
Who Smeared Richard Feynman? (2014) - notadog
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/07/11/smeared-richard-feynman/
======
Cymen
Archive.org URL:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200604154641/http://blog.nucle...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200604154641/http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/07/11/smeared-
richard-feynman/)

------
JRKrause
"it made the newspapers because of Bell’s allegations of “extreme cruelty” by
Feynman, including the notion that he spent all of his waking hours either
doing calculus and playing the bongos." I find it hard to imagine a world
where the eccentric behaviors and personal lives of practicing scientists
would receive newspaper coverage.

~~~
stcredzero
_I find it hard to imagine a world where the eccentric behaviors and personal
lives of practicing scientists would receive newspaper coverage._

Really? Such tactics are all over the media nowadays. Read _Manufacturing
Consent_ then look for all of the tactics in the western "propaganda model" of
operation updated for 2020. The news has never been subtle about this sort of
manipulation since at least the 80's. By comparison, what I see nowadays, it
seems like journalists think everyone's a mental toddler.

Look for emotional language in articles. Then count up the hard facts. There's
an inverse relationship. It's not supposed to be like this!

~~~
JRKrause
The most significant separator for me is that, from my understanding, Feynman
was an actual practicing scientist. I am struggling to think of anyone in an
analogous position today who has received this kind of attention.

~~~
mcguire
Nowadays, we focus primarily on wealthy (loosely) Internet-related
businessmen. Do you think anyone really cares about Travis Kalanick's antics
or what Elon Musk names his kids?

------
acqq
55 comments in 2014 on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8024982](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8024982)

------
kurthr
Yes, it may well have been his ex-wife... that was my guess when I read the
headline.

~~~
rurban
Esp. his 2nd wife from Boise, if I remember correctly. An old article which I
remember well.

He had better luck with his other two wife's.

------
benjohnson
I suspect form the viewpoint of the F.B.I. that it's not only someone's
allegiance that is important, but how verifiable that allegiance is.

Given that the most clever and intelligent among us could be better prepared
for subterfuge, it perhaps makes the question of "Is Feynman trustworthy?"
rather difficult.

------
generationP
Archive link: [https://archive.is/nK4RS](https://archive.is/nK4RS)

------
pinewurst
(2014) but well worth the repost

------
xenocyon
This is extremely speculative.

------
olooney
500 Error for me.

~~~
notadog
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200604154641/http://blog.nucle...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200604154641/http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/07/11/smeared-
richard-feynman/)

------
sudoaza
Wouldn't surprise me if Feynman was at least sympathetic to communism, at
least to anarchism for sure, on some of the lectures when he talks about his
father teaching him about equality and the disdain for prizes and titles.

~~~
jandrese
I'm not sure if he was not so much sympathetic to communism as skeptical of
capitalism. At least that's the impression I got from reading his books. He's
not a guy who was too concerned with money and didn't appear to have a high
regard for people who do. He was much more interested in having experiences.
The top-down government model of communism wouldn't be a fit for him either,
he was much too free wheeling for that. Anarchism would be a bit closer but
almost certainly too radical for someone not that concerned with politics.
Libertarianism might have been the best fit, but only the on-paper kind, not
the real life kind.

~~~
cygx
_Libertarianism might have been the best fit_

Fun fact: In Feynman's formative years, 'libertarian' still meant 'anarchist'.

~~~
nsajko
The distinctions between 'socialist', 'anarchist', 'communist', 'libertarian',
and then 'objectivist' (Randian) and probably others are too blurry when
considering it across time and geography; rather than most often as names of
politically parties, basically "brands".

I think libertarianism had been defined in opposition to non-democratic
regimes; then after the fall of feudalism it continued to be used by
socialism/anarchism/communism.

I think the US Libertarian Party's name serves (or served) mostly as a
rebranding of anarchism, but I am not sure about the origins of that party,
anybody more knowledgeable please join in. An interesting note about them is
that both Ayn Rand and Frank Zappa dismissed them as closet anarchists.

I am also interested in when did the influx of the right wing into "anarchism"
or "libertarianism" happen? Maybe it has something to do with Lenin&co.'s and
later Stalin's suppression of anarchism, and even later the Cold war
propaganda?

Also, who invented the weird term 'anarcho-capitalist'?

~~~
n4r9
> who invented the weird term 'anarcho-capitalist'?

The economist Murray Rothbard used it first in the mid-20th century, according
to the Wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism. He felt free to use the term as
it borrowed some ideas from anarchism, but many would say he excluded crucial
parts.

Most anarchists are very unwilling to be associated with anarcho-capitalism,
and resent the prefix. They are probably even less thrilled about being
associated with the libertarian party.

US Libertarians: limit the size and scope of government

Anarcho-capitalism: no centralised state, society self-regulates via free
markets.

Anarchism: no heirarchical power structures, thus no private capital at all.

~~~
nsajko
> US Libertarians: limit the size and scope of government

What I was aiming at with GP post was that as far as I understand, at least in
the early days of the Libertarian Party, a significant number of them were
actually completely against the existence of a government. (Wikipedia mentions
something about an "anarchist-minarchist debate" or something like that.)

But political reality of course leads to compromise. It is simply untenable in
the US, and most of the Earth to be taken seriously by a large majority of
voters while espousing getting rid of the government.

~~~
n4r9
Whilst true, a lot of political movements in history have had goals that
seemed completely untenable at the time, yet succeeded.

------
vkou
He doesn't exactly paint a flattering account of his social self in his
autobiographies - mostly in his interactions with service staff.

~~~
DubiousPusher
Yeah and he's not exactly silent about his desire or attempts to womanize. IDK
why it's so hard to like a dude, respect his work and love his writing yet
simultaneously understand he's a bit of a dirt bag.

~~~
onemoresoop
He possibly was a narcissist simply looking for narcissistic supply. Or let's
say high on this particular trait. These people are very successful and are
attracted to the limelight and a lot of the times are inspiring as well
because in their need to gratify themselves and their values they actually do
achieve a great deal of things. However, the close ones may be neglected
though, as they no longer posses narcissistic supply and their own needs
interfere with the narcissist's pursuit, which pursuit is very selfish in
nature. A lot of unsuspecting people are more or less on this spectrum but the
fame aspect of them makes them more of assholes to the close friends and
family.

Passionate people who get some limelight may steer on this path. Passionate
and humble people don't get their dopamine from other's or they do but to a
much lesser extent. They don't crave it as much as the former.

All things said, I don't think Feynman should be judged on his moral values,
he never claimed he was a priest or a monk, he loved life and gratification.
He was inspiring to others and that is what matters.

I found Richard Feynman very inspiring and I still do.

~~~
jandrese
Some of his own writings stray deeply into redpill territory when talking
about women. Distasteful today, but hardly out of line for the era. Had he
lived he would have been the subject of many #metoo anecdotes, at least if his
autobiographies are accurate.

~~~
onemoresoop
Yes, that seems spot on but we need context to understand him better and we
need to understand why this is done in the first place. Looking up long dead
peoole for faults is not my hobby and think that one will find faults of
different nature all around us.

As I mentioned in another comment, I suspect Feynman had some narcissistic
traits, but that does not make me less inspired by his lectures and I don’t
see the point of pointing these out in relation to his work directly. The
output of his work had a positive influence and that should be held into
account.

Another example. I love some of Arthur Clarke’s works and ideas. He was also a
pedo guy and he lived and done his dirty deeds in Sri Lanka. Disgusting? yeah,
absolutely. Should that make me like his works and ideas less? That is bound
to confuse my brains:) so I conveniently compartimentalize his work from other
things. And I agree that this personal fact could be mentioned along with his
name but his work is a separate thing though

~~~
ohhhlol
'In 1998, a British newspaper reported that he paid Sri Lankan boys for sex,
leading to the cancellation of plans for Prince Charles to knight him on a
visit to the country.[46][47] The accusation was subsequently found to be
baseless by the Sri Lankan police and was retracted by the newspaper'

~~~
jandrese
Apparently that didn't stop him from being knighted[1].

[1]
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/43739.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/43739.stm)

------
thanatropism
Somehow I read "Richard Stallman". Kept on thinking so until I managed to open
the archive.org URL.

~~~
snvzz
It's an understandable mistake[0].

[0]: [https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/](https://sterling-
archermedes.github.io/)

