Contemplating Peat As A Possible Right Winger

[narouz]

I had kind of bowed out of this thread on the politics angle but have something to add about climate change. There are 2 guys I became aware of within the past 2 years, Alex Epstein at About and Patrick Moore whose ideas are summarized in this article Patrick Moore: Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Epstein is a philosopher who wrote a book called "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." He explains in it not only the likely overblown nature of the climate catastrophists, but more importantly the facts about how human civilization as we know it could not be sustained without cheap energy. The math of how low in power production any alternative to coal, natural gas and oil is clearly shows that the human population of earth would have to go down quite a bit, especially in cities and in extremely cold and hot places. I'm sure you guys know what I mean by "go down." I think environmentalists do secretly, and sometimes openly, relish the idea of mass human die-off. Also there would be no science without energy and materials from petroleum, well at least not modern science.
Patrick Moore actually gets into historic atmospheric CO2 and the cycles of cooling and warming and how ridiculous it is to rail against putting CO2 into the atmosphere when we are living during an ice age (with a pause in it) where CO2 levels are at historical lows (on a geological time scale). We might not even be able to stave off the next glaciation with our current CO2 emissions, let alone a reduction.

@ Kyle M and also Evan-
I am open to non-consensus climate change thinking like you guys are bringing up.

However, I also have to hold in the balance the big elephant in the room of this topic:
Republicans, Tea Party-ers, most "libertarians," Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al...
they do not want have a discussion based on science.
They simply want make things as nice and easy and profitable for business, big business, corporations
as possible.
That is their Bible.
They have, according to their Bible, a prescribed goal they want to reach.
They will believe whatever it takes to reach that goal.
They will tailor their ideology to fit that goal.

And part of that tailoring is the invention and promotion of all manner of conspiracy theory:
-a New World Order (with mostly Jews at the helm) seeking to take over
-liberals as "useful idiots" carrying out the work of those NWO Jews
-taking away our guns as a first step in that takeover
-the murder of Vince Foster to hide the secrets of the takeover by Hillary and Bill and Bernie
-the suppression of the truth behind 9/11: that it was really The Jews up to their evil NWO tricks
-Hillary has the eyes of the devil and is an old hag riding a broomstick
-Benghazi was really Obama, as Secret Muslim, working with Hillary to bring down the U.S.
-blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

That is much closer to the truth of what is going on in the politics of global warming and climate change.
It is more likely in my view, Kyle M. and Evan,
that you guys are the useful idiots in this politicized discussion on the subject.
You give a nice scientific patina to cover over the crude power-play ideology that is being sold
(not too successfully, I'd have to judge)
by right-wingers and libertarians (of a certain widespread stripe).
I don't think you are doing this intentionally, deceitfully.
I just think that is the result.

And now I have to add Peat to your political group/segment.
Peat voices his very very speculative ideas based on Vernadsky when he takes his swipes
at the consensus view of scientists on climate change.
To my ear, when he makes these claims, it is all theory--it is a fact free kind of argument he makes.
If he would grapple in a serious way with the very well-founded consensus views,
I would be less inclined to be suspicious of his statements.
But now--now that he seems to have come out of the closet along with Andrew and Sarah--
as closet Hillary haters and Trump supporters...
Now I have to look at Peat's views about climate change
just as he himself has looked at so much trumped up health/medical ideas:
as an ideology in disquise.
That explains why he makes those claims so blithely and with no careful,
evidence-based argument (of the sort we are so familiar with on his website;
an anomaly in that regard).
He is just venting an unreasoned, political ideology--this is my current suspicion.

That ideology would be, as I discussed above,
of the Republican/Tea Party-er/libertarian/Trumpian/Limbaughian variety:
"Don't go to all this expense and trouble to try to slow global warming,
because it's all just a big conspiracy by The New World Order trying to get into our wallets
and take away our guns and freedom and (hat tip Andrew) our freedom of the press."

I don't think Peat has joined up under that approximate banner because he trusts corporations.
I suspect (still grappling with trying to figure this out, to be honest) Peat joined them
because he Hates Big Government (or something like that).
Hates it so much maybe he kinda loses his marbles a bit and starts joining in with the silly name calling haters of Hillary--with eyes like the devil and a hag riding a broom (see these examples up thread).
This hate has made him unreasonable.
Maybe he is very scared of Muslims, like I guess Andrew is,
and that fear has turned him toward The Strongman, Trump,
who will Protect him against the Muslim Rapists and Make America Great Again.
Sheesh--I admit I don't know exactly why an amazingly smart guy like Peat
not only seems to support Trump,
but sees fit to broadcast that support over the radio--in effect campaigning for and endorsing Trump.
Geez.

 

[whodathunkit]

Sheesh--I admit I don't know exactly why an amazingly smart guy like Peat
not only seems to support Trump,

Such a shame everyone isn't as smart as you, narouz, isn't it? Especially otherwise fabulous people who used to be worth listening to until they started drinking the KoolAid. What a great old world this would be, if all the stupids would just wise up and get with the really intelligent Democrats who believe All The Right Things!

 

[narouz]

Such a shame everyone isn't as smart as you, narouz, isn't it? Especially otherwise fabulous people who used to be worth listening to until they started drinking the KoolAid. What a great old world this would be, if all the stupids would just wise up and get with the really intelligent Democrats who believe All The Right Things!

 

[narouz]

Such a shame everyone isn't as smart as you, narouz, isn't it? Especially otherwise fabulous people who used to be worth listening to until they started drinking the KoolAid. What a great old world this would be, if all the stupids would just wise up and get with the really intelligent Democrats who believe All The Right Things!

 

[jaguar43]

@ Kyle M and also Evan-
I am open to non-consensus climate change thinking like you guys are bringing up.

However, I also have to hold in the balance the big elephant in the room of this topic:
Republicans, Tea Party-ers, most "libertarians," Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al...
they do not want have a discussion based on science.
They simply want make things as nice and easy and profitable for business, big business, corporations
as possible.
That is their Bible.
They have, according to their Bible, a prescribed goal they want to reach.
They will believe whatever it takes to reach that goal.
They will tailor their ideology to fit that goal.

And part of that tailoring is the invention and promotion of all manner of conspiracy theory:
-a New World Order (with mostly Jews at the helm) seeking to take over
-liberals as "useful idiots" carrying out the work of those NWO Jews
-taking away our guns as a first step in that takeover
-the murder of Vince Foster to hide the secrets of the takeover by Hillary and Bill and Bernie
-the suppression of the truth behind 9/11: that it was really The Jews up to their evil NWO tricks
-Hillary has the eyes of the devil and is an old hag riding a broomstick
-Benghazi was really Obama, as Secret Muslim, working with Hillary to bring down the U.S.
-blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

That is much closer to the truth of what is going on in the politics of global warming and climate change.
It is more likely in my view, Kyle M. and Evan,
that you guys are the useful idiots in this politicized discussion on the subject.
You give a nice scientific patina to cover over the crude power-play ideology that is being sold.
I don't think you are doing this intentionally, deceitfully.
I just think that is the result.

And now I have to add Peat to your group/segment.
Peat voices his very very speculative ideas based on Vernadsky when he takes his swipes
at the consensus view of scientists on climate change.
To my ear, when he makes these claims, it is all theory--it is a fact free kind of argument he makes.
If he would grapple in a serious way with the very well-founded consensus views,
I would be less inclined to be suspicious of his statements.
But now--now that he seems to have come out of the closet along with Andrew and Sarah--
as closet Hillary haters and Trump supporters...
Now I have to look at Peat's views about climate change
just as he himself has looked at so much trumped up health/medical ideas:
as an ideology in disquise.

That ideology would be, as I discussed above,
of the Republican/Tea Party-er/libertarian/Trumpian/Limbaughian variety:
"Don't go to all this expense and trouble to try to slow global warming,
because it's all just a big conspiracy by The New World Order trying to get into our wallets
and take away our guns and freedom and (hat tip Andrew) our freedom of the press."

I don't think Peat has joined up under that approximate banner because he trusts corporations.
I suspect (still grappling with trying to figure this out, to be honest) Peat joined them
because he Hates Big Government (or something like that).
Hates it so much maybe he kinda loses his marbles a bit and starts joining in with the silly name calling haters of Hillary--with eyes like the devil and a hag riding a broom (see these examples up thread).
This hate has made him unreasonable.
Maybe he is very scared of Muslims, like I guess Andrew is,
and that fear has turned him toward The Strongman, Trump,
who will Protect him against the Muslim Rapists and Make America Great Again.
Sheesh--I admit I don't know exactly why an amazingly smart guy like Peat
not only seems to support Trump,
but sees fit to broadcast that support over the radio--in effect campaigning for and endorsing Trump.
Geez.

Those who put Ray Peat in the same category as deniers of global warming aren't necessarily unjustified. Which is why libertarians and right-wingers gravitate towards him in the first place. They may have seen his articles where he bashes global warming or government agencies, so they automatically assume that he is aligned with their political ideology.

However, reading his books you get a totally different picture. In Generative Energy He has a whole chapter on the ex-rainforest in the pacific. Where he literally insults those anti-enivornmental arguments. Here is a quote.

The greatest fraud now current in the mass media is the idea that we must choose between the health of our environ-ment and the vitality of the economy or our standard of living. Just as competition from Japan and Germany is causing big corporations to move quickly to get out of the weapons busi-ness and to reinvest in the consumer economy, the present anti-environmental direction of our economy depends on rela-tively few decisions made by big corporations by their agents in government). Since they can get away with making stupid decisions, they make them. - Generative Energy page 59.


He goes into depth of the effects of deforestation. It seems that he is a more authentic ( and more radical) environmentalist to the point that he says that human progress will be stunt if we continue to degrade the biosphere. It's also interesting that he questions the intentions of those, who on the surface, are described as environmentalist for speaking against global warming. He calls it stylish. I think he has a valid point.

Since Andrew is more aligned with the right-wing faction of politics. He didn't direct the topic to get Ray to discuss deforestation within that specific interview or others.

 

[narouz]

Those who put Ray Peat in the same category as deniers of global warming aren't necessarily unjustified. Which is why libertarians and right-wingers gravitate towards him in the first place. They may have seen his articles where he bashes global warming or government agencies, so they automatically assume that he is aligned with their political ideology.

However, reading his books you get a totally different picture. In Generative Energy He has a whole chapter on the ex-rainforest in the pacific. Where he literally insults those anti-enivornmental arguments. Here is a quote.

The greatest fraud now current in the mass media is the idea that we must choose between the health of our environ-ment and the vitality of the economy or our standard of living. Just as competition from Japan and Germany is causing big corporations to move quickly to get out of the weapons busi-ness and to reinvest in the consumer economy, the present anti-environmental direction of our economy depends on rela-tively few decisions made by big corporations by their agents in government). Since they can get away with making stupid decisions, they make them. - Generative Energy page 59.


He goes into depth of the effects of deforestation. It seems that he is a more authentic ( and more radical) environmentalist to the point that he says that human progress will be stunt if we continue to degrade the biosphere. It's also interesting that he questions the intentions of those, who on the surface, are described as environmentalist for speaking against global warming. He calls it stylish. I think he has a valid point.

Since Andrew is more aligned with the right-wing faction of politics. He didn't direct the topic to get Ray to discuss deforestation within that specific interview or others.

jag-
Like you, looking over the body of Peat's work, what I have read pointed me clearly--I had believed!--
toward seeing Peat as consistently inhabiting a place somewhere on the left.
As far as the topic of global warming/climate change...
I really haven't heard or read much from Peat.
Just a couple of terse comments on interviews.

They kinda shocked me,
but I just sortuv put them on my back burner--
to wait to hear more from him in the way of explanation, evidence, support, reasoned argument, etc.
As it stood, privately I did feel that it was irresponsible of him
to make those brief, unsupported statements,
which would only go, I knew, to feed the unreasoned fire of right-wing global conspiracy theory buffs.

When I saw those brief statements by Peat
it started a kind of mental process with me.
I said to myself: ah! this kind of thing explains a lot about the kind of folks on the forum.
Peat--while not being a right-winger himself (I said to myself)--
does send out a strong signal, a strong attractant to right wingers,
right-wingers of, say, the same ilk who cover their hearts and salute to the likes of Cliven Bundy.
Or who see Hillary Clinton as "a hag riding on a broom," with "the eyes of the Devil."

I just saw this as an unintended, unfortunate feature of the phenomenon of Ray Peat.
Now...I've done a lot of re-thinking of late.
To be honest, it's been a black cloud weighing me down a bit these last weeks.

 

[narouz]

This video caught my eye--seems pertinent to our discussion here.
I honestly don't know a whole lot about Chomsky.
I've read Peat's essay criticizing him harshly--linking him, in fact, to Nazi-ish kind of philosophy.
Kinda harsh, I noted at the time.

And a little surprising to me,
because Peat himself was a strong and early anti-Vietnam War protester--
just as Chomsky was.
One lefty attacking another lefty, I thought: what's up with that?

Anyhow...haven't watched the whole video myself.
Just figured maybe some nice food for thought in this discussion...

 

[jaguar43]

This video caught my eye--seems pertinent to our discussion here.
I honestly don't know a whole lot about Chomsky.
I've read Peat's essay criticizing him harshly--linking him, in fact, to Nazi-ish kind of philosophy.
Kinda harsh, I noted at the time.

And a little surprising to me,
because Peat himself was a strong and early anti-Vietnam War protester--
just as Chomsky was.
One lefty attacking another lefty, I thought: what's up with that?

Anyhow...haven't watched the whole video myself.
Just figured maybe some nice food for thought in this discussion...

The criticism on Chomsky is really a criticism of his theories on linguistics. The whole theories on "generative grammar" and "poverty of stimulus" is questionable. The idea that children learn language so quickly "despite" being exposed to it, somehow means that language is innate. Or that "rules" describe the way language is used. It's similar to the genetic deterministic ideas of biology.

Dan Everett who proposed a different view than chomsky's was insulted by him. There is a video of Everett who recalled that he saw the insults in the newspaper assuming that it was a mistake or misquote. Called him and ask whether he said that. Unapologetically and arrogantly said yes.

He also criticized Bernie Sanders policy on the banking system. Saying that it wasn't "clear" if breaking up the big banks was going to be helpful.

 

[narouz]

The criticism on Chomsky is really a criticism of his theories on linguistics. The whole theories on "generative grammar" and "poverty of stimulus" is questionable. The idea that children learn language so quickly "despite" being exposed to it, somehow means that language is innate. Or that "rules" describe the way language is used. It's similar to the genetic deterministic ideas of biology.

Dan Everett who proposed a different view than chomsky's was insulted by him. There is a video of Everett who recalled that he saw the insults in the newspaper assuming that it was a mistake or misquote. Called him and ask whether he said that. Unapologetically and arrogantly said yes.

Yes, I did read that essay.
That Peat had such an enraged reaction to Chomsky's linguistic ideas...
that did seem a little...what?..."over-determined" or something.
Something else going on there, I said to myself; some larger subtext I'm not quite seeing.

I mean, I do get it about Nazi's: I sure do hate 'em.
But...I have to think Chomsky does too.
Maybe he didn't see the philosophical underpinnings of his linguistic ideas
as being Nazi ideas.
Maybe the aren't (you see how I'm having to reconsider all things Peat now! :>( ).

He also criticized Bernie Sanders policy on the banking system. Saying that it wasn't "clear" if breaking up the big banks was going to be helpful.

I'm not going to get too worked up about this.
Really like Sanders.
Breaking up the big banks...I don't think of that as an Absolute Truth, unquestionably needed.
I'm all for reducing wealth inequality and more smart regulation,
and yes, regulation with an eye explicitly designed to reduce wealth inequality here.
I suspect Chomsky is too (again, don't know too much about his politics
beyond that he is a longtime lefty)--wouldn't you?
I may very well believe breaking up the big banks is the way to go.
Heard good arguments from both sides from smart people on the left.
Some on the left say the banks can stay big but more regulation is needed.
It is a finer point in the scheme of things, to me, at this point.
At this point where we teeter on the brink of electing Donald Trump as President.

 

[jaguar43]

Yes, I did read that essay.
That Peat had such an enraged reaction to Chomsky's linguistic ideas...
that did seem a little...what?..."over-determined" or something.
Something else going on there, I said to myself; some larger subtext I'm not quite seeing.

I mean, I do get it about Nazi's: I sure do hate 'em.
But...I have to think Chomsky does too.
Maybe he didn't see the philosophical underpinnings of his linguistic ideas
as being Nazi ideas.
Maybe the aren't (you see how I'm having to reconsider all things Peat now! :>( ).

It's always going to be hard to see the undertones of a specific theory in society. I will say that I am by no expert on the subject. I think it will have to be explored more.

I'm not going to get too worked up about this.
Really like Sanders.
Breaking up the big banks...I don't think of that as an Absolute Truth, unquestionably needed.
I'm all for reducing wealth inequality and more smart regulation,
and yes, regulation with an eye explicitly designed to reduce wealth inequality here.
I suspect Chomsky is too (again, don't know too much about his politics
beyond that he is a longtime lefty)--wouldn't you?
I may very well believe breaking up the big banks is the way to go.
Heard good arguments from both sides from smart people on the left.
Some on the left say the banks can stay big but more regulation is needed.
It is a finer point in the scheme of things, to me, at this point.
At this point where we teeter on the brink of electing Donald Trump as President.

Regarding Chomsky being a lefty, I think it's more complex than that. Even though he is seen as the mainstream "dissenter", he does't really involve himself with politics. He labels himself as apolitical or the "lone wolf" type. I think the appropriate terms is "action speaks louder than words". It's easy to say whats wrong with things instead of trying to find solutions.

 

[narouz]

It's always going to be hard to see the undertones of a specific theory in society. I will say that I am by no expert on the subject. I think it will have to be explored more.

Yep.
But, as a kind of meta-comment:
Seeing now the possibility that Peat is a Trump supporter
(and even activist--have to say it! going on radio to broadcast support),
I will have to go back and re-read such articles in a different light.
I've long been nearly reverential about Peat--
giving him a huge benefit of the doubt.
I did this when I was reading the Chomsky-related essay.

Now I might well see Peat's vitriol towards Chompsky as being ideologically addled.
That is,
Peat got pretty near to the line where he just about could've said
something like, "Chomsky has the eyes of The Devil. Devil Nazi!"
Just as many addled righties will say (here in this thread!)
things like "Hillary has the eyes of the Devil!"

I am adjusting.
"When you find the answer to a question, you are changed."

Regarding Chomsky being a lefty, I think it's more complex than that. Even though he is seen as the mainstream "dissenter", he does't really involve himself with politics. He labels himself as apolitical or the "lone wolf" type. I think the appropriate terms is "action speaks louder than words". It's easy to say whats wrong with things instead of trying to find solutions.

And too with Peat seeming, back then (early '60's, to clearly be a lefty.
Likely an oversimplification.

 

[kyle]

You're trapped in a mental heuristic. Anyone critical of the regime must be a right-winger (just a word you think is very important). Black and white thinking is an easy heuristic to try and navigate life, but it is low energy like Jeb Bush. You're labeling Peat as a right-winger when he is simply defending free speech- something the old left at least paid some lip service to back in the day. People protesting the war were shoved out and silenced, etc.

He simply empathized with the anti-political correctness sentiment pushed by Trump. That's it. And anyone who is sane and sensible knows that political correctness is itself an intolerable assault on western values and freedom of speech, the very basis of a free society.

You want a learning experience narouz? Go to a Trump rally and try and picture his supporters as real human beings with perhaps different but nonetheless valid views. You know, like that song.

 

[narouz]

You're trapped in a mental heuristic.

I'm not trapped in any damn heuristic, mental or otherwise.
Sheesh.
My understanding of a "heuristic" is that
it is system of questioning.
Like: you learn a basic heuristic in journalism school: who, what, when, where, how?
A system of questioning about a journalistic subject, to learn more about it,
and a kind of checklist--what your readers will want to know.
My heuristics go well beyond that and have become pretty much subconscious.
I don't think I've got a problem with them.

As far as labels go--we all use them, as an admittedly approximate way of trying to communicate.

When Andrew paints a desperate and urgent, if vague, picture in the interview,
saying Americans will soon be called upon to shed their blood
because someone/something is, presumably, coming
to take away our freedom of speech--and to kill or maim us, I guess...

When Andrew says he likes things about Donald Trump...

When Peat pops in to speak negatively about Hillary Clinton,
and does not disavow or comment upon Andrew's approval of Trump
and dire warnings of imminent threats...

When all that context is considered as a whole,
I do think I am approximately on target
when I say that
that is some pretty right-wing riffing right there--
some pretty pro-Trump riffing,
and some pretty anti-Hillary riffing.

I don't think my use of heuristics or labels is really the issue for you, kyle.
You believe Trump is big-hearted, deeply humble, big teacher of humility to his kids,
profoundly Christian, great leader, etc, etc
I see Trump as displaying now and over his career,
values which are deeply un-Christian;
I see him as arrogant, narcissistic, shallow, materialistic, unlearned, anti-intellectual, completely inexperienced in the realm or civic service and leadership and very clearly lacking a knowledge of American civics and constitutional subjects. I see him as a guy with a dangerous talent at getting people angry about Mexicans and Muslims, and other "outsiders." I see him as a materialistic womanizer who collects Barbie Doll-like women, like his current sexy wife who talks like a child and can't think a single original thought. I could go on..."believe me!" :>)

He simply empathized with the anti-political correctness sentiment pushed by Trump. That's it.

No.
He willingly appeared on a radio show in which the host--
whilst beating around the bush inordinately it's true--
did pretty clearly come off when all is said and done as being pro-Trump.
And pro-Trump in a pretty hiked up, Charlton Heston-like way,
implying that if we don't elect Trump then Americans will soon be paying with their blood and lives
here in America.
My best guess is that he sees the threat as Muslims.
In that context, then, Peat added that Hillary Clinton is bad
because she calls names in a smoothly dishonest way,
cloaked by "political correctness."
And this whole vague reference to and use of the term "political correctness"...
that's clearly a Trump reference,
because Trump is the one who says he's so great
because he cuts through all the bullsheet by virtue of his wondrous "political correctness."
He is our new and saving TruthSayer.

And anyone who is sane and sensible knows that political correctness is itself an intolerable assault on western values and freedom of speech, the very basis of a free society.

At a certain point in our history many whites
winced and strained against the shackles of political correctness
when they could no longer freely use "the N word."

Sometimes society changes for the good, and language is a part of that, so the language needs to change too.
Some people don't want the language to change
because--really--they don't want the culture to change.
It was just fine the way it was, for them.

Yes, political correctness can run amok.
There's a balance which is needed.

Donald Trump's political incorrectness provides an extremely shaky base
upon which to build a case for him to deserve The Presidency.

You want a learning experience narouz? Go to a Trump rally and try and picture his supporters as real human beings with perhaps different but nonetheless valid views. You know, like that song.

"Believe me!"...I've watched more than my share of Donald Trump rallies over the last year.
It's the strangeness and spectacle and shock and racist dog whistling and incitements to violence that stand out in my mind.
I agree with you that his followers are real human beings.
And yes, they have different views.
Very different.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

I'm not trapped in any damn heuristic, mental or otherwise.
Sheesh.
My understanding of a "heuristic" is that
it is system of questioning.
Like: you learn a basic heuristic in journalism school: who, what, when, where, how?
A system of questioning about a journalistic subject, to learn more about it,
and a kind of checklist--what your readers will want to know.
My heuristics go well beyond that and have become pretty much subconscious.
I don't think I've got a problem with them.

As far as labels go--we all use them, as an admittedly approximate way of trying to communicate.

When Andrew paints a desperate and urgent, if vague, picture in the interview,
saying Americans will soon be called upon to shed their blood
because someone/something is, presumably, coming
to take away our freedom of speech--and to kill or maim us, I guess...

When Andrew says he likes things about Donald Trump...

When Peat pops in to speak negatively about Hillary Clinton,
and does not disavow or comment upon Andrew's approval of Trump
and dire warnings of imminent threats...

When all that context is considered as a whole,
I do think I am approximately on target
when I say that
that is some pretty right-wing riffing right there--
some pretty pro-Trump riffing,
and some pretty anti-Hillary riffing.

I don't think my use of heuristics or labels is really the issue for you, kyle.
You believe Trump is big-hearted, deeply humble, big teacher of humility to his kids,
profoundly Christian, great leader, etc, etc
I see Trump as displaying now and over his career,
values which are deeply un-Christian;
I see him as arrogant, narcissistic, shallow, materialistic, unlearned, anti-intellectual, completely inexperienced in the realm or civic service and leadership and very clearly lacking a knowledge of American civics and constitutional subjects. I see him as a guy with a dangerous talent at getting people angry about Mexicans and Muslims, and other "outsiders." I see him as a materialistic womanizer who collects Barbie Doll-like women, like his current sexy wife who talks like a child and can't think a single original thought. I could go on..."believe me!" :>)



No.
He willingly appeared on a radio show in which the host--
whilst beating around the bush inordinately it's true--
did pretty clearly come off when all is said and done as being pro-Trump.
And pro-Trump in a pretty hiked up, Charlton Heston-like way,
implying that if we don't elect Trump then Americans will soon be paying with their blood and lives
here in America.
My best guess is that he sees the threat as Muslims.
In that context, then, Peat added that Hillary Clinton is bad
because she calls names in a smoothly dishonest way,
cloaked by "political correctness."
And this whole vague reference to and use of the term "political correctness"...
that's clearly a Trump reference,
because Trump is the one who says he's so great
because he cuts through all the bullsheet by virtue of his wondrous "political correctness."
He is our new and saving TruthSayer.



At a certain point in our history many whites
winced and strained against the shackles of political correctness
when they could no longer freely use "the N word."

Sometimes society changes for the good, and language is a part of that, so the language needs to change too.
Some people don't want the language to change
because--really--they don't want the culture to change.
It was just fine the way it was, for them.

Yes, political correctness can run amok.
There's a balance which is needed.

Donald Trump's political incorrectness provides an extremely shaky base
upon which to build a case for him to deserve The Presidency.



"Believe me!"...I've watched more than my share of Donald Trump rallies over the last year.
It's the strangeness and spectacle and shock and racist dog whistling and incitements to violence that stand out in my mind.
I agree with you that his followers are real human beings.
And yes, they have different views.
Very different.

The first post outlined a number of things that rather vaguely suggest Peat being right leaning. It's clear he was pretty left leaning historically. Even if Peat were an all out Trump supporter, it would be inaccurate to label him as a right-winger. He (like most people) has simply evolved his views over time based on his perception of the authorities that to him, as an anti-authoritarian, are the enemy. Most people on this forum seem to accept that, you on the other hand seem to need to mull it over at length, trying to dissect Peat's fatal flaw, as you seem to view it.

The truth is, Peat is a critical thinker, and when he watches news coverage of the election, he is critical of the media biases as many people are, though many still aren't. When for instance, a critical thinker watches Trump and Hillary go on the late night talk shows, and compares their treatment, one goes away concluding that there is subtle but important bias in their treatment. If one then extends this further, considering the corporate-govt ties of the media and how they have manipulated the public for decades, one concludes that Trump is not wanted by the current authorities, which makes him a very interesting candidate to an anti-authoritarian voter, whereas if one doesn't perceive a media bias, they walk away repeating the media pundits shouting rascism. A critical thinker would also be interested by the never-trump movement, where established authoritarian neo-cons openly condemn their own party nominee... this analysis is what goes through a lot of trumper's heads.

It seems to me, the reason you are wrestling with this, at length, on this thread, is that your own deep seeded tribalist, red-blue world view cannot accept that a democrat could be worse than a republican...

 

[Kyle M]

"Believe me!"...I've watched more than my share of Donald Trump rallies over the last year.
It's the strangeness and spectacle and shock and racist dog whistling and incitements to violence that stand out in my mind.
I agree with you that his followers are real human beings.
And yes, they have different views.
Very different.

Watching the clips carefully curated for you by the media is not the same as going to a rally. And if you think you're a good person because you signal on an internet forum that you are "against racism" (whatever the **** that means today) then your bar for being a good person is somewhere in the basement.

 

[Kyle M]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. On a Ray Peat forum, someone is saying that some off-color (in their, and the media's, opinions) language disqualifies someone for the office of president, but voting for a pushing war for no good reason is not. That's the kind of thinking I expect on a vegetarian forum or something.

 

[tara]

coming to the conclusion that it is government, not market forces, that was behind those problems

Peat's talked about excessive and destructive industry influence on state legislation and regulations being an issue, too.

I guess you could call libertarianism capitalism without the state, but what's the point, no one is forced to be a capitalist, worker, consumer or whatever of anything they don't want to be.

I imagine the people who want to further deregulate capitalism and have (almost religious) faith in the 'Invisible Hand' expect to be nearer the top than the bottom of the heap - maybe they don't think they will be the ones slaving in sweatshops, as chimney sweeps, etc, as was common before the beginnings of some of the more protective arrangements.

When he wrote about people being treated as the "market" he didn't know what the market meant in an economic sense, which is simply the total of voluntary interactions in a given area.

If you are saying Peat doesn't know what he's talking about, I disagree. My impression is he tends to usually be fairly precise with what he says.

When people are treated as the market, products that may be dangerous will be sold regardless of their safety. Because the purpose of treating people as the market is to expand profits not to increase health or longevity. This is the fundamental problem in the profit-motive economy regardless of the size of government.

+1

The problem here is that cultural leftists don't like money

Many think there is a place for tokens of exchange, but don't like structures and mechanisms that tend to systematically concentrate money (and associated power) in a few hands.

don't understand the market and how the only reason they can sit in a nice chair and discuss things on the internet is because of the results of many years of market activity

Or don't believe in TINA, but rather consider alternatives, such as that there may be other possible systems that could meet human needs and aspirations better with less destruction. Just because some good things have happened under the actual systems doesn't automatically invalidate speculation about benefits from change, or the possibility that more good or less harm could occur in counterfactual contexts.

people who rely on political ideology typically do so to avoid having to think, and when confronted with facts that aren't consistent with the he ideology, question the facts instead of the beliefs

I do think it's important to look at the facts and evidence, not just the disembodied ideology. But I think one can go astray in the other direction too: if one doesn't consider the ideology, it's easier to be lead into unspoken (and problematic) ideologies.

I personally see Dannys coaching as charging money for time not for the information which can be gleaned if you wish to invest more of your own time and effort.

Yes. Succinct. :)

1) Fish oils are sold on the market because of the government monopoly of scientific research and medical licensure. It's not fair to criticize the free market for a problem when we don't have the free market. We have very little market in medicine and biomedical science, much more in consumer electronics. Which one has better outcomes?

I believe lead and other toxic substances were commonly included in medicines before this market was regulated.

Sweden because the 3rd wealthiest nation per capita with laissez-faire, and fell to something like 16th under democratic socialism.

Whatever their 'wealth' was, I believe Sweden's life expectancy was near the top during this period.

"Oh, but Hillary calls names too--she just does it in a smooth and politically correct way."

This is not support of Trump's name-calling, it's criticism of Clinton's.

the guy Peat ... would like to hand the nuclear "football" and "biscuit" to--

I strongly disagree - you are taking a leap from speculation to assertion.

There are third and fourth and more parties; most people just won't vote for them because they assume no one else will vote for them, so they end up taking 1-2% combined polls. We have a system that seems specifically designed for learned helplessness.

+1.
Designed by the ruling parties to keep the power amongst themselves. Time you guys got some form of more proportional representation. Not an easy job.

I agree but took it further than that, the money is not a neutral acquisition but a proof that the thing you are doing "for money" is valuable to the people giving you their money in exchange.

I disagree. It is evidence that they believed at some point that would get something of value. Not that they actually would. Some of the requirements for a well-functioning market, in market theory, is that everybody has all the relevant information, and freedom to make choices. This is clearly often not the case.

Everybody who failed at capitalism now hates the system

Antipathy to a system that is designed to make people fail ... how unreasonable.

Democrats will emerge as the party of the globalist, unionist (as in European Union and other similar international government), elitist, cultural Marxist party

Only a USer could call the US Democratic party Marxist in any sense. The US Democratic party is a very strong defender and promoter of capitalism and financialism, and is further to the right than many 'right' governments in other countries.

This country needs better than what it's currently got, and the only way to get better is to change from the status quo. And if that change fails, change again.

It's a pretty desperate situation when any change looks better than continuing on the current track.
From here, the current track looks horrible. But that doesn't mean that change can't make it a lot worse.
Some changes, like jumping off bridges, can be hard or impossible to recover from.

That making profits and providing health is a paradox and are incompatible.

Yeah, there's a serious moral hazard in current arrangements.

According to Ray Peat the issue with government regulations and scientific journals are that they are "captured" by industries. Corporations place the industry representatives within the editorial boards and health agencies. It has nothing to with government in it self as the cause. Governmental agencies don't control corporations, corporations control the government. If there wasn't a profit-directed health industry( economy) then it would never capture governmental industries or journals in the first place.

Yeah. There are probably areas where the public interest is served by government agencies (there are some regulatory limits to at least some kinds of dangerous poisoning, for instance), but there is far too much of the corporate influence.

All this is to keep you from looking at the financial system.

+1

The problem with the trade deals like the TPP and NAFTA is that they don't really create free trade like they claim to. What they generally do is change the rules of trade to benefit large multinational corporations, and even go so far as to limit a nation's abilities to pass certain laws. For example, the U.S. Congress recently repealed the requirement for country of origin labels on beef and pork after the WTO organization rules that we aren't allowed to require that under our trade agreements. Another example Transcanada suing the U.S. for $15 billion for not approving the oil pipeline; this lawsuit was brought under NAFTA. The TPP was written entirely by industry lobbyists and is designed to enrich the people who wrote the rules, such as by extending patent rights on medicines, which will cause prices to go even higher. If these agreements just eliminated tariffs, I would be fine with them, but they go far beyond that.

I think there can sometimes be a case for tariffs, but I agree that these agreements go far beyond tariffs, which are the lesser part of them, and are all about concentrating the wealth in the large corporations involved in writing them. Usually at the expense of regular people (loss of jobs or wages) and a safe environment (eg clean drinking water) etc.

But having higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be great! Nature designed it that way! Plants want as much CO2 as they can get and thrive on it! Humans are healthier with more CO2.

Most species thrive in more stable environments. Some plant species would thrive, others would be displaced. Extremely rapid changes in CO2 levels are already destabilising ecosystems in some very profound ways - take a look at coral bleaching, for instance, and consider the consequences for the current marine ecosystem, and the rest of us who depend on it.
You could double the atmospheric CO2 without making much difference to human CO2 levels, but an awful lot of coastal cities would likely get drowned.

I suspect (still grappling with trying to figure this out, to be honest) Peat joined them

I very much doubt it.

Hates it so much maybe he kinda loses his marbles a bit and starts joining in with the silly name calling haters of Hillary

Whatever you think about strategic voting, complaining about Clinton does not automatically equal support for Trump. I think there's been some horrible sexism thrown at Clinton, but that doesn't make all criticism of her invalid. Plenty of Democrats are critical of both Clinton and Trump.
ETA: Not meaning to imply that Peat would be a Democrat.

but sees fit to broadcast that support over the radio--in effect campaigning for and endorsing Trump.

I guess you know, I strongly disagree with this assessment.

It's also interesting that he questions the intentions of those, who on the surface, are described as environmentalist for speaking against global warming. He calls it stylish. I think he has a valid point.

This is interesting - are you able to point me to this?
Peat has has said other things about his concerns about environmental degradation having negative effects on human health - from pesticides and soil degradation, to nuclear and EMF radiation.

The criticism on Chomsky is really a criticism of his theories on linguistics. The whole theories on "generative grammar" and "poverty of stimulus" is questionable. The idea that children learn language so quickly "despite" being exposed to it, somehow means that language is innate. Or that "rules" describe the way language is used. It's similar to the genetic deterministic ideas of biology.

That was my guess - differing over linguistics.

The 'Left' is not a single agreed and unified set of ideas - there is much debate on the left about many things. Disagreeing with someone on the 'Left' about the effectiveness of a particular policy doesn't automatically make someone 'Right'.

I mean, I do get it about Nazi's: I sure do hate 'em.
But...I have to think Chomsky does too.
Maybe he didn't see the philosophical underpinnings of his linguistic ideas
as being Nazi ideas.

That Chomsky doesn't see the same links as Peat does between his linguistic theory and eugenics doesn't mean he has any sympathy at all for Nazism.

CHOMSKY: In Philadelphia. And the anti-Semitism was very real. There were certain paths I could take to walk to the store without getting beaten up. It was the late 1930s and the area was openly pro-Nazi. I remember beer parties when Paris fell and things like that. It’s not like living under Hitler, but it’s a very unpleasant thing. There was a really rabid anti-Semitism in that neighborhood where I grew up as a kid and it continued. By the time I got to Harvard in the early 1950s there was still very detectable anti-Semitism.

And anyone who is sane and sensible knows that political correctness is itself an intolerable assault on western values and freedom of speech, the very basis of a free society.

On the contrary. There are some reasonable limits to free speech - defamation, 'fire' in wrong place, hate speech, perjury, etc. Complaints about 'political correctness' often come from people who want to be free to engage in hate speech, or at least general abusive slagging against marginalised groups of people.

In that context, then, Peat added that Hillary Clinton is bad
because she calls names in a smoothly dishonest way,
cloaked by "political correctness."

Well, she's come out with some pretty unsavory phrases herself at times, using racism to gather support for herself, for instance.

 

[burtlancast]

@ Kyle M and also Evan-
I am open to non-consensus climate change thinking like you guys are bringing up.
However, I also have to hold in the balance the big elephant in the room of this topic:
Republicans, Tea Party-ers, most "libertarians," Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al... they do not want have a discussion based on science.
.

Err...

Apparently,

neither do you,

Narouz

?

Looking For Scientific Evidence Of Steel Buildings Pancaking At Free Fall Speed. Anyone?

 

[whodathunkit]

There are some reasonable limits to free speech - defamation, 'fire' in wrong place, hate speech, perjury, etc. Complaints about 'political correctness' often come from people who want to be free to engage in hate speech, or at least general abusive slagging against marginalised groups of people.

Beg to differ with you on this. "Hate speech" is NOT a reasonable limit on free speech. Unlike defamation, the concept of hate speech is too nebulous, too subjective, and too relative to the individual to be objectively defined or even adjudicated. Such a nebulous concept as "hate speech" can be (and currently is being) weaponized by bureaucrats and lawyers in order to be used to silence speech that is merely a counterpoint to currently accepted narratives. Complaints about "hate speech" frequently come from people simply trying to silence an alternate viewpoint.

"I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is a pretty damn good principle that reasonable people (rather than delicate snowflakes who melt at the first sign of stress) should strive to embody. It's hard to live up to, but worthy. The rights of anyone adhering to the true concept of free speech include making a free and uncensored rebuttal.

Further, "free speech" does not mean anything you want to make up or say in any circumstances. Perjury is LYING under oath...deliberately misstating events in order to influence the outcome of a legal proceeding. It shouldn't be lumped into any definition of free speech.

 

[Kyle M]

@tara - the economy and life in general has never been more regulated than now by government, yet wealth disparity has grown compared to our less regulated past. Look up the regulations on the books, you couldn't read them in your life time. The solution is not to get "money out of politics" (unless you mean getting rid of politicians ability to tax and steal and print money from the people) but to get politics out of money. The power is the problem, when politicians have power to compel people with force to do something, someone will find a way to lobby them with money. Or do you think the politicians, the very same ones who are so corrupted by corporate money, will write a law in a way to stop that? Big pharma or the weapons companies will go "darn, they wrote a law that we can't donate to their campaigns, shucks." Or will they just pay Hillary Clinton $500,000 to give a 30 minute speech, like they already do? What big money interests lobbied Trump? This liberal naïveté seems out of place on this forum. It's almost like you think if there was a law against murder people would have to stop committing murder. News flash, there is, and they don't.