemain compares apples to oranges, but then, it is relative, isn’t it?  If Steve wants us  to believe with the Nazis that Einstein’s was Jewish science then Newton’s  must have been Catholic Christian science, Steve says his science was no different than Einstein’s except Catholic rather than Jewish but still religiously based.  No, but actually Einstein stood to Jewish religion in his time as Newton had stood to Catholicism in his.  The difference is that Newton was instrumental in freeing science from religion, he was shedding religion.  Einstein was adapting religion to science so that Jewish Knowledge, that is a return to religious thinking, could reign supreme.  Thus Newton’s science was evolutionary while Eintein’s relativity was regressive to atavistic Jewish religion.  Einstein was attempting to negate  evolution and science.

This idea is very clear in Steve’s book.

Like Barbara Spectre Steve believes that nineteenth century science marginalized the Jewish people, in other words made their BS irrelevant.  And…this is true.  Hence Jewish development across all fields of inquiry was that of relativity; relativity was a sort of Jewish version of Aryan neo-Romanticism.  The notion was not an invention of Einstein but was part of the assault made on nineteenth century scholarship across the board.  Einstein covered physics, Freud-Fliess took control of psychology, Henri Bergson presented  a Creationist version of evolution while denouncing Spencer and Comte, Schoenberg brought relativism to music, Anatole France attacked literature, Franz Boas tackled Anthropology.  In every possible discipline Jews countered the prevailing European scholarship with relativism while slandering the European leaders in the field.

Dada appeared in 1917 disparaging Western art with a general condemnation of European civilization.  Following shortly after Critical Theory was originated as the Frankfurt School that developed methods to undermine every phase of Western Civilization.  Relativism was the mode of attack.  The notion was not an invention of Einstein, he merely applied it to physics.  Hence Steve’s dogged comparison of him as a superior to Newton.  But that’s all relative.  If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull-shit.  If you can’t even tell who the hell is a Jew how can you possible tell if he is a scientist?  How can you tell anything?  You can’t, it’s all relative.  And that is the point of the Jewish Knowledge of the Talmud.  The only thing you can know for sure is that Jews are the center of the solar system, Jews are always right as the cover of the book indicates and everyone else is eccentric.

So, the nineteenth century marginalized the Jews.  They couldn’t compete.  In fact they weren’t the center of the solar system.  Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler got there before them.  The consequence of the humiliation was that the Jews identified with every other group they considered marginalized by the bad old bogy White man or European.  They aligned themselves with the others to defeat Europeans and European knowledge.  Thus will she nil she Barbara  Spectre and her Paideia  organization  is the keystone of the argument.

Steven chops his hash over the couple hundred pages remaining without getting anywhere.  We are left uncertain as to whether not only was Einstein’s science Jewish but whether Einstein was actually Jewish.  One would think that if Einstein couldn’t positively be proven to be Jewish the science would be a moot point.  Of course it is always possible that one could be European and practice Jewish science as clearly stated by Barbara.

If Steve’s main text was lackluster his conclusion was a rip roaring finale.  Perhaps inspired by Bob Dylan’s line from Chimes of Freedom that goes:  the confused, abused, misused, strung out ones and worse (or marginalized) the very passionate Steve unlooses this tirade:  p.210,

Quote:

But for those who saw the change (from Aryan to Jewish science) as a part of human progress, of cultural growth, he was part of the engine driving us (he means Jews by us) forward.  His science was revolutionary, but it wasn’t just his science.  Einstein the man, as much as the theory of relativity, became the symbol of the new way.  He eschewed belts and socks.  His hair, that iconic hair, stoked a sense of nonconformist to that which is merely social construction.  Here was a great mind that rejected the trivial.  Think of the quotations that one sees attributed to Einstein on bumper stickers:  “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”  “Great thinkers have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”  What one celebrates abut Einstein is his embrace of a certain form of Enlightenment values:  that humanity progresses when it thinks creatively, (read:  religiously)  when it stops accepting culturally enforced strictures and frees itself in the search for truth.  We (whoever We may be) take Einstein to be the epitome of the open mind.

Unquote.

Well, gosharoonies, was that ever a masterpiece of overblown purple prose, a wonder of kitsch, a parody of heartfelt emotion.  Indeed!!!  Indeed!!!

‘His science was revolutionary, but it wasn’t just his science.’ Was his science revolutionary?  Whatever he may have found of value was just science, a part of mankind’s treasure, a contribution along with all other contributions.  Nothing he thought belonged to him; Einstein was just another laborer in the vineyard.  European scientific discoveries were not proprietary.  Research was conducted openly, open source as they say on the internet, published in a myriad of scientific journals so all qualified could participate.  Nor was Einstein a new growth; he was merely standing on the shoulders of the giants who came before.  He was not a competitor of Newton he was a successor employing all the discovered, not created, knowledge of the past.  Einstein would never have existed except for Newton.  Unfortunately Newton didn’t have to courtesy to have been Jewish, but even if he had according to Steve how could it have been known that he was really Jewish.

As proof of Einstein’s genius Steve gives us this:  He eschewed belts and socks.  Bravo!  Clap, clap, my god what a man.

‘His hair…that hair….  What more do you need to be a genius?  Look at Bob Dylan’s hair.  Weird hair?  Of course he’s a genius.  Look at my hair, by the way.  Newton didn’t have weird hair, how couldn’t Einstein be a greater genius?

‘Imagination is more important than knowledge.’  Why, of course, why hadn’t that occurred to me before.  Why study physics when you can just imagine physics and it’s true.  ‘Knowledge?  We don’t need no steenking knowledge.’

‘We take Einstein to be the epitome of the open mind.’  Who is this ‘we’?  Who is this ‘us’?  Is Steve speaking for Europeans as well as Jews? Or are the we and us exclusively Jews.  As Bob Dylan says:  Watch those pronouns.  And then the piece de resistance… p. 212

Quote:

But this love of Einstein is broader than that of the Jewish community, because the liberated cosmopolitan future he represents is not at all tied to a connection between Judaism and relativity.  (Is that statement positive or relative?)  Einstein was a secular Jew, but he very well could have been a religious Jew like Nobel laureate I.B Singer:  He could just as well have been a Hindu like Nobel laureate Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman;  he could have been an Arab (Moslem) like Nobel laureate Ahmad Zewail, he could have been a woman like Nobel laureate Marie Curie; he might have been a gay like mathematical genius Alan Turing.  Einstein is Einstein because he says to every oppressed group that he could have been like you.  His theory, his irreverence, his politics, and the opposition he found represent an opening up and destruction of the confining structures that limited whose voice could be heard, in what language it could be spoken, and with what accent.  His place in history was pivotal moment at which the future no longer resembled the past.  That future will no longer be dominated by the powers that entrenched themselves (Aryan males) over the past several centuries and Albert Einstein is a symbol that all of us can participate in the future.

Unquote.

Myopia is a new religion?  Heil Babs Specter!  What a presentation of inner wishful thinking and misconstrued reality.  What was wrong with the editors at Johns Hopkins?  What a misconstruction of the nature of science.  Contrary to Babs Spectre and Steve Gimbel there was no one preventing scientific contributions from wherever or whomever.  It was impossible for anyone not of the European culture from 1650 to 1900 to make contributions because they had neither the knowledge or scientific imaginations to make scientific contributions.  The world has now evolved.  Steve and Babs are right this is not the nineteenth century.  The rest of the world in varying degrees have caught up with the idea of science given by the Aryan.  They have evolved.  They are no longer who they were in the nineteenth century.  Look at the pictures.  If they contribute now it is not because Aryans allow them to it is because they now can because they can absorb the knowledge, but the majority still can’t.

Relativity itself is not scientific but a religious distortion of science as Steve acknowledges in his sub-title.

It is interesting that no European male  is included in Steve’s list of the oppressed that Einstein supposedly made equal  although at least half of European males were marginalized and forbidden to participate because of class reasons.  Russian serfs even if theoretically freed were more oppressed than the Jews.  Jews flooded Russian and European universities while Russian serfs and European commoners had to fight to gain entrance.  In all ways Jews had it easier and were treated better than the lower classes of Europeans after emancipation.  Steve is not looking at things in an objective enough manner.  He is blinded by his subjectivism.

Steve had better stick to philosophy because he is certainly no historian or scientific researcher.  As to his book, as a ‘visiting professor’ I can give Steve only a courtesy C for effort.  Subjectivity, inner wishful thinking, creativity are fine for religion but have no place in the cold hard positive reality of science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s