Generative Energy #33: Optimizing The Environment With Ray Peat

Discussion in 'Generative Energy Podcast' started by Dan Wich, Mar 29, 2018.

  1. Badger

    Badger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    Messages:
    524
    Gender:
    Male
    Lots about this on commie atrocities and repression against Christians and later, Jews (many of the early Bolsheviks were Jews, but Stalin later betrayed them, killing many Jews) in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's last book: 200 Years Together A History of the Russians and the Jews. This link brings up a partial English translation of the book - no mainstream publisher wants to bring it out in English (despite persecution of Jews by commies, much of the book does not make Jews in Russia look all that appealing):
    https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/200-years-together.pdf

     
  2. DaveFoster

    DaveFoster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    Spokane, Washington
    Dr. Peat's right on the money unfortunately. Christianity inevitably leads to the conclusion that all humans beings are fundamentally identical.
    Artificial heating probably. Proto-Indo-Europeans (and Proto-Indo-Aryans) had environmental instability, and they needed to form close-knit, cooperative in-groups (and thus achieve technological advancement with division of labor) to survive, often with localized, frequent warring (such as in the Peloponnesus in Greece) over scarce resources. Eventually, you get militaristic societies with refined military tactics and forcefully maintained, expansionist hierarchies and subsequent conquest, imperialism, colonialism and so on.

    In Eurasia, there's a huge discrepancy in food output between the Fertile Crescent (and the Silk Road with trade) and surrounding sub-par economic regions, so whoever held these key regions likewise dominated Eurasia, as with the Persian Achaemenid Empire under Darius the Great, Darius II, and Darius III, later conquered by Alexander the Great, and then the Selucids, Romans, Muslim Caliphates and their fractured dynasties, and so on.
     
  3. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,537
    The entire book is available in french on archive org: but i would rather take the first-hand account of a live witness like McCullagh than the retroactive one of an intellectual, which for some is controversial.
     
  4. Herbie

    Herbie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,158
    Gender:
    Male
    I interpreted that he said welfare is put in place because the ruling class creates environment for poor/disabled people and its there to prevent uprising from the bottom.

    The middle class pay for people on welfare through income tax and so they do not like the do gooders for this. The mainstream media paints a certain picture of the person on welfare. I think this is what Ray is talking about.
     
  5. Tarmander

    Tarmander Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,118
    Gender:
    Male
    You'll have to explain that one to me, because I see it exactly the opposite way.
     
  6. x-ray peat

    x-ray peat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,343
    Gender:
    Male
    Its true that Communism is top down and Christianity is bottom up, but Catholicism is by far the most hierarchical top-down organization ever invented. Over a billion people all controlled by the volition of one man. "I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this organization into my own (Nazi) party." Adolph Hitler

    Communism was an invention of the Jesuits and first put into action in the Jesuit Reductions in South America 400 years ago where they enslaved the local Indian tribes in their workers’ paradise i.e. slave camps. They have been behind every “Marxist” revolution since then and most recently in Venezuela, which was led by Father Arturo Sosa SJ, who has since been rewarded by being made the newest Black Pope, Superior General of the Order.
    The Pope’s Marxist Head of the Jesuits
    SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM is THE CREATION OF THE JESUITS and VATICAN ILLUMINATI. - Reformed Malaya
    The Root of Communism "The Jesuits"
    Karl Marx, Social Justice and Communism are all Catholic monastic/Jesuit creations • r/RomeRules

    Karl Marx like many other Communist and Fascist leaders where trained by the Jesuits. They used him to put a Jewish face on the upcoming revolutions but as with Hitler he was spoon fed his writings by the Jesuits. It is the Jesuit strategy to created two opposing camps and then let them wage war with each other so that they will gain in the end.

    The Russian revolution had a lot of Jews involved but they were still a small minority of the total (about 10% according to Wikipedia). The Russian Tsar had persecuted them for hundreds of years so they were ripe for any change that was offered. They were betrayed because that was the plan from the beginning. Whenever the Jews are put into such highly visible positions of leadership it is almost always the Jesuits pulling their strings.

    Solzhenitsyn’s hatred of the Jews comes from being imprisoned in the Gulags which were run by the NKVD and purposely staffed with a disproportionate number of Jews so that they would be hated and blamed for Communism. Trotsky complained about this but couldn’t get it changed. He, like most other Jews, was not a true insider and didn't realize that he too was just another useful idiot.

    “The public is practically unaware of the overwhelming responsibility carried by the Vatican and its Jesuits in the starting of the two world wars – a situation which may be explained in part by the gigantic finances at the disposition of the Vatican and its Jesuits, giving them power in so many spheres, especially since the last conflict.” Edmond Paris Former Catholic Priest and Historian
     
  7. DaveFoster

    DaveFoster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    Spokane, Washington
    At least modern Protestantism has the idea that all humans have an irredeemable level of Original Sin with no attenuation; one can only accept or reject Jesus. Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6 NIV).

    With Evangelicalism, there's the inevitable proselytizing to other cultures (whether American Indian, Latin Americans, Africans and so on,) where Protestants strive for the homogenization of all respective cultures in line with the Christian worldview (and lifestyle,) not to say that other monotheistic religions (including Islam) refrain from the same attempt.
     
  8. Tarmander

    Tarmander Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,118
    Gender:
    Male
    I think if you look at how I distinguished between top down and bottom up, it will clarify this a bit. Anything imposed in a top down way, as Communism was, or Catholicism, will have the element of enforcing a culture across people. I can see in that way how it might seem that Christianity and Marxism are similar in stamping out individuality. However if you take those philosophies and examine them on an individual level, in a bottom up/grit of the earth way, you get a very different view. Marxism is very clear about overthrowing the Bourgeoisie, casting off your chains of exploitation, seizing the means of production, group over self, etc etc. Christ says you should give to the poor, turn the other cheek, help those in need, and give to Caesar what is Caesar's. This last one is so important, it demolishes Christianity as a political system.

    A lot of times, people mix up Christ/the bible with Catholicism, religion, and other control systems. Maybe that is a bit of what Ray is doing here.
     
  9. DaveFoster

    DaveFoster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    Spokane, Washington
    You're saying that Christianity functions from the "bottom-up" without a given hierarchy, but whereas Catholicism enforces its hierarchy through people and real institutions (the Catholic Church), Protestantism references the Bible (an ideology) as its master. It's a similar reference to power.

    "...give to Caesar what is Caesar's" would be interpreted by the Church as a reason to tithe and acquiesce the governance of your rulers.

    You can't separate Catholicism and the Bible, but you can differentiate Protestantism. Both can be adapted as sociopolitical systems. "Christian Socialism" would be a good example, and the more modern examples of Christianity: egalitarian, often socialist, universalist and so on. The "fire-and-brimstone" idea has lost such prevalence that it's become a humorous trope.

    It's useful to think of how these ideologies define their followers versus their deities. In Christianity, "all fall short of the glory of God," so we're all classified as inferior to deity with no relationship to God. Christ acts as an intermediary between the inferior, human aspects of man and the divine qualities of God. In Catholicism, there's a hierarchy due to an association between priests (and bishops) with God, whereas all else remains separate as, "Creation" (rather than the Creator,) but even moreso with Saints, and lastly the Pope.

    In certain pagan traditions (and pantheism), there's less differentiation between deity, man and nature. For example, the introduction of mythologies, fusions of beast with man (centaurs, nymphs) and so on. There's also direct ties between human outcomes and deities (as with Freyr, a Norse god of fertility), and there's a literal transmutation between deity and natural phenomena: Apollo as the literal carrier of the sun, for example.
     
  10. Tarmander

    Tarmander Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,118
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you can definitely separate the bible and Catholicism. Why not? I can pick up the Bible and act out what Jesus says to do, right? Can Marxism exist without the state? I would say the connection there is much stronger than the one between Jesus and Catholicism.

    Your interpretation seems really off to me too. Not have a relationship with God? The whole story is basically a close relationship with God in paradise, and then a fall, and then a Son coming back to reignite that relationship to those who choose it. All individual choice and within you. Of course people can mangle it and start justifying all manner of things in the name of everyone being a fallen sinner. Or say the Caesar line is about giving to the state or something. Yeah, lots of criticism of religion, and it deserves it.

    I don't see Marxism as having that same issue. There are no Marxists without the state. I guess there are some that say "true communism hasn't been tried," but it seems to follow the plan exactly...it just avoids that bit at the end where they abolish the state and let free communism reign. They never quite get there.
     
  11. DaveFoster

    DaveFoster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    Spokane, Washington
    "Left-communism" has been tried, but it ends very quickly, such as with Anarchist Catalonia, quickly stamped out under Franco's boot.

    You have to look at their fruit. How has Christianity served as a vanguard in any sense against the decay of the West? They haven't. They've allowed other ideologies to subvert Western institutions and failed miserably in every conceivable way. Christians have become passive, capitulating (particularly the Catholic Church), turned their cheeks and "paid their Caesar." They've already lost their culture.

    Modern American Protestants sing songs and prioritize mission trips to Africa and Haiti relief efforts in place of domestic activism, and "God forbid" intervention into the current ethnocides of their fellow Christians, such as the Boers in South Africa.
     
  12. Badger

    Badger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    Messages:
    524
    Gender:
    Male
    Solzhenitsyn is just an intellectual and not a "live witness"?? That's absurd. He spent years in labor camps and prisons and was terribly mistreated. The source you cited has this quote: "Solzhenitsyn stated: "I had to bury many comrades at the front, but not once did I have to bury a Jew." He certainly was, contrary to what you say, a "live witness." Even then, so what if in innumerable instances he was not present. He wrote a book of history. You expect historians offer nothing reliable because of events happening and people living long before the historian was born unless they were there? First-hand witness accounts are often unreliable, murky or lack context because the witness has a limited view of what was happening, and that's when you can find witnesses. Historical evidence relies on various methods and tools to get at the truth, with witnesses being only one kind. Even gimlet-eyed lawyers and courts rely on other things when there is no witnesses available for say a murder or other violent crime.

    Yes, Solzhenitsyn was controversial, are you implying this is some sort of disqualification? So the hell what? He was one of the greatest writers in Russian and world history - a Noble prize winner - and man of great moral stature, like Gandhi. Living - surviving in the Soviet Union - during the reign of one of the most heinous dictators in history, and also working as a decorated Army combat commander, put him a lot closer to "facts on the ground" of that time and place than you or I could ever attain. Something his armchair scholar critics in their cushy tenured academic professorships are at pains to not remind us of.

    Can you name any great human being involved in world affairs, science, politics or religion who was not "controversial"? Or put another way, closer to your implied criticism of Ray Peat, all great people have what may be called "blind spots" or "obtusenesses" about something important. An example is one I still recall that a professor I had pointed in grad school, and that is the greatest religious thinker of the 20th century had superb clarity about the Nazis, and wrote well against them, but was completely obtuse about Stalin and communism, praising him. One could say something similar about George Bernard Shaw. Their blindness to some things does not mean their work and person was not great or we have illusions about their greatness, and therefore whatever they have said is crap. Just a theory, but I suspect that what makes them great has something to do with generating obtuseness over some big issues. A price to be paid for greatness.

     
  13. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,537
    Yet, your hero hoped for the Vietnam war to continue, appeared on Russian national television to champion the Russian right of self-defense against Tchetchens, condoned Putin's dictatorship, and even stated the Holodomor wasn't a real genocide.

    Solzhenitsyn and Obama received both the Nobel Prize for being closet marxist-leninists masquerading as peace doves.
    Both feigned to seek peace yet advocated war as the means to obtain it.

    If you consider this kind of persona to be a reliable historical reference, then good luck to you.

    In contrast, McCullagh was a professional war reporter and his opinion was relied upon by governments to direct their foreign policy: he was there in person at the judicial trial when the christian leaders were railroaded, while Solzhenitsyn was barely learning to walk.
     
  14. Badger

    Badger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    Messages:
    524
    Gender:
    Male
    What I said about great thinkers having surprising obtusnesses and blind spots about significant issues is also analogous to questionable, flawed and even reprehensible behavior and stupid ideas and claims that originated with great people of all kinds. I would not dream of downplaying or ignoring those things in getting the full picture of them. One could, for instance, fault the writers of the the US constitution and founders of the US as slave owners and politically incorrect in other ways, but they are still figures of tremendous accomplishment that entailed much personal sacrifice, risking their lives in their endeavors. Any survey of the lives of what are typically called great people will reveal, I am sure, that most had a share - often sizeable - of flaw and fault. But unlike you, I think it bogus to completely dismiss them as frauds and phonies who have nothing to contribute to any serious discussion because of their flaws. We should use what they say that can be proven to have value, reject the stupid things they said of did that don't. By your nihilistic, post-modernist cultural Marxist logic, almost all - the majority - of great people who aren't saints need to be kicked into the dustbin of history and their works and accomplishments forgotten asap. When you have accomplished say, one quarter of what Solzhenitsyn or slave owner Jefferson did, then come back to tell us such people are nothing.

    Cannot comment on McCullagh, as I never heard of him. Solzhenitsyn indeed was not present in the early Bolshevik days of policy making, but he was was there to see the ugly fruits of those policies and whatever he witnessed of that has as much weight or more as anything your McCullagh saw.

     
  15. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,537
    Again, sorry to say, but your hero was just another NKVD agent destined to infiltrate the West and demoralize young generations.

    Not much to gain from him, and certainly not someone to trust to be a reliable historical resource.

    Tough.



    "NKVD agent, Anatoli Granovsky was instructed to defect and then by his virulent condemnation of communism to gain the ascendancy in anti-communist organizations. Once there, his specific instructions were,

    “Most foreign anti-Soviet publications attack us for the alleged poverty of some of our people, for our prisons, concentration camps and Cheka. This sort of attack is not in the least dangerous to our cause- in every country there are poor people, jails and police. Furthermore, Communist sympathizers are convinced that, being loyal to the doctrine, they themselves would never be sent to jail. . . They are quite prepared to believe that our Cheka, concentration camps and restrictions exist because they have to exist . . . If a man is in any way inclined toward the Communist doctrine, he will not be in the least deterred by being reminded of the harder and severer aspects of Soviet government.

    ‘When you talk publicly against the Soviet Union,’ I was laid, ‘follow the same harmless line as fanatically as possible. TALK OF PURGES, PRISONS, AND THE CHEKA. BUT DO NOT DRAW POLITICAL CONCLUSIONS OPPOSED TO THE MARXIST-LENINIST PHILOSOPHY. If you do that you are finished, finished for good. (pp. 148-149)"

    I was an NKVD agent; a top Soviet spy tells his story : Granovsky, Anatoli, 1922- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


    Advocating war to bring peace= MARXIST-LENINIST PHILOSOPHY = Solzhenitsyne, Obama, and many others.
     
  16. Badger

    Badger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    Messages:
    524
    Gender:
    Male
    Such utter nonsense. Not worth arguing against anymore.

     
  17. lvysaur

    lvysaur Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,483
    Who says they're not? You can't really compare Africa today to modern Europe; the latter is so awash in resources that there's no good reason for people to act out.

    I don't think northern peoples are any more cooperative than southern peoples. I do however, think that eastern people are moreso than western people, in a very broad sense of the term.
     
Loading...