Contemplating Peat As A Possible Right Winger

[Kyle M]

I can't keep up with this thread anymore, but to narouz I can assume "no" is the answer to "have you read anything by Woods, Mises or Rothbard?" And, just like I said you would, you simply posted a critique of Woods, so that you don't have to bother read the source material. Max Boot, by the way, is a neo-conservative who supports every war in the Middle East.

"Max Boot is an American author, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian. He has been an advocate of American values in foreign policy. He once described his ideas as "American might to promote American ideals."

Does the name not give it away? Furthermore, the accusation of "racist" today is an admission that you have no real argument. Honestly, and I'm trying to hold back here, but if you use the word racist in a political argument you are probably both stupid and evil, trying to demagogue something you don't want to address directly. If you ever met, listened to, or read Tom Woods you would be deranged to accuse him of racism. You saying that "anti-government" arguments are nutty and racist is no different than mainstream biologists saying "anti-Na/K pump" arguments are nutty and have no place in the academy. In other words, you aren't arguing in good faith, addressing the issues, but surrounding with the shroud of "outside of polite discourse." I'm not interested in your opinions anymore, so I probably won't respond again to you.

Jag, I never said anything in support of Trump's immigration policies. I'm not sure if I said it here, but I do have a problem with state-sponsored immigration (governments bringing in people for political reasons, and using tax money to do it and to pay for their housing and living expenses). I am for free immigration, for no nations actually, I see all state power as naked violence or threats of violence. So those are 2 different things. When the government says "we are going to bring in 30,000 Syrians" that is not free immigration but political importation of people by force. Where is the force you say? It's getting paid for by force (taxes, borrowing against future taxes) and also wherever they end up, the people there have no choice in the matter. If someone is so pro-immigration, they are free to fly over to the Middle East or some place in Europe, find a poor Arab that wants to live in the US, pay for their plane ticket back, sponsor them and pay for their room and board and help them start a life here. You may notice that the politicians and liberal supporters of immigrant importation don't do those types of things, especially not with their own houses or money.

 

[kyle]

Accusations of "Racism" is a used to oppress certain classes of people.

This dynamic really started to take shape when it began being used to shut up southerners. It wasn't because the elites think racism is evil (big lol if you think the elites aren't racist) but that the cultural values of southerners stood in the way of dominance by the finance class.

Cultural and demographic displacement meant southerners would no longer be able to impact the federal state. This is because in America, power is derived from money. Meaning, to counter that power, you need a large degree of ethnic and religious coherence to combat it in order to fight for your class interests via the ballot box.

In America, cultural power = state power. Meaning, turning the south into a mixture of races and cultures would render it to divided to assert itself against more powerful classes of people with different interests who could manipulate the culture- because in American, cultural power can be leveraged by money, e.g., the academia and the mass media.

Curiously, many of the working class/middle class left democrats are realizing they shot themselves in the foot. They wanted an outsider like Bernie but didn't have the demographics. Blacks and hispanics supported Hillary.

It's the harsh truth now that leftists who looked with disdain on white southerners now realize the same dialectic is being used against white leftists today who find themselves unable to criticize non-white ethnic voting blocs. The democrat party has its own miniature racial divide. That kind of irony may be funny if you find the prospect of living in a dystopian thought control regime funny.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

@narouz what of these Peat quotes? They don't seem very right wing.

Also, as I pointed out here months ago, (that "fat shaming" Peat quote is also not very "right wing") I support neither candidate but you should watch this:

 

[narouz]

I can't keep up with this thread anymore, but to narouz I can assume "no" is the answer to "have you read anything by Woods, Mises or Rothbard?" And, just like I said you would, you simply posted a critique of Woods, so that you don't have to bother read the source material. Max Boot, by the way, is a neo-conservative who supports every war in the Middle East.

I said I may watch the video you posted.
Ideally, maybe I would watch without first learning something of the author--
there is something to be said for doing it that way.
On the other hand,
in school, it is common to first learn a bit about an author before going to the primary source:
it can often help you to better get a handle on where the author is coming from,
and to look for submerged subtext.

As I said, I have bumped into quite a few libertarians here on the forum over the years.
I get a taste of the authors they extoll--like the ones you mention.
Then after a while I come to see that often
it is not Mises or Rothbard or The Austrian School thinkers that are the driving animus
propelling these people in their libertarianism.
It is a fear of/hatred for Big Government, conspiracy theories spun out of that,
ideas about Jews Behind the Scene controlling all the money in the world,
The New World Order, The Bilderberg Group, The Rothschilds, seceding from the U.S., the forever-impending crash because of The Federal Reserve, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.....

So...I have now gotten into the habit, when pointed to a libertarian writer/thinker,
of first doing a quick check--just so I might decide I don't really need to read said writer/thinker.

This may be the case with Dr. Tom Woods.
When I see that he belonged (maybe still belongs, I guess?) to that League of the South...

(from Wiki)
The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization, headquartered in Killen, Alabama, which states that its ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic."[1] The group defines the Southern United States as the states that made up the former Confederacy.[2] It claims to be also a religious and social movement, advocating a return to a more traditionally conservative, Christian-oriented Southern culture. It advocates a "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates", using as an example, "Christ is the head of His Church; husbands are the heads of their families; parents are placed over their children; employers rank above their employees; the teacher is superior to his students, etc."[3] The organization has ties to theItalian separatist political group Lega Nord.[4]

The League of the South has been described as a white supremacist and white nationalist organization.[5][6][7][8] The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the League of the South as a Neo-Confederate hate group.[9]...

The League defines Southern culture "in opposition to the corrupt mainstream American culture."[15] It sees Southern culture as profoundly Christian and pro-life.[16] Furthermore, the League believes that Southern culture places a greater emphasis on immediate relationships than on abstract ideas (the nation, the environment, the global community, etc.) and that Southern geography "defines character and worldview."[15] The League describes Southern Culture as being inherently Anglo-Celtic in nature (originating in the British Isles), and they believe the South's core Anglo-Celtic culture should be preserved.[4]

...and that in his books he writes about The Confederacy like this...

(from the Boot review I noted upthread)
"...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..."

...well, given that introduction to Woods,
you can perhaps understand why I might not think Woods' libertarian philosophizing
is terribly urgent for me to pursue further.
Here's another review of the same Woods book, for those interested:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2005/03/history_for_dummies.html

I knew you would probably discard Max Boot,
but I posted not just for your sake but for other posters--if they were interested
Boot, as I said, is not my political cup of tea,
but over the years, decades, I've found him to be a reasonable, informed, smart commentator--
not a hack
and not someone operating only within the hermetically sealed echo chamber
of a certain ideology.

Furthermore, the accusation of "racist" today is an admission that you have no real argument. Honestly, and I'm trying to hold back here, but if you use the word racist in a political argument you are probably both stupid and evil, trying to demagogue something you don't want to address directly.

I would imagine that hundreds or even thousands
of very thoughtful, fair-minded journalists, politicians, and citizens
have used the word "racist" in regard, for example, to Donald Trump.

Are they all "both stupid and evil"...?
Do all of them have "no real argument"...?

I think I'm addressing this pretty directly.
And I think the word "demagogue" is another word applied more accurately to Donald Trump--
again, countless smart and balanced commentators from around the world have used that word to describe him.

If you ever met, listened to, or read Tom Woods you would be deranged to accuse him of racism..

I'll try to keep an open mind.
About him being racist...
I'm not sure I said that exactly.
It's possible, but it's more accurate to say that
his views about The Civil War
and his belonging to League of the South
has
an off smell.
Looking back to The Confederacy as a wonderful inspiration for our current politics...
yes, I'd have to say I think that is, at the least, a bit nutty. Probably worse.
And League of the South...
that organization definitely has a white race identity thang goin' on.

I don't think I'm "deranged" to have these suspicions about Woods, Kyle M.

 

[tara]

This dynamic really started to take shape when it began being used to shut up southerners. It wasn't because the elites think racism is evil (big lol if you think the elites aren't racist) but that the cultural values of southerners stood in the way of dominance by the finance class.

I think you point to some relevant factors.

I'm not a USer, so my perspective is no doubt incomplete, but my impression ...
Obviously, slavery in the South was extreme racism.
But whites in the North also got white privilege, and as you say, financial elites stood to gain profit by changes in the system, not by eliminating racism.

Using immigrant workers and paying them a pittance to undermine the wages and working conditions of the working class is also racism. Making sure to divide the working class into subgroups by racism, makes it harder to resist this.
Convincing white's that the problem is the immigrants, rather than the owning/ruling class who have set up the situation, makes the racism more widespread and entrenched in the society.
Then when Trump and others, for their own tactical power plays, deliberately further confuse people and stir up the the anger of the white dispossesed and misdirect it at immigrants etc, that is more racism.

Systemic and cultural racism serve the accumulation of wealth by the 1% by divide and rule. Trump, Clinton, Republican and Democratic party apparatus and policies represent different aspects of this dynamic.

There will be no ending racism without also tackling the extreme wealth disparities, and vice -versa - they are so thoroughly bound together. Any party/candidate that doesn't address both those challenges is effectively continuing to support systemic racism as well as systemic wealth disparity.

 

[kyle]

I'd say the black/white demarcation doesn't make any sense in the modern era. It comes from the reconstruction era. If you want to understand it, you'll have to study the complex American history.

A million inconsistencies arise. Identity was much more provincial (yankee, hoosier, Appalachian, etc, etc), religious and ethnic. E.g., Protestant (many different denominations), Catholic, etc. There were also Anglo-saxon, Dutch, Indian, etc.



It is even more strange to suppose that there is any historical or material relationship between reconstruction era black/white identity and modern identities.

The resurrection of black/white "words" is based on a social structure that the oligarchs have foisted on Americans.

Keep in mind context. There is no context for black and white to explain much of anything of any importance.

Even more bizarre is foisting it on Europeans who are not even close to having any connection with the American narrative. I was surprised to see in the news Black Lives Matters protests in Sweden. Big wtf there.

 

[narouz]

The resurrection of black/white "words" is based on a social structure that the oligarchs have foisted on Americans.

Keep in mind context. There is no context for black and white to explain much of anything of any importance.

Even more bizarre is foisting it on Europeans who are not even close to having any connection with the American narrative.

I'm trying to tune my ear to detect where exactly you might be coming from
with these thoughts, kyle.
But, if I'm reading you right,
you're saying that black people in the U.S. today
have no meaningful connections to their historical roots and evolution in this country--
in terms of their forbears' passage through slavery,
up 'til now...?
I mean explanatory historical connections--
helpful arguably in trying to figure out how U.S. society today works,
how they fit in as black people,
and how all that might be conditioned by their past here in the U.S,
as black people...?

 

[kyle]

I think other forces eclipse it greatly if we're talking about political power. The larger thing at play is the k-street/hollywood/wallstreet complex.

The privilege/economic materialism of race falls apart when you get a small amount of historical understanding.

It's a smokescreen for us underlings.

 

[narouz]

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 enjoyed your post very much, patch.
I hope you turn out to be right--about me needing to separate Ray's views from Andrew's.
Unfortunately, I'm still not able to shake the feeling
that Ray was in agreement with much of what Andrew was saying--
in the July interview,
but also in the January interview.
I was just listening again to that one this morning
and...got the same vibe there.
I will keep an open mind and continue to look into this.

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.

Yes, you're right about that.
He's always seemed a bit strangely stiff in such conversational moments.
Sometimes I've just put it down to him hating small talk or stupid talk--not suffering fools gladly.
Then at other times, when the most annoying callers ask dumb, irritating questions,
he will surprise me by jumping in quickly with a not-unfriendly tone.

But he does sometimes seem to pregnantly fail to chime in.
Maybe, as you say, because he doesn't want to disagree.
But, to be honest, a lot of the time in such situations
it seems pretty obvious that he does agree--he just doesn't want to speak up.
If prodded, he will often go, "yeah," or "oh, sure" or something.
Sometimes I wonder if he's just socially awkward at time.
Or perhaps just humble and therefore doesn't assume his input is always wanted.

Another possible explanation, though--
in light of my dark thoughts about the last show...
Peat probably does need or want to make some dough.
The radio shows are like advertisements for him.
I'm not saying that in a pejorative way.
That being the case, likely,
I can see why he might be careful, cagey in responding.
He might see it as, why endanger my advertising venue? The less said the better.
So he might, for that reason, avoid speaking up, especially in controversial situations.

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.

I do hate venting these negative suspicions about Peat.
It's maybe therapy for me to vent them.
I hope you're right.
On the other hand,
if Peat has that "unconditional positive regard,"
why didn't he demonstrate that
when he instead felt the need to take a swipe at Hillary?
And that just after Andrew had said he liked some things about Trump.
I have to think Peat is not so tone deaf to the flow of the interview
that it wouldn't occur to him
that such an assertion at that point and in that context
would make him appear, at least, to be on Andrew's side, for Trump--
and on the radio.

As I say--I hope you're right.

In a show with Danny recently he spoke positively about Bernie Sanders supporters...

I think I missed that show.
But that does bring up one possibility that's crossed my mind:
Maybe Peat is for Bernie
and was bitterly disappointed by his loss in the primary to Hillary...?
And that bitterness drove him
to go full retard and angrily throw his lot in with Trump...!?
(I apologize for that insensitive phraseology, but it does aptly express the shock I feel at such an explanation.)

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.

Always had it figured in that kind of ballpark too.
If true,
then what the hell is Peat doing
allowing himself to seem (to put the most benign face on it)
to back up Andrew doing a Charlton Heston imitation!?

The climate talk is always centered around CO2 regulations. That’s Ray’s complaint about it...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.

Here too, that was how I tried to digest
the couple of brief remarks I had heard Peat made about not needing to worry about warming/CO2.
(I had not heard the January show, where they talked at length about climate change,
until day before yesterday--another, belated, shocker!)

It would seem to me to be pretty easy for Peat to have fleshed out his comments,
to add qualifications and disclaimers and explanations.
It would seem to me he would have a feel for his audience,
and would anticipate--
given the state of play of the climate change debate these days--
that many listeners would need such fleshing out.
The fact that he never takes the opportunities to do so...
I don't know, man...
It doesn't look good, to me.

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.

Possibly.
On the other hand,
whenever he makes those kind of statements,
I've kinda had an inner voice that goes,
"Come onnnnnn, man!?
There's something to be said for regulations!
Think Flint, Michigan.
Think of the financial markets collapse.
Even if the regulations are screwed up, as they often are,
and even if I sympathize to an extent with the irritation...
many or probably most regulations are an effort (here in the U.S.)
to try to make things better--
and better for the little guy,
the little guy who needs to be protected by regulations.!"

That kind of remark by Peat can, now, start to reverberate in my brain
with a tone like that of an anti-regulatory right-wing zealot.

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.

It's a nice summary and I've always shared that kind of explanation.
I've read Peat's essay where he discusses it.
On the other hand (sorry to drive this phrase into the ground with repetition,
but it accurately mirrors the kind of retrospective reviewing and weighing I've been going through),
and as I think I may've said upthread,
the acidity of Peat for Chomsky always felt a little over-determined,
as they say in circles psychological.
Maybe an early marker of what I guess I might describe as
an intense aversion on the part of
a "libertarian" individualist hippie
for a
"liberal" (and "authoritarian, in Peat's view) hippie...?

A marker I've missed all along...?

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.

As much as I like and appreciate your calm, smart, and reassuring thoughts here, patch,
I find my mind simply will not rest on this stuff.
It's seems to be in-transit somewhere on a bumpy track,
passing by the stations of grief.
That's sounds so pathetically mopey...it's not that bad.:>).
But truly...I am adjusting myself to the possible new reality.
I hope you're right, and I don't need to.

 

[narouz]

I think other forces eclipse it greatly if we're talking about political power. The larger thing at play is the k-street/hollywood/wallstreet complex.

The privilege/economic materialism of race falls apart when you get a small amount of historical understanding.

It's a smokescreen for us underlings.

So...are you saying something like:
black folks need to stop focusing on their blackness,
cut it out with all the grievance,
and just join in and get along?

 

[tara]

I'd say the black/white demarcation doesn't make any sense in the modern era.

Keep in mind context. There is no context for black and white to explain much of anything of any importance.

Well, it kind of doesn't make any sense in a human sense, since skin colour differences are fairly trivial biologically (influences calcium metabolism, so it's not completely irrelevant).
But in terms of history and it's connection with current society, it probably still does have quite a lot of relevance, even if one can also see more complex identity groups at play as well. Racism against Africans is world-wide systematic and extremely severe (look at where most of the extreme hunger is in the world). The racism that continues in other parts of the world, including US, is still very involved with actual skin-colour: darker-skinned people tend to get targeted worse; lighter skinned people of colour can get closer to white-privilege. It's still heavily ingrained in white-dominant cultures. This has been a continuous theme since early slavery times. It's not as though there were a period during which the racism against Black people was not severe in between enslavement of Black people in the US in the past and the somewhat modified mechanisms of racism in the present time.

Even more bizarre is foisting it on Europeans who are not even close to having any connection with the American narrative.

Maybe not the identical to the US context, but Africans and African-Europeans have been targeted by some severe racism in Europe too. Europe has in common with the US that it also historically built a good part of it's wealth and world dominance off the backs of enslaved Africans.

I was surprised to see in the news Black Lives Matters protests in Sweden. Big wtf there.

There have been more than one explicitly racist murders of African-heritage/dark skin-colour Swedes, too, with the justice system appearing to have a bias that undervalued these lives too. Rallies opposing racist murders of Black people occurred in Sweden for decades before the BLM meme got attached to it, but the phrase fits that context too, in a fairly literal way.

The privilege/economic materialism of race falls apart when you get a small amount of historical understanding.

Economic privilege in US and the world is very much, historically and currently, entwined with anti-African racism. There's no use saying which is more oppressive - capitalism or white racism - they are so involved with each other as to be (currently) inseparable.

 

[tara]

Unfortunately, I'm still not able to shake the feeling
that Ray was in agreement with much of what Andrew was saying--

Peat could agree with specific points that ANdrew made.
In the interviews I've heard with Peat (not all that many - I read the transcripts by preference) - my impression is that Peat is often quick to say 'yeah' if he agrees with something. If he says nothing, I would not take that as agreement.

On the other hand,
if Peat has that "unconditional positive regard,"
why didn't he demonstrate that
when he instead felt the need to take a swipe at Hillary?

Why do you keep assuming that criticism of specific things Hillary has done implies support of Trump? I don't think there is any logical support for that in anything he has said. As far as I can tell, he sees them both as representatives of the ruling class.

Have you listened to that interview with Roddy about authoritarianism that jag has been discussing recently?
Did you hear the bit where he contrasted inward and outward motivations? He talked about Sanders supporters, and how outward-driven folk would be likely to respond to Sanders being defeated by compromising on what they wanted (I think he meant by going with the Democratic party and supporting Clinton), while inward-driven ones would be more likely to go for something better, for instance Jill Stein, Greens. (Going by memory here, may not have it word-perfect.)
And you heard him talking about the town in Andalusia as an example of what can be done instead of submitting to authoritarian rulers?
And his descriptions of some of the tricks of the ruling class?

Whether it was wise for him to participate in this interview that you now are so concerned about is another question - it certainly doesn't imply he shares all Andrew's political views.

I suggest taking Peat at his word, and not reading opinions into his silences that contradict what he explicitly says at other times.

 

[narouz]

Why do you keep assuming that criticism of specific things Hillary has done implies support of Trump? I don't think there is any logical support for that in anything he has said..

It is the overall impression left by the July interview, tara.
Then adding into that, retropectively, as I tried to paint in my OP with some key details from all over.
And then adding in also the January interview, which I only listened to a couple days ago.

Yes, it is a circumstantial evidence thing, no smoking gun.
When you pick out one single piece of the list of things I note as suspicious or odd,
as you do here,
well...sure, that makes my suspicions look very flimsy.
As I say, one has to consider the overall picture.

If an audience who knew nothing of Peat or Andrew
listened to the interview
and were asked to say who, in their opinion, Peat most likely is for, for President,
most would probably say Trump, I'm thinking.

It's only because we've drunk the Peat Kool-Aid that we're saying this can't be so.
Well...
the right-wingers on the forum are all saying,
"Uh, yeah, ya dummies! Duh!! Just like we knew all along!"

It's true of course: I don't know.
I think I've tried to be nuanced about this from the beginning--
"contemplate," "possibility," "seems," etc.

I've always formed the of idea of Peat and his political leanings
as being such
that, if a candidate like Donald Trump came along
then that would represent everything Peat is against.
Like, THE WORST kind of candidate Peat would ever want to be associated with.

So, to me, I'm going:
why does he agree to be on a radio show with Andrew,
where Andrew paints a vague picture, laden with fear--just like Trump does.
And--we don't Know, sure--but seems like Andrew is pointing towards Muslims--just like Trump does.
Well, and then Andrew comes out and just states that he likes some things about Trump...

...and Peat seems fine with that.
In fact, he takes a cut at Hillary--Trump's adversary.
I mean, it's not like I expect Peat to open a can 'o whoop **** on Andrew, lay him out!
Just calmly say, at least, something like: "I don't think Trump is the answer."
Just lift a finger to dispel the impression that he too approves of Trump.
But...nopesters.

But it's true, tara. I really don't know.
I hope you're right.

 

[tara]

As I say, one has to consider the overall picture.

But the overall picture of just the little I've listened to recently includes strong support for Marinaleda, and to my ears, more explicit approval of Stein than Trump (or Clinton).

I think you may be seeing this interview as though it were part of the electoral campaign - and in that context, it would be odd for a Trump opponent not to speak up and say so. But this is not an electoral campaign, it's an interview with a wider scope.

 

[kyle]

Last I heard, blacks experience the most violence from other blacks. And Africans are desperately trying to enter into Europe.

I'm convinced it is a distraction. Meanwhile, banks have got people worked to death, sick/malnourished, up to their ears in debt.

Do you think the media or anyone on k-street/wallsteret/hollywood gives a crap about their suffering?

 

[Footscray]

Left, Right, who cares? Trying to pidgin hole someone because they like the odd policy one one candidate over another? Many authoritarians are from both the left and right. This whole debate seems authoritarian.
Self responsibility, self government, self sufficiency, self education, robust independence from all form of tyranny, these are attributes of maturity. This is how Ray would want us to be and think and act like.

 

[burtlancast]

Tara,

Ever heard of man called Jesus Christ ?

You should try it.

 

[narouz]

I think you may be seeing this interview as though it were part of the electoral campaign - and in that context, it would be odd for a Trump opponent not to speak up and say so. But this is not an electoral campaign, it's an interview with a wider scope.

Could be--it's a good thought.
On the other hand,
in the July interview,
the weirdest thing about that interview
was the hyped up way Andrew was talking dire threats to our freedom of the press,
and political correctness (a Trump reference, likely)...
all that had a very political charge about it.
Seemed to me like Andrew was getting revved up because of the politics of the season.
He spoke up in favor of Trump.

I don't think it was just me projecting the political cast onto the show.

 

[tara]

Seemed to me like Andrew was getting revved up because of the politics of the season.

Quite possibly - lots of people are. Doesn't mean he speaks for Peat.

 

[tara]

Tara,

Ever heard of man called Jesus Christ ?

You should try it.

Yeah, I think I've heard of him. Middle Eastern Rabbi, killed in middle age by the Romans cos they were pissed off that he wasn't sufficiently subservient to their authority? I haven't studied the man extensively, but the impression I have is that he had some good ideas, and was pretty strong on community building. Am I thinking of the right guy?

You're suggesting I try something?