Contemplating Peat As A Possible Right Winger

[burtlancast]

You're suggesting I try something?

Yes, Tara.

I suggest you quit with your outrageous race baiting.

Slavery is as old as the world, has existed in every continent and been practiced by every culture. It's prime motive has always been economic.

That has never been in doubt.

It beggars belief to suggest, like you did, that somehow, Africans have been targeted/enslaved because white people just didn't like them.

Racism against Africans is world-wide systematic and extremely severe. 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. 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.

The word "Slavery" is derived from "Slavic" populations; Eastern Europe practiced slavery on their own population for thousands of years. Russia abolished serfdom in 1861 and gave the right to own land to their 6 millions sefs: that's a higher number than the entire American black slaves of that time ! (Russie, abolition de la servitude, 1861, Digithèque MJP)

I've yet to read Russian nobility practiced slavery because they hated their Slavic counterparts!

Anti slavery movements in America and the world were spearheaded by Christians, because of their moral doctrines ("equality of all human beings as good creatures made in God's image and likeness"-Augustine of Hippo". )

Those differ from the ones of the old testament, which went as far as establishing a different slavery code for Hebrews and non-Hebrews.

May i ask on which side do you stand, Tara ?

 

[kyle]

Do you ever wonder how political correctness works on a biological scale?

Someone says wrong words > person is crucified in the media > people start to live in fear of saying the wrong thing, living in fear.

High serotonin?

 

[narouz]

Do you ever wonder how political correctness works on a biological scale?

Someone says wrong words > person is crucified in the media > people start to live in fear of saying the wrong thing, living in fear.

High serotonin?

I may be wrong,
but I'm thinking you may be bringing up the concept of "political correctness"
in this thread
because that was one of Andrew's (of The Herb Doctors) announced topics
at the outset of the July interview with Peat...?

Here, as was the case with Andrew in the interview,
there is very little in the way of definition of terms,
or in the way of a context within which you'd like to discuss "political correctness."

It is a devilishly thorny concept to deal with--
the term can be used to mean different things:
when liberals use it the discussion is often freighted with one kind of baggage or angle;
when conservatives use it there's usually a different sort of baggage or perspective.

So, just to offer one context--reasonably, I think, given the themes of this thread--
Donald Trump is the candidate most notably associated with that term--
well, in his case it would need to be tweaked to "political incorrectness."
His fans love him for it.
Indeed, he seems to love himself for it--
as he praises himself frequently for his ability to--in his view, apparently--cut through bullsheet
by being politically incorrect,
and thereby to "Make America Great Again,"
and to get things done
like he did at Trump University.

I could--mostly before he began running as a candidate for President of the United States--
enjoy, I confess, some of his political incorrectness.
If he had remained a fabulously rich reality TV star and real estate mogul,
I probably would've continued, from time to time, to get a chuckle out of him.

On the other hand,
political incorrectness is not always an unreservedly beautiful quality
in a nominee for President of the United States.
For example, consider his remarks of a couple of days ago,
where he seemed to encourage? or joke with?
the group Second Amendment (gun rights activists)
about stopping Hillary Clinton,
before she could get into power and pick Supreme Court justices,
by...presumably, using their guns...to murder her.


So Trump was very "politically incorrect" there.
It created yet another firestorm,
and I'd have to say the reactions have been mixed,
and predictably so:
his hardcore followers loved it.
But...most of the citizens of the U.S. weren't so wowed by it.
It hasn't prevented Trump's slide in polling:
he's losing in Georgia, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah (to name a few usually reliable red states)
and in a statistical dead heat with Clinton in...South Carolina.
A pundit on a talk show last night commented: "If he can't win South Carolina, he's dead."

Anyhow...
Trump is very unafraid of being politically incorrect.
I'm not sure--back to your question--whether that possibly indicates high serotonin in Trump.
And I'm not sure what we can surmise, from this example,
about whether or not political correctness works on a biological scale.

And again, just to possibly nudge us back toward the themes of this thread,
it seems likely to me that Andrew was, in that July show --
with all of his vague talk about "political correctness" and dark dangers--
hinting about Trump .
Trump seems to me to be the subtext (or, at the least, a big subtext) in the show.
It seems to me
that Andrew wanted to talk about Trump
without talking, explicitly, about Trump.
"Political correctness" and "freedom of the press" were kinda whistle-words,
pointing toward Trump, without Andrew naming him.

He kinda got flushed out though by--bless her heart--our familiar caller.
Even a blind squirrel finds the nut sometimes :>)

 

[narouz]

I suggest you quit with your outrageous race baiting.

So...you were "outraged" by that post from tara, burt...?
And you see it as "race baiting"...?

I confess I didn't have that reaction or interpretation.

 

[narouz]

A Different Possible Angle on Andrew's Charlton Heston Moments in the July Show

In my last post replying to kyle, above...
something popped into my head...

I was saying that Trump might have been the "subtext" of the interview.
He was the unspoken subject (well, until the familiar caller confronted him).

With that in mind,
add into consideration that the first(?) stated topic of the show was
"freedom of the press."

This is the one he went on and on about, direly and darkly and urgently,
without ever making clear just what the hell he was driving at.
Previously, my best guess was that Andrew's subtext was Muslims--
that they are coming here to murder our freedom of the press
as they've tried to in Europe.
Read upthread for a more thorough explanation of this theory of mine.

But how about this:
if Trump was the subtext, looming behind the scenes in the interview,
and if Andrew's stated topics were
"freedom of the press" and "political correctness"...

...well, maybe we add that up to suspect:
Hillary is the one coming to rob us of our freedom of the press (in Andrew's mind).
Hillary the smooth, ever politically correct pol
(consider too: Peat chimed in on this exact theme about Hillary:
a name-caller hiding behind political correctness)...

So perhaps, The Big Thing that Andrew didn't want to come out and state directly was,
that Hillary is coming to rob us of our freedom of the press.
And Trump,
with his Saving Sword of Political Incorrectness,
is the Only One who can stop her
(well...Second Amendment).

What do you think?

 

[tara]

It beggars belief to suggest, like you did, that somehow, Africans have been targeted/enslaved because white people just didn't like them.

I didn't mean that white people invented slavery because they didn't like Africans. Maybe I oversimplified.

As you say, enslavement of various groups of people is a millenia-old practice that has been used in many cultures, against various groups not necessarily racially defined, and certainly not all by Europeans against Africans or other people of colour. I agree that it's usually, probably always, been rooted in fundamentally economic motives. I would distinguish literal enslavement other forms of exploitation like feudal serfdom and more recent wage-slavery.

What I was trying to draw attention to, was that the enslavement of Africans by people of European heritage has had a particularly large effect on the shape of world economics over recent times. I think the white racist attitudes have been cultivated to support that slavery and subsequent forms of severe and ongoing structural racism, still in the interests of economic exploitation. The world economic dominance of the EU and US in relatively recent times has one of it's significant roots in theft of people and resources from Africa.

Anti slavery movements in America and the world were spearheaded by Christians, because of their moral doctrines ("equality of all human beings as good creatures made in God's image and likeness"-Augustine of Hippo". )

Indeed. But it was also countries with Christian-dominant cultures and/or state churches that engaged in much of the enslavement of Africans and the colonisation of Africa. Good that some of the Christians in those countries opposed it.

Those differ from the ones of the old testament, which went as far as establishing a different slavery code for Hebrews and non-Hebrews.

Yeah, you have a point. Slavery and ethnic oppression was a around along time before Europeans made their way to Africa.
Of course, your reference to the Hebrews there is quite historical. More recently, in this last century, several countries with largely Christian identity (including my own) have had explicit laws forcing harsher conditions on some groups of people on explicitly racist grounds too.

I don't know what you mean about race-baiting.
[/QUOTE]The act of using racially derisive language, actions, or other forms of communication in order to anger or intimidate or coerce. [/QUOTE] wiktionary
I'm not aware of saying anything racially derisive - if some such has come out intentionally, I'd like to know what it is so I can withdraw it and watch out for it in future.
I was certainly not trying to anger or intimidate anybody. I was trying to describe a bit of how the history looks to me. If that has upset you - well, the history can be pretty upsetting.
I guess it might be outrageous to try to describe some of the extent of racism and it's effects in the world when it is largely unspoken.

I still don't know what you are suggesting I try doing. (You did suggest something for me to not do.) Do you mean I should try identifying myself with one side of a dichotomy you have in mind related to slavery, religion, or 'race'?

May i ask on which side do you stand, Tara ?

I'm not sure which sides you are asking me about?
Are you asking me to take sides between Judaism and Christianity? Or ancient Hebrews and modern Christians?
Or something else?

 

[burtlancast]

I still don't know what you are suggesting I try doing.

Well, i was going to propose you to go by the old christian code of ethics, and abstain to consider oneself exempt of errors, or insisting being morally superior.

But you know what ?

I realize that in today's modern society, these moral codes aren't really necessary anymore.

Instead, it's much simpler and straightforward to have people's actions governed by FEAR !

It can't be beaten.
Who needs morality when you got FEAR to go by ?


And, it goes like this: "You're black ?

White people have it for you !"

Feel wronged or shortchanged in your every day life and hesitate who to blame for it? Turn on corporate mass medias: you will immediately learn who needs to be hated or loved.

It works 24-7, 365 days a year.

You have all their experts in unanimous agreement to convince yourself with.

And if by an unfortunate fluke, your daily fix of moral certainties/moral superiority /self righteousness somehow hasn't sinked in yet, you can always go on internet forums, making sure to write the word "racism" as many times per posts as feasible, getting people inflamed/obfuscated to the max (you'll feel less lonely).
That's in case those people made the unforgiving mistake of not paying enough attention to MSN.

It's fail proof, really.

You have it under wraps.

 

[burtlancast]

So...you were "outraged" by that post from tara, burt...?
And you see it as "race baiting"...?

I confess I didn't have that reaction or interpretation.

Narouz,

I've stopped paying attention to your interpretations after recently realizing you can't make any sense of your many contradictions.

Still, your posts keep conveying remarkable linguistic artistry.

(Meant as a consolation, really)

 

[narouz]

Narouz,
I've stopped paying attention to your interpretations after recently realizing you can't make any sense of your many contradictions...

I was thinking, burt, that you might see,
with this thread,
that I may have to come around
to your view of things
with regard to Peat and conspiracy theory.

In the event,
any particular recipe you would recommend to me
for crow dishes?

 

[burtlancast]

I was thinking, burt, that you might see,
with this thread,
that I may have to come around
to your view of things
with regard to Peat and conspiracy theory.

In the event,
any particular recipe you would recommend to me
for crow dishes?

We're all still waiting for your scientific evidence of steel buildings crumbling at free fall speed.

Still can't find it ?

 

[narouz]

burt...you really gotta relinquish on that exquisitely fine point of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
I don't mean admit that I'm right.
Just stop trying to make me say uncle in every thread
It's not that I know that I'm wrong and I won't admit it.
It's simply that I am not that interested in that fine point
because I think the 9/11 thing has been pretty thoroughly examined without resort to obscure theories,
and...I have bigger fish to fry in this thread--
and fish, I had thought, you would very much relish me frying.

At risk of putting my foot in the 9/11 tar again,
it seems to me that some of the links I provided when last we talked about this
did indeed address your challenges about speed of fall.

As I've said, you should open a thread on 9/11
and show...what really happened.
I will come around and check it out.
Perhaps you will make me say uncle there.

 

[burtlancast]

It's simply that I am not that interested in that fine point

and...I have bigger fish to fry in this thread--

Really ?

3000 dead, 2 countries invaded, thousands of dead civilians and soldiers, but you have...bigger fish to fry.

Ok, Narouz.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Yes, Tara.

I suggest you quit with your outrageous race baiting.

Slavery is as old as the world, has existed in every continent and been practiced by every culture. It's prime motive has always been economic.

That has never been in doubt.

It beggars belief to suggest, like you did, that somehow, Africans have been targeted/enslaved because white people just didn't like them.


The word "Slavery" is derived from "Slavic" populations; Eastern Europe practiced slavery on their own population for thousands of years. Russia abolished serfdom in 1861 and gave the right to own land to their 6 millions sefs: that's a higher number than the entire American black slaves of that time ! (Russie, abolition de la servitude, 1861, Digithèque MJP)

I've yet to read Russian nobility practiced slavery because they hated their Slavic counterparts!

Anti slavery movements in America and the world were spearheaded by Christians, because of their moral doctrines ("equality of all human beings as good creatures made in God's image and likeness"-Augustine of Hippo". )

Those differ from the ones of the old testament, which went as far as establishing a different slavery code for Hebrews and non-Hebrews.

May i ask on which side do you stand, Tara ?

On this subject, a great book by a black author, Thomas Sowell, "Black Rednecks & White Liberals"

Things leftists ignore about the truth of slavery. There are still slaves today. And Africans weren't the only ones.

 

[narouz]

Really ?

3000 dead, 2 countries invaded, thousands of dead civilians and soldiers, but you have...bigger fish to fry.

Ok, Narouz.

I mean, bigger fish to fry in this thread--I don't want to get off into 9/11 here.
Also, when we have bantered in the past on threads (also not about 9/11),
I have not been dealing with subsequent military actions connected to 9/11--
just the specific conspiracy theories about how the building came to fall, etc.
So yes--of course 9/11 can be said to have set in motion many tragic things,
and they are big fish indeed.
I just don't want to discuss all that in this thread!
As I say: I very much encourage you to open a thread about your ideas
about what...really happened on 9/11.

 

[narouz]

Getting back to the topic at hand,
"Contemplating Peat as a Possible Right Winger"...

I posted a bit ago a thread which could, I think,
have significant connections with this one:
Lord Charles Monckton, Andrew Murray, And Dr. Ray Peat: Global Warming

It is called
"Lord Charles Monckton, Andrew Murray, and Dr Ray Peat."

I got the idea for the thread from listening to
the July Herb Doctors show--the starting point for much of our discussion in this thread,
and the January Herb Doctors show
which I listened to belatedly just a few days ago,
and which makes for a very important complement to the July show.

In the new thread I noted at the top of this post,
one can see a connection between those three people
on the subject of global warming:

1. Andrew speaks of "the lies" about global warming,
owing much--it would seem--of that view, to "Lord" Monckton,
for whom he seems to have enormous respect.

2. Lord Monckton seems to believe (still getting to know his views)
that global warming is not happening at all,
or it has stopped,
or, if it has happened, it is not caused by humans,
but by the sun.

3. Peat, speaking on the January show immediately after Andrew praises "Lord" Monckton,
seems to believe that the earth is probably warming
(though he did introduce a note of skepticism about whether this has really been proven),
and said that--
like Lord Monckton--
he thinks any warming has been caused by the sun.

So, on the January show,
Andrew showed great respect for the science of Lord Monckton,
and Peat,
while not mentioning Monckton by name,
did embrace--
immediately after Andrew spoke glowingly of Monckton--
the same solar explanation which Monckton espouses.

I might also note here,
that there was an interesting tone in Andrew's segue at about 28:00 into global warming.
He bemoaned that many believe what he calls the "lies" of global warming,
especially those of Al Gore (former Democratic Vice President under Bill Clinton) on the subject.
And he said that
"many people think we are such an evil species, using such an evil amount of carbon dioxide,
that we need to be controlled."

There is a certain flavor in the passage I bolded.
We may guess about who/what Andrew seems not at all to want to be "controlled" by.
Could it be...might it be...Big Guvment?

I will have more to say about possible connections
of my new thread on Monckton, Murray, and Peat
with this thread--
about contemplating the possibility that Peat is a right-winger.

Just wanted to establish a linkage between those threads
and invite thoughts
(thoughts not about rate of fall in 9/11 conspiracy theories!).

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Besides the Peat quotes I've provided a few pages back in this thread, which are enough proof that he is not right wing at all, especially because the quotes I posted are all from the last three years, if you need more proof, Peat paints pictures of naked women, hangs out with Mexicans, and spent a lot of time trying to help poor people, there is nothing right wing or conservative about that at all. But he is also not left wing entirely either becsude the disestablishment of medicine, which is Peats primary goal in his own words, is not left or right wing. It depends on what your definition of left vs right is. But narouz is delusional if he thinks that Peat is right wing as defined by the typical right wing white American male of today.

 

[narouz]

Besides the Peat quotes I've provided a few pages back in this thread, which are enough proof that he is not right wing at all, especially because the quotes I posted are all from the last three years, if you need more proof, Peat paints pictures of naked women, hangs out with Mexicans, and spent a lot of time trying to help poor people, there is nothing right wing or conservative about that at all. But he is also not left wing entirely either becsude the disestablishment of medicine, which is Peats primary goal in his own words, is not left or right wing. It depends on what your definition of left vs right is. But narouz is delusional if he thinks that Peat is right wing as defined by the typical right wing white American male of today.

I hope you're right, West.
I always had Peat pegged somewhere in that same rough political ballpark.
Maybe I'm just going through a delusional fugue state.

Have you listened to both the January and the July Herb Doctors show?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

No I haven't because the herb doctors are very annoying and they don't know how to interview someone or run a podcast. It's so hard to get through one of their shows. The reason why I still haven't posted that infamous Peat quote on butter from one of their shows is because it's so hard to listen to Andrew and Sarah's voice. But I have to force myself to do it because I want to find the quote. But I will listen to the ones you mentioned. But I don't think that based on what you said at the top about Peat saying something about Clinton that it means he's right wing. He's neither a leftist social justice warrior nor a right wing neo nazi. Although I have some nutritional disagreements with Peat, he's not dumb. He's too smart to be a leftist or a right wing-ist. Anyone in the world who claims to be only left or only right is dumb.

 

[kyle]

Left/right are short-hand concepts. Like any concept, it isn't really stupid but without context it is stupid.

I think beliefs do tend to cluster, or at least, people tend to adjust their beliefs to conform to an identity. Groups as a whole always have a sort of 'normal' and things have historically clustered around that. It's been called an 'overton window' theory.

I think too it is worthwhile to think about man as a political creature. Meaning, the way we express, patterns emerge.

For example: the dreaded, "typical right wing white American male."

 

[burtlancast]

I am not that interested in that fine point because I think the 9/11 thing has been pretty thoroughly examined without resort to obscure theories,
you should open a thread on 9/11
and show...what really happened.
I will come around and check it out.
.

So now, asking for someone to back up his words equals wanting to debate ?

I merely asked you to back up your words.

I even created a thread demanding it.

Manifestly, you seem to be the one who likes to hang to the 911 story, Narouz.

You.

Not anyone else.

whether by alluding to Ray's opinions, or quoting Paul Craig Roberts.

So, YOU go ahead and create/debate a 911 thread, and include your non-existing scientific evidence with it.

Lest we will all be forced to refer to you, from now on, as the 911 baiter.