Marxism And The New Age Progressive Movements

[Regina]

This is a more reasonable path forward for now, we need to take on the central banks to do this, the bank of international settlements is where the protests should be, instead people are taking up arms against transgender folk who make up a tiny percentage of the population, don’t get me wrong it’s an issue but solving transgender propaganda aimed at kids won’t stifle the banks.

The financial system is a casino full of drug addicts, we need to intervene, their continual changing of language makes their cult difficult to penetrate for joe public, it’s easier for joe to vent his anger on topics easier to comprehend like man with penis says he/she is a woman, woman with a vagina says she’s/he’s a man, black people or white people, "deadly" virus doomsday.

Words like fiscal measures, austerity, covid stimulus package, financial instruments are soft, vague and lack meaning to the "uninformed". If we replaced those words with the likes of "stealing from the taxpayer to pay the debts of drug addicted gamblers" or what about "you must give your money for free to a pathological drug fueled gambler so said psychopath can loan the money back you at 18% interest", this might perk people up.

Interestingly many big hedge funds have huge shares in major media outlets, they control the information and create meanings in people effecting behavior , they needed hysteria to cover their 8.5 trillion taxpayer bailout and they are buying up stocks now with taxpayer money, the majority of average joes have no clue this is happening.

This is a more reasonable path forward for now, we need to take on the central banks to do this, the bank of international settlements is where the protests should be, instead people are taking up arms against transgender folk who make up a tiny percentage of the population, don’t get me wrong it’s an issue but solving transgender propaganda aimed at kids won’t stifle the banks.

The financial system is a casino full of drug addicts, we need to intervene, their continual changing of language makes their cult difficult to penetrate for joe public, it’s easier for joe to vent his anger on topics easier to comprehend like man with penis says he/she is a woman, woman with a vagina says she’s/he’s a man, black people or white people, "deadly" virus doomsday.

Words like fiscal measures, austerity, covid stimulus package, financial instruments are soft, vague and lack meaning to the "uninformed". If we replaced those words with the likes of "stealing from the taxpayer to pay the debts of drug addicted gamblers" or what about "you must give your money for free to a pathological drug fueled gambler so said psychopath can loan the money back you at 18% interest", this might perk people up.

Interestingly many big hedge funds have huge shares in major media outlets, they control the information and create meanings in people effecting behavior , they needed hysteria to cover their 8.5 trillion taxpayer bailout and they are buying up stocks now with taxpayer money, the majority of average joes have no clue this is happening.

we're also taking your blood because the swiss pharma company we sell it to is complaining about it coming from homeless drug addicts.

 

[haidut]

competition leans more to destruction of competitors, think monopolizing, opposition encourages discovery

Yep, he also said a few times competition and militarism are two sides of the same coin. Each one begets/promotes the other. And he also often emphasizes that competition is not the same as opposition/contrarianism. To use the words of W. Blake - opposition = true friendship (good), competition (negation) = bad.

 

[haidut]

give it one more run with zero government interference

Literally nobody on the political spectrum (except possibly some die-hard libertarians) would want or allow that to happen. The left are ideologically against it, and every large corporation and most run-of-the-mill Republicans will be working against it (usually by saying they want to protect US jobs or whatever). The goal of most corporations (naturally, without govt intervention) is to NOT compete - i.e. monopoly and/or becoming "too big to fail". The core motto of every VC firm these days is to invest only in companies that have massive barriers to entry or at least unique talent on board that cannot be easily replicated by the competition.
Who is going to ensure such monopolistic large twisted entities don't form when an (initially successful, value-driven) corporation becomes too large and decides it just does not want to compete or provide value any more? The free market favors the big and powerful entities/companies. Once successful = always successful, unless there is competition. But truly disruptive competition usually comes from the periphery - the small players, startups, etc. So, if you don't regulate, the big corporations will use their enormous economic power to crush (or buy-and-bury) any potential competition/innovation from a small(er) player. If you do regulate, then the corporations will simply capture the regulatory agency (as we have seen them do time and again over the last century). It seems pure capitalism only works in a decentralized society and up to a certain scale. Ironically, the same seems to apply to communism/socialism.
Anyways, if a company has a market capitalization bigger than 75% of the world's countries, employs directly/indirectly millions of people and literally pays for the jobs of so many politicians then it is no longer capitalism except on paper and on TV. In reality, that massive corporation can demand/extort subsidies and bailouts while offering nothing in return except the same old rhetoric "leave businesses alone" and "no govt intervention".
I think we need new ideas. Capitalism, socialism, etc seem to simply not cut it any more in this dynamic and rapidly evolving, interconnected world where a too-big-to-fail entity can form in a matter of a few short years and then use that power to extort the entire world.

 

[haidut]

But this control is the problem, once the state has all the power it is never interested in sharing it, all you get is corruption and power abuse.

Now replace the word "state" with "mega-corporation" and you see that both systems (Soviet-style socialism and late-stage capitalism in the West) are the same. Heck, a true mega corporation of the rank of Apple, Microsoft, Huawei, etc has a market capitalization and economic/legal power worldwide bigger than 75%+ of actual countries around the world. What massive entity (state or company), run by corrupt people, will want to give back that unlimited power??
The main arguments for the existence of large corporations have always been economies of scale (lower cost of products) and job creation. However, over the last 30+ years those mega corporations have not been really providing much of either and many of those jobs they claim they created are heavily taxpayer-subsidized to the point that in many cases the corporation is a job "creator" only on paper - it is the taxpayers' funds that make those jobs possible. The push for globalization has always been led by large corporations as it makes outsourcing and tax avoidance/evasion much easier. So, in a sense the leaders of capitalism have been (ironically) pushing for the socialization of the world economy, as it directly benefits them. Those companies are above the law and they rarely compete, while for everybody else the only thing left is a race to the bottom, on a global scale.
The political sticker we attach to such entity is really immaterial. It does not matter much if a totalitarian state sends you to the gulag for your political views or a large tech company builds a life-long profile of you based on your online/offline behavior, private information, health record, etc and then uses that profile to legally direct most aspects of your life indefinitely while also making massive profits, and selling (usually partial) access to that profile to more of its corrupt "partners" for even more control over you and more profit, while at the same time raising noise about how much they are doing to protect your "rights". To make matters worse, those mega-corporations love to "fuse" with the govt and form the proverbial "complexes" that Eisenhower warned about as far back as the 1950s (despite being part of them).
The end result is the same - enslavement and destruction of humanity. What difference does it make if it comes from a totalitarian state or a corporation that has become a household name (people tend to trust the familiar) but nobody really knows its true size, reach, owners, goals, etc. If power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately, then no entity should be allowed to assume such a position of power.

 

[Regina]

Literally nobody on the political spectrum (except possibly some die-hard libertarians) would want or allow that to happen. The left are ideologically against it, and every large corporation and most run-of-the-mill Republicans will be working against it (usually by saying they want to protect US jobs or whatever). The goal of most corporations (naturally, without govt intervention) is to NOT compete - i.e. monopoly and/or becoming "too big to fail". The core motto of every VC firm these days is to invest only in companies that have massive barriers to entry or at least unique talent on board that cannot be easily replicated by the competition.
Who is going to ensure such monopolistic large twisted entities don't form when an (initially successful, value-driven) corporation becomes too large and decides it just does not want to compete or provide value any more? The free market favors the big and powerful entities/companies. Once successful = always successful, unless there is competition. But truly disruptive competition usually comes from the periphery - the small players, startups, etc. So, if you don't regulate, the big corporations will use their enormous economic power to crush (or buy-and-bury) any potential competition/innovation from a small(er) player. If you do regulate, then the corporations will simply capture the regulatory agency (as we have seen them do time and again over the last century). It seems pure capitalism only works in a decentralized society and up to a certain scale. Ironically, the same seems to apply to communism/socialism.
Anyways, if a company has a market capitalization bigger than 75% of the world's countries, employs directly/indirectly millions of people and literally pays for the jobs of so many politicians then it is no longer capitalism except on paper and on TV. In reality, that massive corporation can demand/extort subsidies and bailouts while offering nothing in return except the same old rhetoric "leave businesses alone" and "no govt intervention".
I think we need new ideas. Capitalism, socialism, etc seem to simply not cut it any more in this dynamic and rapidly evolving, interconnected world where a too-big-to-fail entity can form in a matter of a few short years and then use that power to extort the entire world.

But the US patent office is run (screened) by serco in city of london. Disruptive competition is stolen or squelched or racketeered.

 

[Regina]

Now replace the word "state" with "mega-corporation" and you see that both systems (Soviet-style socialism and late-stage capitalism in the West) are the same. Heck, a true mega corporation of the rank of Apple, Microsoft, Huawei, etc has a market capitalization and economic/legal power worldwide bigger than 75%+ of actual countries around the world. What massive entity (state or company), run by corrupt people, will want to give back that unlimited power??
The main arguments for the existence of large corporations have always been economies of scale (lower cost of products) and job creation. However, over the last 30+ years those mega corporations have not been really providing much of either and many of those jobs they claim they created are heavily taxpayer-subsidized to the point that in many cases the corporation is a job "creator" only on paper - it is the taxpayers' funds that make those jobs possible. The push for globalization has always been led by large corporations as it makes outsourcing and tax avoidance/evasion much easier. So, in a sense the leaders of capitalism have been (ironically) pushing for the socialization of the world economy, as it directly benefits them. Those companies are above the law and they rarely compete, while for everybody else the only thing left is a race to the bottom, on a global scale.
The political sticker we attach to such entity is really immaterial. It does not matter much if a totalitarian state sends you to the gulag for your political views or a large tech company builds a life-long profile of you based on your online/offline behavior, private information, health record, etc and then uses that profile to legally direct most aspects of your life indefinitely while also making massive profits, and selling (usually partial) access to that profile to more of its corrupt "partners" for even more control over you and more profit, while at the same time raising noise about how much they are doing to protect your "rights". To make matters worse, those mega-corporations love to "fuse" with the govt and form the proverbial "complexes" that Eisenhower warned about as far back as the 1950s (despite being part of them).
The end result is the same - enslavement and destruction of humanity. What difference does it make if it comes from a totalitarian state or a corporation that has become a household name (people tend to trust the familiar) but nobody really knows its true size, reach, owners, goals, etc. If power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately, then no entity should be allowed to assume such a position of power.

and the shift on to blockchain for our liege lords will allow them to continue as usual hustling all the drugs, guns and money laundering and get together to scheme how to keep the peons permanently non-threatening to their hustle.

I wonder what the earth would have been like if these deluded bloodlines had never cogealed. Paradise, I suspect.

Yes. The bankers and leaders of capitalism always push for socialism. See Antony Sutton books.

 

[Regina]

But the US patent office is run (screened) by serco in city of london. Disruptive competition is stolen or squelched or racketeered.

In a recent interview Peat mentioned those on the right are more intelligent/coherent than the left I think, he thinks it’s a safer bet to stay on the right for now, he’s not wrong, the contemporary left are heavily medicated and the movement is a mental illness. Trying to discuss "peaty" topics with the contemporary "left" could get you killed, the right in some cases are far from "peaty" but more open to dialogue.

The future is a different story, a biologically coherent human should not need the big government style systems we have now, we see this effect in action today with many coherent folks who would do just fine without government interference on the scale we are seeing.
Even more disconcerting is the "grassroots" movements promoted by billionaire owned NGO’s , it’s smacks of communitarianism another elite project, it seems the unelected organizations like the WHO, UN, Bank of international settlements, NATO and various faux green movements are still pushing for communitarianism, they have changed the language around it but the actions and desires are the same.

It still amazes me that the "experts" still have no better idea for political systems and seem to ignore glaring fallacies when extolling human progress, it’s rehashing the past, cut ,copy and paste, all the systems mentioned have broken throughout history and will continue to do so.

I love what these guys are doing. Gentle long interviews reminding how much we are losing:

 

[Energizer]

The end result is the same - enslavement and destruction of humanity. What difference does it make if it comes from a totalitarian state or a corporation that has become a household name (people tend to trust the familiar) but nobody really knows its true size, reach, owners, goals, etc. If power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately, then no entity should be allowed to assume such a position of power.

Yeah, Grunch of Giants in full effect.

 

[Yggr]

To Eliminate the Opiate : Marvin S Antelman : 9781717749512

Highly recommend this book for thos interested in the history of communism and marxism.

 

[michael94]

and the shift on to blockchain for our liege lords will allow them to continue as usual hustling all the drugs, guns and money laundering and get together to scheme how to keep the peons permanently non-threatening to their hustle.

I wonder what the earth would have been like if these deluded bloodlines had never cogealed. Paradise, I suspect.

Yes. The bankers and leaders of capitalism always push for socialism. See Antony Sutton books.

Anthony Sutton is wrong

Erich Brenner

 

[Regina]

Anthony Sutton is wrong

Erich Brenner

But would you agree that R-fam funded both sides?

And that bankers are happy to push Die Leute into socialism?

 

[snacks]

The end result is the same - enslavement and destruction of humanity. What difference does it make if it comes from a totalitarian state or a corporation that has become a household name (people tend to trust the familiar) but nobody really knows its true size, reach, owners, goals, etc. If power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately, then no entity should be allowed to assume such a position of power.

Pretty much the only difference between the economic systems of Fascist Italy and Spain (which I would support-- they're fine with me) and that of the united states in terms of corporate-government enmeshment is that in the former case the government dictated terms to private interests while in the US the exact opposite is true unless you want to make some byzantine argument about the NSA owning amazon or something which you're welcome to do. In South Korea you can still see what the US capitalist model could have been with competently run corporations like Samsung enmeshed with the government but occupying a position of subservience. Since capitalistic competition is probably impossible to stifle at this point I don't think there's a better way to moderate the anti-human side of the pursuit of money for moneys' sake .

As far as the reach and relative anonymity of corporations it would be really eye-opening if conglomerates with lots and lots of little tendrils everywhere were forced to assume a single name. I really doubt Americans would react well to the discovery that there exists at best a Soviet-style illusion of choice between competitors but at this point they may be too apathetic.

 

[Atman]

Ray is a paradoxical character.
He is a rebel at heart, but very feminine in nature: against conflict, very non-assertive and with an egalitarian worldview.
He, still to his old age, holds the naive conviction that if people just had the right resources and stimuli during their development, the world would be full of intelligent and compassionate Raymond's just like himself who would work together for a paradise on earth.
Yet life is comprised of eternal conflict and struggle for domination. There is also a degree of differentiation within the human species which is remarkable when compared to all other animals. Most people are very agreeable and not able or not willing to think for themselves. They are guided by a small group in power who instill their worldview and will via various media. This has been the case for all known human history. The kind of media used has developed and enabled larger and larger groups of people to be organized in an ever more precise manner, starting from small tribes of a dozen people to huge nations and empires. The characteristics of a given society is thereby mainly shaped by the worldview of the group of people in power.

 

[michael94]

But would you agree that R-fam funded both sides?

The Rothschild Family funded both sides, under what circumstances? Was the Rothschild Banking Family, involved in commerce and Finance all over the world, holding and maintaining investments in Germany before and during the Third Reich period? Yes.

Was Adolf Hitler the direct recipient of funds from the Rothschild family or their subsidiaries in order to control Hitler, and then successful in this venture, as James Corbett and others suggest? Absolutely No.

I have a series of questions for those that believe Adolf Hitler, and the Third Reich at large, represented a controlled fifth column in Germany to appease the German population and then draw them into a War which served International Banking Interests, the Global Elite, etc.

1. Why was the very foundation of the NSDAP rooted in the works of Gottfried Feder, whose writings and lectures inspired Hitler to become politically involved in the first place? Gottfried Feder wrote "For the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest on Money", which clearly outlines the fundamental absurdity of the growth of Loan Capital, at the expense of the people that actually create and produce things.

In other words, why were the foundations of the Nazi Party explicitly against the International Banking power, not only in words, but later in action?

2. Why did Gottfried Feder, contrary to Marxists of the time, make a distinction between Loan Capital, the product of loaning money out of thin air, with Industrial Kapital? Moreover, why did he further distinguish that Industrial Kapital represented a natural growth curve based on actual production, as opposed to Loan Kapital which grows exponentially with ever growing claims on the real economy? ( see attached: Industrial_vs_Loan_Capital)

3. Why did Germany's policy of Loan forgiveness, notably for German Farmers who were given a blank slate in 1933, and on Marriage loans for newlywed couples when having children, represent a power relation shifting away from creditors in favor of the workers and up-right citizens of the Reich?

4. Why did Germany solve the problem of Foreign Debt, in the only reasonable way possible, by recognizing the illegitimacy of such debt which was obtained under fraudulent circumstances, and refusing to pay it?

5. Why did Germany begin moving to a Large Scale Barter System of International Trade, as opposed to the International Gold Standard, which represented an exit from the International Middleman System whereby Banks raked significant profits via control of the Gold market and loaning it out at interest? ( see attached: ThirdReich_Trade1 )

6. Why did Germany make use of the MEFObills system, in which Reichsmarks were exchanged directly for goods produced, thus creating a basis for debt-free money that was based on actual production rather than a loan "out of thin air" from a Private Bank?

7. Why did Germany take the Reichsbank out of Private Hands and return it to German control, contrary to dealings out of the City of London, Basel, etc?

8. Why did Adolf Hitler create specific policy to make illegal: corruption and crony Capitalism in the Reich? (see attached: Hitlers_Revolution1 )

9. Why did German propaganda and Speeches of top NSDAP officials specifically call out the International Money Power, while Allied Propaganda resorted to inventing horror stories of German cruelty?

10. If Hitler was "playing a role" for the Global Elite/International Bankers, why was it him who extended olive branches on the limitation of arms from 1933-1939 with Britain and France, and then only re-armed after these proposals fell on deaf ears? ( see Friedrich Stieve's "What the World Rejected" )

11. Why in 1940, prior to the invasion of France before any of the main fighting in WW2 had begun, did Britain and France reject Hitler's proposals for peace, with the removal of German troops from all non-German areas?

12. Why in 1940, following the defeat of France, and Germany holding all the cards, did Britain reject Hitler's proposal for peace with the same demands ( removal of all German troops from non- German areas and an end to hostilities )?

13. If we are to believe the narrative of Hitler playing the role of "Warmongering madman" in the Illuminati's World Stage, wouldn't it have been Britain and France offering these peace proposals with Germany rejecting them instead?

14. Why was it necessary to invent lies like General Plan Ost, "Master Race" (deliberate mis-translation of Herrenvolk), and the Exterminationist Narrative of the Holocaust in order to attempt to permanently stifle any objective understanding of the Third Reich and it's actual policies?

And that bankers are happy to push Die Leute into socialism?

The Bankers are happy to do whatever distracts from how Banks actually operate and the illegitimacy of their claims.

 

[boris]

"Master Race" (deliberate mis-translation of Herrenvolk)

I can't speak on the rest, but Volk and Herr have many meanings. Ein Volk can mean anything from a nation to "a people". Connections between the terms "a people" and race have been done long before WWII. Herr can mean anything from god to man to master. I think master race is an appropriate translation and I don't see much difference in meaning to "master people".

There wasn't only the term Herrenvolk around, but also Herrenrasse and Herrenmensch. All come to a similar meaning in the end.

9. Why did German propaganda and Speeches of top NSDAP officials specifically call out the International Money Power, while Allied Propaganda resorted to inventing horror stories of German cruelty?

It reminds me of the fake Q movement [take some things that are coming to light, add some lies to muddy the waters]. Those truths were probably spreading back then and it could be a good way to round everyone up and ride them into the dirt.

 

[Drareg]

Ray is a paradoxical character.
He is a rebel at heart, but very feminine in nature: against conflict, very non-assertive and with an egalitarian worldview.
He, still to his old age, holds the naive conviction that if people just had the right resources and stimuli during their development, the world would be full of intelligent and compassionate Raymond's just like himself who would work together for a paradise on earth.
Yet life is comprised of eternal conflict and struggle for domination. There is also a degree of differentiation within the human species which is remarkable when compared to all other animals. Most people are very agreeable and not able or not willing to think for themselves. They are guided by a small group in power who instill their worldview and will via various media. This has been the case for all known human history. The kind of media used has developed and enabled larger and larger groups of people to be organized in an ever more precise manner, starting from small tribes of a dozen people to huge nations and empires. The characteristics of a given society is thereby mainly shaped by the worldview of the group of people in power.

It depends on how to you define conflict, what’s its process?You need to define assertive also, both definitions relative to context. Femininity isn’t immune from conflict and assertiveness, just ask women about their interactions with other women, the lioness does most of the hunting and killing in the pride.

Overall your ascribing words to processes to imply they are closed off and hard facts is atomism, Peat doesn’t view the world like this because it’s clear it isn’t working this way, it’s changing, because the processes of change relevant to each organism has its own tempo "things" can be perceived by preceptors with faster timelines as static and unchanging, it’s likely a human would die in ancient times before a mountain would change, they may have perceived and believed these things don’t change. We know different now with regard to mountains because of experience with earthquakes etc, however we still fall for the same perceptual fallacy with more nuanced aspects of reality in contemporary times.

Going by the rest of your comments here I take it your a nietzsche will to power believer? With this in mind it’s interesting you use the word’s "life" and "eternal" to imply an unchanging reality.

The hierarchical process could re-construed as methaphorical/analogous processes misperceived by human minds because said minds become more rigid/crystallized over time, essentially freezing, perceptions follow according to structure.
It’s no surprise then to see it’s mainly folks after the age of 45 at the top as they are slowly freezing and crystallizing, hormones experience a profound drop around this age.

The struggle isn’t for domination, you struggle because of inadequate biological energy, domination is used to acquire energetic resources by removing those who may take them, it implies that those processes in conflict to destroy each other may not have a desire to do so if adequate "resources" are available for everyone, the "principle of least action" suggests that organism’s shouldn’t dominate if enough resources are available because it’s a path of greater resistance and energy expenditure to dominate.

When those in power create meanings via information behind certain resources like a pair of shoes, it’s implied you can acquire more biological energetic resources via social acumen by having such shoes, this creates a toxic feedback loop, socializing is another way of "ensuring" access to potential energetic resources and with less energy needed to do so with more people, the principle of least action could be applied here also.

 

[Recoen]

Ray is a paradoxical character.
He is a rebel at heart, but very feminine in nature: against conflict, very non-assertive and with an egalitarian worldview.
He, still to his old age, holds the naive conviction that if people just had the right resources and stimuli during their development, the world would be full of intelligent and compassionate Raymond's just like himself who would work together for a paradise on earth.
Yet life is comprised of eternal conflict and struggle for domination. There is also a degree of differentiation within the human species which is remarkable when compared to all other animals. Most people are very agreeable and not able or not willing to think for themselves. They are guided by a small group in power who instill their worldview and will via various media. This has been the case for all known human history. The kind of media used has developed and enabled larger and larger groups of people to be organized in an ever more precise manner, starting from small tribes of a dozen people to huge nations and empires. The characteristics of a given society is thereby mainly shaped by the worldview of the group of people in power.

I wonder if Ray Peat’s political views would be different if he had a wife and children?

 

[michael94]

I can't speak on the rest, but Volk and Herr have many meanings. Ein Volk can mean anything from a nation to "a people". Connections between the terms "a people" and race have been done long before WWII. Herr can mean anything from god to man to master. I think master race is an appropriate translation and I don't see much difference in meaning to "master people".

There wasn't only the term Herrenvolk around, but also Herrenrasse and Herrenmensch. All come to a similar meaning in the end.

A better translation would be Honorable/Gentlemanly Folk.

Translating Herr from the Herren component of Herrenvolk to Master ( someone who owns slaves ) is just wrong. Especially if you observe how it was used.

 

[michael94]

It reminds me of the fake Q movement [take some things that are coming to light, add some lies to muddy the waters]. Those truths were probably spreading back then and it could be a good way to round everyone up and ride them into the dirt.

Does not follow from the rest of the points I mentioned. "ride them into the dirt" They were actually uprooting the problems, long before the Second World War.

 

[boris]

Does not follow from the rest of the points I mentioned. "ride them into the dirt" They were actually uprooting the problems.

There is never a single layer to these schemes. Never. They always serve dozens if not hundreds of purposes. The reference I made is just my personal hunch, no proof.

A better translation would be Honorable/Gentlemanly Folk.

Translating Herr from the Herren component of Herrenvolk to Master ( someone who owns slaves ) is just wrong.

Well Herr und Sklave, means master and slave. Saying it's just wrong... can't accept that sorry . It's a viable 100% correct translation of the word.

Especially if you observe how it was used.

Do you have examples?