Contemplating Peat As A Possible Right Winger

[Kyle M]

Your identity politics are so sad. Tom Woods is one of the most brilliant and intellectually honest scholars I've seen on history and economics ever. If you want to take his words through your very distorted filter of the world, then maybe you will find something wrong with it. Unbelievable the mental gymnastics liberals do, you should be at the Olympics.

Have you ever read a word by Mises, Rothbard etc.? It's so clear you haven't, and won't/can't, without maybe making sure to read a dozen liberal articles telling you it's ok the bad man is lying to protect your world view from challenge.

 

[Such_Saturation]

When you're one of the few people on Earth who seek knowledge without strings attached and you have found that definitions are the real problem with the world, then someone sets up an internet forum and starts constantly trying to classify you

 

[whodathunkit]

Well it's to bad. Because he said his political ideas influenced his nutritional ideas.

What, so you're saying it's too bad that I was able to overcome my knee-jerk prejudices to see wisdom in the non-political thinking of someone I didn't entirely agree with politically? You're saying it's too bad I'm not like narouz who is ready to toss a smart thinker overboard, so to speak, just because everything they think doesn't align with everything I think? You're saying it's too bad that I'm not that narrow? Is *that* what you're saying...?

Anyway, with that little point that kind of brings my last point back around to a rebuttal of the original topic of this thread, I'm gone. Unwatching. I knew better than to contribute or even read a thread like this, but since I'm not working right now I have a lot of free time on my hands. Now it's time to put that time to better use.

Peace out, y'all. We shall see what we shall see in November, I guess. :)

 

[narouz]

When you're one of the few people on Earth who seek knowledge without strings attached and you have found that definitions are the real problem with the world, then someone sets up an internet forum and starts constantly trying to classify youView attachment 3359

That's really touching thing for you to say, Such.
But really, I am only human.
Getting a bit verklempt here...

 

[narouz]

Possible Tweak to my Theory About Andrew's Charlton Heston Moments on the Last Herb Doctors:

Somehow I missed a Peat interview!--the one called "Water Quality"
I listened this morning having just discovered it in an odd nook in my audio player.
That's from way back in January,
and--especially in the latter portion of the show--it is pretty packed with stuff pertinent to this thread!

So...my bad.
That is a big interview in the scheme of this thread.
There are a lot of very interesting facets, but in this post I just want to mention
a little wrinkle that came to mind from listening,
related to how I've tried to puzzle together what Andrew was getting at in the last Herb Doctors, from July.

So, in wondering why Andrew seemed kinduv worked up...
Why he was jumping rather hotly from one big politically-tinged topic to another,
giving little context or definition of terms or explanation of what he was getting at...
He seemed quite damn worried about "freedom of speech."
He said in was in imminent peril here in the U.S.
He said we citizens must prepare ourselves for the possible need, and soon, for us to shed blood/die
in order to protect our freedom of speech...

For a day or two I kept trying to figure out where the heck he was going with that.
Then I made a connection:
he had made a comment about his former country (England) going to hell over the last decade or two.
He said something like, "When I came to America, at least I had the respect to drive on the right-hand side of the road. I didn't try to impose my rules on America. I adapted myself to my new country."
At some point something clicked and I thought,
"Oh, Andrew must be referring to Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark, and England--and the threats to
freedom of the press in those countries as a result of the Islamist murders/terrorism there."
I also recognized that the San Bernardino massacre was in the same state Andrew lives in (I think).

So...that is the theory that made the best sense to me in trying to understand what Andrew
was driving at in that interview.
I think it still is my preferred explanation.

But, as I listened this morning to the "Water Quality" show from January,
it really struck me--especially after having so much in mind the July show and all this thread etc--
how Andrew was displaying some of that same...I don't know...nervosity, maybe.
Especially when the area of "freedom of speech" came up.

Several times he made little disclamatory remarks,
saying something like: "I don't want to get too political about this...,"
or
"I don't want to get too political about this, but this is an alternative radio show after all..."

And what he would then proceed to discuss was, I guess you'd call it, was "the environment"--
chiefly climate change, global warming, etc.

Now...that got into some pretty shocking stuff.
Some of you may've wondered why I have been just recently noticing these issues/surprises--
the right-wing (yes it's an approximate label--deal with it! :>) ).
Like I say: I had missed this show!

I don't want to go into the content, here, of that right-winger spin by Andrew--and I guess Peat too--
on climate change.
In this post I just wanted to adjust/add to my theory of what Andrew was getting at.

It occurred to me while listening this morning
that maybe the whole Charlie Hebdo/San Bernardino/Islamist angle
might not be the best or at least only explanatory theory.
Maybe, I wondered: Is Andrew maybe getting nervous about if he and his (and Sarah's) show
is "on the hotseat" with KMUD...?
That is, maybe he's thinking that, if he starts bringing out these right-wing (get over it! :>)) views
there on KMUD...
maybe they will fire him...?
Censor (or perhaps better: "censure") him?
Cut the show from the program?
Take away his "freedom of the press"...?

So maybe that's why Andrew gave the momentous, dire, dark preamble
about freedom of the press in the last show,
but then never explained what he was getting at...?
Maybe it is pretty worrisome thing for him.
And it might explain, in the last show, why he seemed to beat around the bush,
jump from one vaguely treated subject to another--
maybe he was finding it hard to talk about views he has which might get him canned...?
(I confess I don't know much of anything about the politics of that station, but when I think of California I tend to think of hippies--the nice liberal kind; then again, I think they're in northern California, which is not too far from those Oregon and Nevada badlands where Cliven Bundy and his not-nice hippie clan hang out.)
Well, in the January show he didn't do that beating about...he pretty squarely came out
with all the stuff about Sir Monckton The TruthSayer and The Beauty of Coal Energy.
And much more....

I hope to talk about that belatedly surprising content in another post.
I just wanted to make this post adjusting my O.P.,
in terms of possible explanations for what Andrew was getting at.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Look at the hate speech laws in Britain, I would think that's what AM is talking about... he fears those laws coming to the US, as similar laws are in nearly every Western country now.

 

[narouz]

Your identity politics are so sad... If you want to take his words through your very distorted filter of the world, then maybe you will find something wrong with it. Unbelievable the mental gymnastics liberals do, you should be at the Olympics.

It should be noted
that you are categorizing/labeling ("identity politics," "liberals) me quite blithely yourself! :>)
Which is the "distorted filter" --yours or mine?

I think we all use labels as a short-hand, an approximation, in our effort to communicate.
Most of us realize while doing so that life is more complicated than those labels.

i·den·ti·ty pol·i·tics
noun
1. a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

Doesn't that sound like pretty much what Donald Trump and his followers are up to?
White, Christian, not highly educated, mostly blue collar...?
Anxious, resentful, and angry
about the prospect of soon no longer being the majority
and about Mexicans and Muslims and a black "Muslim" President and Black Lives Matter etc...?
And about not being able to make a good living in a changing society...?

So...
don't be too sad about my putative identity politics.

 

[narouz]

Look at the hate speech laws in Britain, I would think that's what AM is talking about... he fears those laws coming to the US, as similar laws are in nearly every Western country now.

Yes, probably still my leading angle.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

IDK, personally, I think he rambled on about free speech because he is aware (through relatives maybe) about the extreme laws now in Britain, maybe he even knows people who are in jail for hatespeech, and is scared of that, and wants to express to the listeners how important the first amendment is, whom he may think take it for granted.
I doubt he worries about KMUD booting him for talkiing about free speech, that area of California is pretty anitgov't/liberatrian/jeffersonian, if he were booted KMUD would likely get huge backlash from the locals.

 

[narouz]

Your identity politics are so sad. Tom Woods is one of the most brilliant and intellectually honest scholars I've seen on history and economics ever. If you want to take his words through your very distorted filter of the world, then maybe you will find something wrong with it. Unbelievable the mental gymnastics liberals do, you should be at the Olympics.

Have you ever read a word by Mises, Rothbard etc.? It's so clear you haven't, and won't/can't, without maybe making sure to read a dozen liberal articles telling you it's ok the bad man is lying to protect your world view from challenge.

Kyle M-
I'm not picking on you Kyle--you're okay in my book.
But I do think we will have different ideas about Tom Woods.
And about Ludwig von Mises and Rothbard and The Austrian School of Economics
and on Donald Trump.

Without fail, as far as I can recall,
whenever a libertarian (I hope you will forgive my use of that handle/shorthand)
points me toward Mises and The Austrian School
and starts in with all the fancy footwork about The Federal Reserve and the gold standard
and The Bilderberg Group etc etc etc...
I kinda know where it will lead.
You will say I am just a warped liberal with a distorted filter who really can't know anything, I guess.
But honestly: I have a lot of experience--much of it on this forum--reading the libertarian stuff.

Since we are talking about Trump,
and because of the oft-made criticisms of his campaign,
from all sides of the political debate--
that Trump, Trump's campaign, and/or Trump's followers engage in bigoted or race-tinged
(or just flat-out racist) language or inuendo or messaging--
I do think I should touch on racial politics and racism in this context--of Dr. Tom Woods.

Let me say that I have absolutely no sense or inkling or anything
that you have any racist bone in your body.
In fact, just the opposite: you seem like a good guy.
This is just about Tom Woods.
And I bring his work up because
you recommend so strongly in this thread about The Herb Doctors and Peat,
and because what I notice after looking into Woods a bit is
that what is said about his political thought
is part of a predictable pattern or connection I've experienced
while looking into some of the libertarian posts here on the forum.

I will keep an open mind about Tom Woods.
But some respectable journalists and political writers do worry about racist overtones
in his writings.
Here are a couple of quotes from Max Boot's review of Tom Woods' book,
Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
From my experience with those varied and complex human beings I will roughly categorize here
as "libertarians,"
I realize that there is a pretty fair chance that you may wish to say nasty things
about Max Boot.
I've listened to him over the years.
He seems like a smart guy, well-educated, reasonable, with a long track record of writing about politics, especially foreign policy.
I disagree with many of his ideas, but he seems a solid and thoughtful and honest writer.
This article appeared in The Weekly Standard--not my stripe of politics, but a respectable publication.
I realize you may disagree about those descriptions--that's okay.
So here are a couple of excerpts from Boot's article.

Incorrect History
Reading Thomas Woods's "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History."
11:00 PM, FEB 14, 2005 | By MAX BOOT

"...Woods is only getting warmed up. Next he comes to the origins of the "Civil War" which, it seems, was pretty much the fault of Northern abolitionists whose writings "seethed with loathing for the entire South" and "only served to discredit anti-slavery activity in the South." You might be wondering about those quotation marks around Civil War. Woods doesn't think that's a proper description of the conflict. He likes "War Between the States," the preferred term of Southern sympathizers. "Other, more ideologically charged (but nevertheless much more accurate) names for the conflict," he adds, helpfully, "include the War for Southern Independence and even the War of Northern Aggression." According to Woods, the war wasn't really about slavery (no mention of the Emancipation Proclamation). It was really about the desire of Northern plutocrats to protect themselves from the threat of commerce being diverted to "the South's low-tariff or free trade regime." He approvingly quotes H.L. Mencken's comment that Union soldiers "actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." Well, not quite all their people. But the plight of African-Americans does not concern Woods any more than it did Mencken. Later on, he expresses disgust with federal desegregation policy in the 1950s and 1960s."

...another...

"HAVING FINISHED this absurd manifesto, I was curious to learn more about its author. All the book tells you is that he has a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Columbia. A quick Internet search reveals that he is an assistant professor of history at Suffolk County Community College on Long Island, and a founding member of the League of the South. According to its website, the League "advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic." As an interim step before this glorious goal is achieved, the League urges its members to "fly Confederate flags at your residence or business every day" and to "become as self-sufficient as possible"--"if possible, raise chickens and keep a cow to provide eggs and dairy products for your family and friends." The League also counsels "white Southerners" that they should not "give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants."

So, I will keep an open mind about Dr. Tom Woods.
But with Boot's article as one preface,
I have to say that what Boot says does not surprise me.
With a lot of "libertarians," there is a disturbing pattern of connection to stuff
that has an off odor--in the context of race.
Also, there is a lot of government hatin' going on with Dr. Woods'--
talk of states seceding, the government comin' ta get ya, conspiracy ideas--
the whole grab-bag of "libertarian" stuff I've become familiar with.

I tend to think of that stuff as...nutty.
I'm sure you are not nutty, Kyle.
You don't seem to be at all.
I'm just saying that a lot of the stuff I've read flying under the flag of some form of "libertarianism"
is nutty.
And a lot of it has a racist tinge, sad to say.

I detect some of those same kind of off-odors in Donald Trump's campaign.
There are racist tinges.
And his ideas are often kinda nutty.
Nutty in a dangerous way, too.

 

[narouz]

I doubt he worries about KMUD booting him for talkiing about free speech, that area of California is pretty anitgov't/liberatrian/jeffersonian, if he were booted KMUD would likely get huge backlash from the locals.

Entirely possible.
As I say, I know very little about that station or area.
Could be that he is preaching to the choir there locally.
On the other hand,
they do seem to make often intense efforts
to attract a broader national audience--
asking for calls related or unrelated,
going way out of their way to try to weave those disparate parts together...
And consider: was it the first caller, on the July show--
the one so familiar us listeners--
who kinda jumped all over Andrew,
because he was seeming to be pushing Trump?
I don't know where she's from.
But I bet a lot of listeners are like me--ex-hippie gd liberals,
diggin' the vibes of that New Age-y Celtic intro music.

With such talk of the wonders of coal energy,
and the stupidy of those who believe we should control global warming...
...I don't know if those listeners will go gentle into that good night.

 

[jaguar43]

Kyle M-
I'm not picking on you Kyle--you're okay in my book.
But I do think we will have different ideas about Tom Woods.
And about Ludwig von Mises and Rothbard and The Austrian School of Economics
and on Donald Trump.

Without fail, as far as I can recall,
whenever a libertarian (I hope you will forgive my use of that handle/shorthand)
points me toward Mises and The Austrian School
and starts in with all the fancy footwork about The Federal Reserve and the gold standard
and The Bilderberg Group etc etc etc...
I kinda know where it will lead.
You will say I am just a warped liberal with a distorted filter who really can't know anything, I guess.
But honestly: I have a lot of experience--much of it on this forum--reading the libertarian stuff.

Since we are talking about Trump,
and because of the oft-made criticisms of his campaign,
from all sides of the political debate--
that Trump, Trump's campaign, and/or Trump's followers engage in bigoted or race-tinged
(or just flat-out racist) language or inuendo or messaging--
I do think I should touch on racial politics and racism in this context--of Dr. Tom Woods.

Let me say that I have absolutely no sense or inkling or anything
that you have any racist bone in your body.
In fact, just the opposite: you seem like a good guy.
This is just about Tom Woods.
And I bring his work up because
you recommend so strongly in this thread about The Herb Doctors and Peat,
and because what I notice after looking into Woods a bit is
that what is said about his political thought
is part of a predictable pattern or connection I've experienced
while looking into some of the libertarian posts here on the forum.

I will keep an open mind about Tom Woods.
But some respectable journalists and political writers do worry about racist overtones
in his writings.
Here are a couple of quotes from Max Boot's review of Tom Woods' book,
Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
From my experience with those varied and complex human beings I will roughly categorize here
as "libertarians,"
I realize that there is a pretty fair chance that you may wish to say nasty things
about Max Boot.
I've listened to him over the years.
He seems like a smart guy, well-educated, reasonable, with a long track record of writing about politics, especially foreign policy.
I disagree with many of his ideas, but he seems a solid and thoughtful and honest writer.
This article appeared in The Weekly Standard--not my stripe of politics, but a respectable publication.
I realize you may disagree about those descriptions--that's okay.
So here are a couple of excerpts from Boot's article.

Incorrect History
Reading Thomas Woods's "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History."
11:00 PM, FEB 14, 2005 | By MAX BOOT

"...Woods is only getting warmed up. Next he comes to the origins of the "Civil War" which, it seems, was pretty much the fault of Northern abolitionists whose writings "seethed with loathing for the entire South" and "only served to discredit anti-slavery activity in the South." You might be wondering about those quotation marks around Civil War. Woods doesn't think that's a proper description of the conflict. He likes "War Between the States," the preferred term of Southern sympathizers. "Other, more ideologically charged (but nevertheless much more accurate) names for the conflict," he adds, helpfully, "include the War for Southern Independence and even the War of Northern Aggression." According to Woods, the war wasn't really about slavery (no mention of the Emancipation Proclamation). It was really about the desire of Northern plutocrats to protect themselves from the threat of commerce being diverted to "the South's low-tariff or free trade regime." He approvingly quotes H.L. Mencken's comment that Union soldiers "actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." Well, not quite all their people. But the plight of African-Americans does not concern Woods any more than it did Mencken. Later on, he expresses disgust with federal desegregation policy in the 1950s and 1960s."

...another...

"HAVING FINISHED this absurd manifesto, I was curious to learn more about its author. All the book tells you is that he has a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Columbia. A quick Internet search reveals that he is an assistant professor of history at Suffolk County Community College on Long Island, and a founding member of the League of the South. According to its website, the League "advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic." As an interim step before this glorious goal is achieved, the League urges its members to "fly Confederate flags at your residence or business every day" and to "become as self-sufficient as possible"--"if possible, raise chickens and keep a cow to provide eggs and dairy products for your family and friends." The League also counsels "white Southerners" that they should not "give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants."

So, I will keep an open mind about Dr. Tom Woods.
But with Boot's article as one preface,
I have to say that what Boot says does not surprise me.
With a lot of "libertarians," there is a disturbing pattern of connection to stuff
that has an off odor--in the context of race.
Also, there is a lot of government hatin' going on with Dr. Woods'--
talk of states seceding, the government comin' ta get ya, conspiracy ideas--
the whole grab-bag of "libertarian" stuff I've become familiar with.

I tend to think of that stuff as...nutty.
I'm sure you are not nutty, Kyle.
You don't seem to be at all.
I'm just saying that a lot of the stuff I've read flying under the flag of some form of "libertarianism"
is nutty.
And a lot of it has a racist tinge, sad to say.

I detect some of those same kind of off-odors in Donald Trump's campaign.
There are racist tinges.
And his ideas are often kinda nutty.
Nutty in a dangerous way, too.

Libertarianism usually doesn't subscribe to the racist anti-immigration rhetoric. Gary Johnson supports opening the borders. I find it funny how there are a lot of differences regarding policy and economics from the republican party(trump) to the libertarian party and yet their supporters defend them interchangeably.


On one hand Kyle M, has spoken in favor of Trump and his immigration policy. On the other hand, he cites libertarians and anarchist-capitalist who would absolutely disagree with Trump on his trade and immigration policy. I have notice others who have done the same. They say, well I am not here to discuss the details. Or say something to change the topic.

However, it seems like the opposite is true for the left. People who probably traditional supported Sanders are never going to support Clinton. And those more to the left have spoken out against HR.

The conclusion. Libertarians, Republicans, nationalists and the right-sector all seem the same more or less in my opinion. They don't usually argue against one another or defend their parties or ideas from the more centered republican party. But on the contrary, they argue against the "leftist', "liberals" and the "cultural marxist" as Kyle M has described.

It also could mean that these things are nothing more than political fads that will come and go. Here is a quote by Ray Peat that I think represents the idea better.

A good salesman knows how to get onto waves of rising enthusiasm. Intuitively, politicians, cult leaders, and scientists usethe same process. The quick rewards of joining a rising tide reinforce the conformist's efforts, and thought needn't go much beyond "'this must be true, because it works for me. -Ray Peat biological balance and addictions.

It's a "wave of rising enthusiasm" for the right wing in the U.S. Policy doesn't matter, economics doesn't matter, reality doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is destroying the "leftist" and the infiltration of the "cultural marxist" and defending the "rights" that are being stolen by big brother. I would go as far to say that they don't really care about the differences between libertarianism or nationalist or the republican party. They just love that rising enthusiasm.

 

[narouz]

Libertarianism usually doesn't subscribe to the racist anti-immigration rhetoric.

There are different kinds, strains of Libertarianism.
I agree with you that I don't detect the racist overtones with Johnson and Weld.

The strain I have in mind
is the one I frequently encounter here on the forum.
Not always, but frequently.
And the racist overtones/connections are mostly not overt.
You have to poke around a bit.

The strain I have in mind also comes freighted with a TON of conspiracy notions.
About The Bilderberg Group and the Rothschilds and a bunch of other stuff
which all share this mythology of Shadowy Jews Behind The Scenes Taking Over The World.

And I guess the strain I'm talking about are all about guns
which you need a lot of to protect yourself from Big Government--
so you get the stuff like Cliven Bundy as a big hero.

It's late and I am writing quickly,
but I just wanted note that, yes:
I do believe you that there are Libertarians who are not racist or nutty.
But there seem to be a lot of them who are at least a bit racist (or at least all-about racial identity)
or nutty.
I think this forum must act as a magnet to some of those nuttier ones.
Either that, and/or the libertarians who post here are in denial
about the nutty/racist strains who often swim in streams not too far from their own.
Well...fly under that same broad banner of "Libertarianism."

Lots of Libertarians are for Trump.
Trump definitely broadcasts racist, bigoted overtones.
You'd have to really scratch around to find many reputable newpapers
which do Not call out that side of Trump's campaign.
And Trump sortuv specializes in conspiracy theory--
he's one of the original Birthers.
So...it is natural for Libertarians of a certain stripe to be attracted to Trump.

Did you notice the example of Dr. Tom Woods in my posts above.
On the surface he looks okay.
Poke around and you find some stuff that is, at best, questionable.
It's gotten to be a pattern for me.

Not all libertarians have this taint.
Some do though.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Gary Johnson is not representative of most libertarians, half of the people attending the libertarian party convention this year walked out when Gary Johnson was named the nominee, he is a crony in their eyes, pretty sure there is a video of that, that party is in shambles. But yeah, if libertarians were consistent with their small gov't line of thinking, they should all support liberal immigration, yet many don't.

As an aside, it is interesting to me for Gary Johnson to get reasonable amounts of coverage on CNN this election, when in past cycles, candidates from similar parties in the past were never given serious coverage. Maybe cronies are hedging their bets on Johnson given Clinton's terrible likeability, as well as videos of her having effing seizures on camera.

There was a period of time, something like 1925-1950, something like that, where the US let in almost zero immigrants, was that racist too? What is racist about not wanting Illegal immigration? Let alone not wanting any immigration? What is the first step in establishing a country, or making a law for that matter? You start by framing it with borders, you name where it ends and where it begins. It's the most fundamental thing to the entity's existence. How can one actually define a country without a border?

To me it's incredible that people are now OPENLY calling for open borders, it's just insane to me.

 

[tara]

You know @narouz, with all those references to Republican leaders opposing Trump, another maybe more favourable possibility occurs to me. What if a sizable portion of the Republicans find Trump so scary that they'd vote for Clinton instead? Then there'd be less need for the Democrats for whom she represents too right wing a position to support her, and they could consider voting for someone with policies closer to the ones they want. I bet there are a whole lot of people who are thinking they have to vote for Clinton to avoid Trump, but who would rather vote for Stein, for instance.

A good salesman knows how to get onto waves of rising enthusiasm.

Yeah. I think this is Trump's particular skill - a very clever marketer who knows how to identify and ride various popular sentiments, particularly hurt and angry ones created by an unjust system.

 

[jaguar43]

Gary Johnson is not representative of most libertarians, half of the people attending the libertarian party convention this year walked out when Gary Johnson was named the nominee, he is a crony in their eyes, pretty sure there is a video of that, that party is in shambles. But yeah, if libertarians were consistent with their small gov't line of thinking, they should all support liberal immigration, yet many don't.

As an aside, it is interesting to me for Gary Johnson to get reasonable amounts of coverage on CNN this election, when in past cycles, candidates from similar parties in the past were never given serious coverage. Maybe cronies are hedging their bets on Johnson given Clinton's terrible likeability, as well as videos of her having effing seizures on camera.

There was a period of time, something like 1925-1950, something like that, where the US let in almost zero immigrants, was that racist too? What is racist about not wanting Illegal immigration? Let alone not wanting any immigration? What is the first step in establishing a country, or making a law for that matter? You start by framing it with borders, you name where it ends and where it begins. It's the most fundamental thing to the entity's existence. How can one actually define a country without a border?

To me it's incredible that people are now OPENLY calling for open borders, it's just insane to me.

You can't be a libertarian if you don't want immigration. Period, they have been preaching that since Hayek and others. My point is that pretty much everyone on the right is interchangeable between Libertarianism, republican party, nationalist party, constitutional party. Since the 80's when the Koch brothers ran for the presidency they were already talking about open borders as part of the libertarian platform.

On the one hand, you yourself defend trump and his economic and immigration policy speaking about how free trade is hurting americans, On the other hand you promote libertarians ideas which are for free trade in it's entirely and open policy towards immigration.

 

[tara]

On the one hand, you yourself defend trump and his economic and immigration policy speaking about how free trade is hurting americans, On the other hand you promote libertarians ideas which are for free trade in it's entirely and open policy towards immigration.

Yes.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Although I very much believe in free markets, I'm not a libertarian. I do not think modern American society could function with little to no laws, to me that is incredibly naive. The way we have structured our society requires gov't at many levels. I think a lot of it has to do with urbanization, the more urbanized a society is, the more gov't is needed. We live in cities now, we need water, electricity, gas, telecom, roads, parks... and we need laws and taxes to facilitate those. The reason farmers are conservative is that they dont need any damn laws and taxes! They have everything they need to survive.
If America had gone the Jeffersonian, agrarian, small gov't route, the history books would have been completely different, probably a lot less bloody too I would imagine, who knows, it's an interesting thought experiment. But we went the Hamilton, federalist, central banking, urban route. Maybe that route is inevitable, as it seems like it helps facilitate rapid technological development.

BTW just because they call it a free trade agreement, doesn't mean its free trade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is NOTHING free about NAFTA or the TPP, it is corporations lobbying for special treatment. And yeah, what the hell, lets actually enforce our border... lets actually put our own people first, gee what biggotry!

 

[patchpreset]

Narouz. I was also taken aback by some of what Andrew said on that show. I feel you shouldn't apply any of Andrew’s words to Ray. Ray has never spoken favorably of any industrialist that I know of. I doubt his opinion of Trump strays far from yours.

I know you probably wanted Ray to step in and say something, use his knowledge to correct whats going on around him, but remember that Ray will almost never negate anyone. Especially as a guest on a show, he will almost never say no unless he was asked a question that calls for that answer and always then follow with an explanation. I think this comes from a sort of unconditional positive regard. So his silence is not confirmation. And so just because he took a chance to say Hillary is also a name caller, doesn’t make him a supporter of any republican ideal.

In a show with Danny recently he spoke positively about Bernie Sanders supporters and how they're ideal probably will alight more closely with the green party and Jill Stein than Hillary. In the past he’s mentioned the occupy protests in a positive light, suggesting they could have turned into a political party if they’d been allowed. He’s spoken very positively about the anarchist town in Spain. He obviously dislikes elite, and authoritarian anything. If you had to name a political party for him I would guess it would be somewhere around a far left anarchist. The same party you’d find Ivan Illich in.

The climate talk is always centered around CO2 regulations. That’s Ray’s complaint about it. Republicans don’t want the regulation because it interferes with maximizing profit. Meanwhile cutting CO2 doesn't address any of the MANY endocrine disrupting carcinogenic chemicals and hydrocarbons pollutants that have direct negative effects on the biosphere. So the focus on CO2 almost feels like a misdirection.

As for the California comment, they list all hormones as potential carcinogens, such as pregnenolone. So I'm sure you can see why Ray might find that irritating.

And his dislike of Chomsky has specifically to do with Noam's early language theory work on Universal Grammar. In the scientific/academic world, thats how he made his name. The work is based on the idea of genetically determined principles of language. So its fairly reductionist stuff. This started in the mid to late 50s, so well before he was protesting any war.

I think you can rest your mind on wondering if Peat is right winger. But if you still need more just ask him what he thinks about Trump.

 

[tara]

BTW just because they call it a free trade agreement, doesn't mean its free trade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is NOTHING free about NAFTA or the TPP, it is corporations lobbying for special treatment.

+1

Narouz. I was also taken aback by some of what Andrew said on that show. I feel you shouldn't apply any of Andrew’s words to Ray. Ray has never spoken favorably of any industrialist that I know of. I doubt his opinion of Trump strays far from yours.

I know you probably wanted Ray to step in and say something, use his knowledge to correct whats going on around him, but remember that Ray will almost never negate anyone. Especially as a guest on a show, he will almost never say no unless he was asked a question that calls for that answer and always then follow with an explanation. I think this comes from a sort of unconditional positive regard. So his silence is not confirmation. And so just because he took a chance to say Hillary is also a name caller, doesn’t make him a supporter of any republican ideal.

+1