Interview With Ray Peat On Government, Libertarianism, And Social Class

[Drareg]

I am not sure why you quoted Drareg, as you just did exactly what he was making fun of:)

At the risk of also reading my own politics into his, I'll play along.
I agree with you that Ray is a class warrior but I don't think he qualifies as an Anarchist or a "true Libertarian". In fact I think those terms are mutually exclusive.

From my reading it seems he wants a different type of government that supports all classes and is not calling for Anarchy. He also calls limited Government a trick of the corporations.


He then specifically refutes the "true Libertarian" doctrine:

I would argue that Ray's politics supersede any of today's ideologies. I think he realizes that they are all meaningless constructs, much like gender politics. Just because he mentions some influential authors doesn't mean he subscribes to everything they had to say.

Both Kropotkin and Tolstoy were part of the nobility, the original "Right" from the French Revolution. Whose real interests do you think they were promoting? I would go out on a limb and say that they were about as sincere in their politics as Chomsky is in his.

As I said, I agree with you in saying that he is a class warrior. Class struggle has always been the real dividing line in politics.

so to me he looks like a small d democrat but who really knows but him.

It doesn't stop even in this thread ,the projections onto Peat go from politics to mania fuelled Vegans desperate to sow Peat into their projections.
Danny Roddys last interview on authoritarianism is another example,Roddy went away from that interview with his own believes he started with.

I think when Peat speaks he can generate a lot of clear coherent information in a short time ,people can find this difficult to stay focused on,Peats manner and tone reflect this,we even had people on here asking why he sounds the way he does,some were passive aggressive in this thread,if you were ever in a situation where you knew everyword you say counted ,you will sound like this,for most of us this would be highly tense situations,I think high intelligence will cause you to be this considered in every word you use.
People only take out pieces of what he is saying because the information is new and complex,it requires energy and reflection,when they don't have this they grab what they understand and take it to mean verification because he mentioned a philosophy for an example, as you covered.

This interview is a gem when compared to Roddys and the reaction to Roddys on a thread in this forum.

 

[amethyst]

It doesn't stop even in this thread ,the projections onto Peat go from politics to mania fuelled Vegans desperate to sow Peat into their projections.
Danny Roddys last interview on authoritarianism is another example,Roddy went away from that interview with his own believes he started with.

I think when Peat speaks he can generate a lot of clear coherent information in a short time ,people can find this difficult to stay focused on,Peats manner and tone reflect this,we even had people on here asking why he sounds the way he does,some were passive aggressive in this thread,if you were ever in a situation where you knew everyword you say counted ,you will sound like this,for most of us this would be highly tense situations,I think high intelligence will cause you to be this considered in every word you use.
People only take out pieces of what he is saying because the information is new and complex,it requires energy and reflection,when they don't have this they grab what they understand and take it to mean verification because he mentioned a philosophy for an example, as you covered.

This interview is a gem when compared to Roddys and the reaction to Roddys on a thread in this forum.

I agree with you. It appears many see Peat's work and philosophy thru their own prism of what they want Peat to say rather than what he actually believes or espouses. I get the impression that he advocates free thinking to the extent that, if certain ideas are contrary to what is commonly though of as "peatarianism", they still should be embraced for the shear learning value intrinsic in them.

 

[Queequeg]

It doesn't stop even in this thread ,the projections onto Peat go from politics to mania fuelled Vegans desperate to sow Peat into their projections.
Danny Roddys last interview on authoritarianism is another example,Roddy went away from that interview with his own believes he started with.

I think when Peat speaks he can generate a lot of clear coherent information in a short time ,people can find this difficult to stay focused on,Peats manner and tone reflect this,we even had people on here asking why he sounds the way he does,some were passive aggressive in this thread,if you were ever in a situation where you knew everyword you say counted ,you will sound like this,for most of us this would be highly tense situations,I think high intelligence will cause you to be this considered in every word you use.
People only take out pieces of what he is saying because the information is new and complex,it requires energy and reflection,when they don't have this they grab what they understand and take it to mean verification because he mentioned a philosophy for an example, as you covered.

This interview is a gem when compared to Roddys and the reaction to Roddys on a thread in this forum.

Agreed. I think we are all guilty of this to some extent. Its been said that the media segmentation along ideological lines has been a big factor in making us incapable of hearing an alternative view point.

I agree with you. It appears many see Peat's work and philosophy thru their own prism of what they want Peat to say rather than what he actually believes or espouses. I get the impression that he advocates free thinking to the extent that, if certain ideas are contrary to what is commonly though of as "peatarianism", they still should be embraced for the shear learning value intrinsic in them.

Very true; that's why as hard as we all try, you can't pin an ideology on him. Ideologies are only shadows of the truth.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

to mania fuelled Vegans desperate to sow Peat into their projections.

I've never seen this. All I've seen was about two posts from nice, sweet people who asked about a "Peat" inspired vegan diet. I've never seen "mania." You exaggerate.

People are allowed to perceive and discuss Peat in any way they want to, as allowed under this forums rules. Stop trying to control people. No one is "projecting" anything. They are exploring ideas.

I agree with you. It appears many see Peat's work and philosophy thru their own prism of what they want Peat to say rather than what he actually believes or espouses. I get the impression that he advocates free thinking to the extent that, if certain ideas are contrary to what is commonly though of as "peatarianism", they still should be embraced for the shear learning value intrinsic in them.

Have you ever read this quote:?

"Since the contextuality of communication is always in the foreground when I talk or write, you know that someone is confusing me with an authority when they talk about my ‘protocol’ for something. Context is everything, and it’s individual and empirical.” -RP

People have been getting mad at me for years now when I post a Peat quote that they don't like. It makes me laugh. They didn't do enough research. I like Peat more for his anti-authoritarianism (minus any leftist type) and more for his views on hormones than trivial dietary matters.

 

[amethyst]

I've never seen this. All I've seen was about two posts from nice, sweet people who asked about a "Peat" inspired vegan diet. I've never seen "mania." You exaggerate.

People are allowed to perceive and discuss Peat in any way they want to, as allowed under this forus rules. Stop trying to control people. No one is "projecting" anything. They are exploring ideas.



Have you ever read this quote:?

"Since the contextuality of communication is always in the foreground when I talk or write, you know that someone is confusing me with an authority when they talk about my ‘protocol’ for something. Context is everything, and it’s individual and empirical.” -RP

People have been getting mad at me for years now when I post a Peat quote that they don't like. It makes me laugh. They didn't do enough research. I like Peat more for his anti-authoritarianism (minus any leftist type) and more for his views on hormones than trivial dietary matters.

No I haven't read that quote, but thanks for posting, it's a good one

 

[michael94]

+1 that's almost Lincolnesque

Thanks for the compliment good sir. "God must have loved the common man- he created so many of them" -A. Lincoln

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

- Abraham Lincoln

The Civil War was about expanding the Federalist system, not slavery or humanitarian works.

 

[goodandevil]

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

- Abraham Lincoln

The Civil War was about expanding the Federalist system, not slavery or humanitarian works.

Well I think the civil war was about cotton export to england, the crown, and also pork deals. also the 14th amendment made us all slaves and also under the war powers act. lincoln was no angel but after gettysburg he didnt want to participate in the system anymore. anyways he got shot so he must've done something right. Have you heard of Charles Chiniquy and the connections between tbe jesuits and lincoln's assasination? and did you ever reply to my nazi questions? have a good evening.

 

[sladerunner69]

Iraqi children won't just starve themselves, you know.

And I suppose you considered the alternative of leaving 25% of the world's oil supply in the hands of a deranged madman? If he chose to end the export of his oil to the modern world, that could potentially have catastrophic consequences on our economy, suffocating many below the poverty line and hence threatening the saftey of our citizens. The US govt, its one fully legitimate purpose in protecting the safety of it's people, utilized military force to prevent this likely catastrophy.

If you don't believe Sadam was not a madman, then I would point you to the video where he is speaking in front of thousands of people in bagdad. He then exclaims that it's time for monthly public executions, and goes around selecting a number of men and boys, handing one his personal pistol so that they may have the honor of performing the executions. The crowd cheers strong through the whole video.

My military friends also explained that a common game people in iraq like to play is taking a dog on the street and cutting off one or both of its ears. Nothing is funnier than that to them.

 

[Makrosky]

Have you ever read this quote:?

"Since the contextuality of communication is always in the foreground when I talk or write, you know that someone is confusing me with an authority when they talk about my ‘protocol’ for something. Context is everything, and it’s individual and empirical.” -RP

West, can you provide the source of that quote ? I want to add it to the forum collection of quotes. I think it should be in the very front page.

 

[Makrosky]

And I suppose you considered the alternative of leaving 25% of the world's oil supply in the hands of a deranged madman? If he chose to end the export of his oil to the modern world, that could potentially have catastrophic consequences on our economy, suffocating many below the poverty line and hence threatening the saftey of our citizens. The US govt, its one fully legitimate purpose in protecting the safety of it's people, utilized military force to prevent this likely catastrophy.

Really.... I can't believe I'm reading things like that. If you can't have oil, then ******* invent something else, don't go to a foreign country to bomb, kill, mutilate, destroy unvaluable archeological sites, etc...

Jesus Christ. All because "our people", "our economy" and "our citizens" need it.

I ran out of Pansterone. I'm gonna get into your house and steal it from you.

I think you are a good candidate to read some of Chomsky's books on American Imperialism. What USA did on El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, East Timor, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.

 

[keith]

And I suppose you considered the alternative of leaving 25% of the world's oil supply in the hands of a deranged madman? If he chose to end the export of his oil to the modern world, that could potentially have catastrophic consequences on our economy, suffocating many below the poverty line and hence threatening the saftey of our citizens. The US govt, its one fully legitimate purpose in protecting the safety of it's people, utilized military force to prevent this likely catastrophy.

If you don't believe Sadam was not a madman, then I would point you to the video where he is speaking in front of thousands of people in bagdad. He then exclaims that it's time for monthly public executions, and goes around selecting a number of men and boys, handing one his personal pistol so that they may have the honor of performing the executions. The crowd cheers strong through the whole video.

My military friends also explained that a common game people in iraq like to play is taking a dog on the street and cutting off one or both of its ears. Nothing is funnier than that to them.

So you think that Americans have some right to the natural resources of another country that justifies our invasion of that country and slaughter of its people, and destruction of its infrastructure?

 

[keith]

And I suppose you considered the alternative of leaving 25% of the world's oil supply in the hands of a deranged madman? If he chose to end the export of his oil to the modern world, that could potentially have catastrophic consequences on our economy, suffocating many below the poverty line and hence threatening the saftey of our citizens. The US govt, its one fully legitimate purpose in protecting the safety of it's people, utilized military force to prevent this likely catastrophy.

If you don't believe Sadam was not a madman, then I would point you to the video where he is speaking in front of thousands of people in bagdad. He then exclaims that it's time for monthly public executions, and goes around selecting a number of men and boys, handing one his personal pistol so that they may have the honor of performing the executions. The crowd cheers strong through the whole video.

My military friends also explained that a common game people in iraq like to play is taking a dog on the street and cutting off one or both of its ears. Nothing is funnier than that to them.

Also consider what you said in the context of another country. If someone in another country decided Trump is a madman, and he has said some pretty ridiculous things, would that country be justified overthrowing our government, killing our people, and destroying our infrastructure? It just isn't logical to make these leaps to try to justify the unjustifiable. I don't get the belief in American exceptionalism. I am an American, and I don't get it. I can only imagine how ridiculous it appears to the rest of the world.

 

[sladerunner69]

Also consider what you said in the context of another country. If someone in another country decided Trump is a madman, and he has said some pretty ridiculous things, would that country be justified overthrowing our government, killing our people, and destroying our infrastructure? It just isn't logical to make these leaps to try to justify the unjustifiable. I don't get the belief in American exceptionalism. I am an American, and I don't get it. I can only imagine how ridiculous it appears to the rest of the world.

Name one thing that Trump said that is ridiculous. The only words of his that I would not defend are when he lashed out against the media and said he would consider a "media ban". Obviously that would not be principles but considering the intense corruption of the current Orwellian news-media I can understand him saying this.

When we invaded in the first desert storm the civillian casusalties were minimal, and it was such a decisive and coherent conflict that it is held up as pristine example of benevolent American Military influence in foreign policy classes around the world.

This idea that pervades liberal culture of all conflict being unjustified because they are violent, is fundamentally an absurd notion. Politics and foreign policy is always a game of choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[zztr]

I am totally in favor of dismantling the American Empire and have been my entire life. I also believe the USA should be broken into smaller regions. We should retain a small unified federal government to run the nuclear arsenal and the navy. We don't really need an army anymore.

I believe the American Empire has been a highly corrupting influence on the American people and the sooner we can get out of this business of Pax Americana the better. Close all the overseas military bases and wind it down.

What I find funny, though, is that the America haters don't grasp what ending global Pax Americana really means. It means a lot of regional wars and adversarial trade blocks making power plays. Foreigners love to bash the American Empire but I think most of them will actually miss it when it's gone. In my case I just don't care about the dead foreigners very much and would rather have a free, if poorer, country here.

 

[sladerunner69]

Really.... I can't believe I'm reading things like that. If you can't have oil, then ******* invent something else, don't go to a foreign country to bomb, kill, mutilate, destroy unvaluable archeological sites, etc...

Jesus Christ. All because "our people", "our economy" and "our citizens" need it.

I ran out of Pansterone. I'm gonna get into your house and steal it from you.

I think you are a good candidate to read some of Chomsky's books on American Imperialism. What USA did on El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, East Timor, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.

I have read and studies plenty of Chomsky. He is a lofty disillusioned psuedo-scientist who is completely out of touch with reality or with the pragmatism that is essential to the world. Many leftist "intelelctuals" and professors have pointed me to him, and I have to have this discussion every time. He evokes social anarchism when it comes to government structure, which I see as being completely at odds with his positions on foreign policy.

Gulf war one was absolutely essential, gulf war 2 was called for but not carried through correctly and that mostly has to do with the poor public support for any military operation. We have thinkers like Noam in part to thank for the less than stellar results of Vietnam and Iraq. It's very difficult to win a fight or take exacting professional action when you have stripped your men of their sense of pride and honor, which is really the fundamental problem of modern US foreign policy.

 

[zztr]

Gulf war one was absolutely essential, gulf war 2 was called for but not carried through correctly

Both these wars were petro-dollar wars conducted under the instruction of Saudi Arabia and Israel. These are the primary imperial sponsors. America had no real business in either but acted as the hired muscle. The same dynamic is at play with the current Syria nonsense. It has nothing to do with real American interests, but the Saudis and Turks and Israelis have leverage within the imperial system and are exercising it.

 

[sladerunner69]

I am totally in favor of dismantling the American Empire and have been my entire life. I also believe the USA should be broken into smaller regions. We should retain a small unified federal government to run the nuclear arsenal and the navy. We don't really need an army anymore.

I believe the American Empire has been a highly corrupting influence on the American people and the sooner we can get out of this business of Pax Americana the better. Close all the overseas military bases and wind it down.

What I find funny, though, is that the America haters don't grasp what ending global Pax Americana really means. It means a lot of regional wars and adversarial trade blocks making power plays. Foreigners love to bash the American Empire but I think most of them will actually miss it when it's gone. In my case I just don't care about the dead foreigners very much and would rather have a free, if poorer, country here.

In favor of dismantling the american empire? That's utterly insane. America functions as the only self-experiment in democracy and freedom, and aong with western europe has brought the world every luxury and technological innovation that the vast majority of us would not live without. Yes there are obviously a few dirty spots in our past but you aren't using a broad or unbiased enough eprspective to see how critical America is to the world and what it represents for human life on earth. The closest thing to a trully autonomous, free state and you want to abolish that? Our influence is 90% positive or more.

Name one country that you prefer over the U.S. ? Japan? nope, too misogynyst and authoritarian. England? Nope no free speach and a dictatic class-based government. Sweden? Nope taxes too high with no upwards mobility in business. Middle eastern countries/africa? Give me a break.

 

[keith]

Name one thing that Trump said that is ridiculous. The only words of his that I would not defend are when he lashed out against the media and said he would consider a "media ban". Obviously that would not be principles but considering the intense corruption of the current Orwellian news-media I can understand him saying this.

When we invaded in the first desert storm the civillian casusalties were minimal, and it was such a decisive and coherent conflict that it is held up as pristine example of benevolent American Military influence in foreign policy classes around the world.

This idea that pervades liberal culture of all conflict being unjustified because they are violent, is fundamentally an absurd notion. Politics and foreign policy is always a game of choosing the lesser of two evils.

Trump has said lots of things that lots of people consider ridiculous. If you don't, that's fine, but doesn't disprove my point, which is just that a leader saying ridiculous things, even insane things, isn't justification for mass murder.

I'm not sure who you are arguing against with the rest of what you wrote. I never claimed to be a liberal or claimed that all violence is unjustified. I pointed to a specific example that was quite clearly unjustified. There are many more.

In the first desert storm the United States dropped depleted uranium munitions all over Iraq, poisoning agricultural land and water throughout the country. The U.S. also destroyed large parts of the infrastructure of Iraq, including water treatment plants, roads, bridges, etc. The war was followed by vicious sanctions which severely restricted medicines and medical equipment, and destroyed the Iraqi economy. I shutter to think this is a model of benevolence, and I highly doubt it is taught as such anywhere but the U.S. and possibly our allies in the war, who would likewise have an interest in maintaining that illusion.

 

[sladerunner69]

Both these wars were petro-dollar wars conducted under the instruction of Saudi Arabia and Israel. These are the primary imperial sponsors. America had no real business in either but acted as the hired muscle. The same dynamic is at play with the current Syria nonsense. It has nothing to do with real American interests, but the Saudis and Turks and Israelis have leverage within the imperial system and are exercising it.

That is a false, overly simplified perspective. Have you read any pro-american foreign policy books as well as your chomsky fluff? Please get back to me if you do.

Sadam had the 4th largest military in the world prior to the Gulf War. The 4th largest. And he was posed on his southern border prepping an invasion into Saudi Arabia, a semi-western propped govt with ZERO MILITARY ABILITY. They were pleading our state dept to intervene, as their only option was to hire 70,000 security personall as mercenaries (which are reliably less effective than true soldiers). They had almost no armor to speak of, and no airforce, with a handful of anti-air batteries. Israel was ready to send help because the geopolitical reprecussions of a Sadam Hussein takeover of saudi arabia would have been disaterous. It would also be leaving him in the hands of a MAJORITY of the worlds oil supply. Over 50%!!! How you could stand by as that happened?? Noam Chomskey says he would, and that is certified 100% idiotic. Sorry, but the invasion was esstential, and Israel and Saudi Arabia pleaded for us to intervene, and we knew we needed to. And despite all of these un-educated leftists who despise "hate and war" we through our airforce and armor straight at Sadam's military and we won a decisive victory in 4 days, with minimal casualties on our side and zero civillian casualties. We were the only power capable of doing that. What was your problem with desert storm again?

I don't agree in intervention in syria unless it is to fight ISIS.

 

[keith]

I have read and studies plenty of Chomsky. He is a lofty disillusioned psuedo-scientist who is completely out of touch with reality or with the pragmatism that is essential to the world. Many leftist "intelelctuals" and professors have pointed me to him, and I have to have this discussion every time. He evokes social anarchism when it comes to government structure, which I see as being completely at odds with his positions on foreign policy.

Gulf war one was absolutely essential, gulf war 2 was called for but not carried through correctly and that mostly has to do with the poor public support for any military operation. We have thinkers like Noam in part to thank for the less than stellar results of Vietnam and Iraq. It's very difficult to win a fight or take exacting professional action when you have stripped your men of their sense of pride and honor, which is really the fundamental problem of modern US foreign policy.

Or perhaps asking people to destroy their fellow human beings for unjust causes is what strips them of their pride and honor. One shouldn't have pride and honor in committing atrocities.