Is There A Hidden Subliminal Message In Ray's Work ?

bk_

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
356
I have a hazy recall of Ray saying something along those lines as well, but cannot remember where. Definitely disagrees with Chomsky's language acquisition theory though,
I could have sworn I heard Ray approve of him, I think the question asked may have been something like who does Ray align the most with politically and Ray answered Noam Chomsky and I think ralph nader. i cant remmeber if it was a Roddy interview or a random other channel
In r
also it seems like Ray likes Trump or at least thinks he is less corrupt than Biden. He was saying Biden is appointing warmongerers to his cabinet as soon as being elected. Georgi also brought up half the country not wanting to be vaccinated and I think thats another reason Ray maybe identifies more on that side since there are so many Trump supporters who , like Ray dont trust the government, the vaccine, etc.
Yes this is at odds with Chomsky who told his followers to vote Biden. Peat does not subscribe to global warming and a myriad of other issues that Chomsky does.
Chomsky being mainstream and all is very careful with what issues he will address but his recent expressions have betrayed many of his faithful followers, one of whom I personally know who held him to highest regard until recent events.
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,316
In r

Yes this is at odds with Chomsky who told his followers to vote Biden. Peat does not subscribe to global warming and a myriad of other issues that Chomsky does.
Chomsky being mainstream and all is very careful with what issues he will address but his recent expressions have betrayed many of his faithful followers, one of whom I personally know who held him to highest regard until recent events.

What do you mean by In r?

Why did Chomsky suggest Biden? also years ago werent Ron Paul, Chomsky and maybe Nader supportive of each other even though they didnt agree on everything? i remember those guys being mentioned as people who werent corrupt and stood up to their own parties.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
Ray told me over email once saying "Chomsky doesn’t think it’s worth investigating anything that might challenge his view of reality, such as the Kennedy assassination(s) or the events of 9/11"

I think they both agree on opposing many powerful political and economic institutions, adn theyre both strongly anti-war. I think where they split is that Chomsky has never gone down the food/health/biology rabit hole, so he tends to follow traditional scientific interpretations of many issues, mainly cause he probably doesn't see the utility in questioning them relative to other problems that need to be faced. I still think Ray probably respects his opinion much more than other political commentators, cause Chomsky is quite intelligent in the areas he well versed in. Also, Chomsky, like ray, responds to emails if you have any questions for him. that tells me hes quite humble in a similar way as Ray
 

boris

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,345
Ray told me over email once saying "Chomsky doesn’t think it’s worth investigating anything that might challenge his view of reality, such as the Kennedy assassination(s) or the events of 9/11"

I think they both agree on opposing many powerful political and economic institutions, adn theyre both strongly anti-war. I think where they split is that Chomsky has never gone down the food/health/biology rabit hole, so he tends to follow traditional scientific interpretations of many issues, mainly cause he probably doesn't see the utility in questioning them relative to other problems that need to be faced. I still think Ray probably respects his opinion much more than other political commentators, cause Chomsky is quite intelligent in the areas he well versed in. Also, Chomsky, like ray, responds to emails if you have any questions for him. that tells me hes quite humble in a similar way as Ray

Where they split is that Chomsky is an agent.




2 seemingly opposing points, arriving at a corresponding conclusion:

In the humanities and social sciences, a fad appeared in the 1960s, in which a theory of grammar advocated by Noam Chomsky of MIT was said to explain human thinking and behavior, and specialists in anthropology, psychology, literature, rhetoric, sociology, and other academic fields, claimed that it informed their work in an essential way. The rapid spread of a doctrine for which there was essentially no evidence suggests that it was filling a need for many people in our culture. This doctrine was filling some of the gaps left by the failure of genetic determinism that was starting to be recognized. It gave new support to the doctrine of inborn capacities and limitations, in which formulaic indoctrination can be justified by the brain's natural structure.

.....
Although Bob Altemeyer's scale mainly identified right-wing, conservative authoritarians, he indicated that there could be left-wing authoritarians, too. Noam Chomsky is identified with left-wing political views, but his views of genetic determinism and a “nativist” view of language learning, and his anti-empiricist identification of himself as a philosophical Rationalist, have a great correspondence to the authoritarian character. The “nativist” rule-based nature of “Cognitive Science” is just the modern form of an authoritarian tradition that has been influential since Plato's time.

The first thing a person is likely to notice when looking at Chomsky's work in linguistics is that he offers no evidence to support his extreme assertions. In fact, the main role evidence plays in his basic scheme is negative, that is, his doctrine of “Poverty of the Stimulus” asserts that children aren't exposed to enough examples of language for them to be able to learn grammar--therefore, grammar must be inborn.

I think Chomsky discovered long ago that the people around him were sufficiently authoritarian to accept assertions without evidence if they were presented in a form that looked complexly technical. Several people have published their correspondence with him, showing him to be authoritarian and arrogant, even rude and insulting, if the person questioned his handling of evidence, or the lack of evidence.

For example, people have argued with him about the JFK assassination, US policy in the Vietnam war, the HIV-AIDS issue, and the 9/11 investigation. In each case, he accepts the official position of the government, and insults those who question, for example, the adequacy of the Warren Commission report, or who believe that the pharmaceutical industry would manipulate the evidence regarding AIDS, or who doubt the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission investigation.

He says that investigation of such issues is “diverting people from serious issues,” as if those aren't serious issues. And “even if it's true” that the government was involved in the 9/11 terrorism, “who cares? I mean, it doesn't have any significance. I mean it's a little bit like the huge amount of energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. I mean, who knows, and who cares…plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happens to be John F. Kennedy?"

"If there was some reason to believe that there was a high level conspiracy" in the JFK assassination, "it might be interesting, but the evidence against that is just overwhelming." "And after that it's just a matter of, uh, if it's a jealous husband or the mafia or someone else, what difference does it make?" "It's just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don't matter. And I think the same is true here," regarding the events of 9/11. These reactions seem especially significant, considering his reputation as America's leading dissenter.

The speed with which Chomskyism spread through universities in the US in the 1960s convinced me that I was right in viewing the instruction of the humanities and social sciences as indoctrination, rather than objective treatment of knowledge. The reception of the authoritarian ideas of Lorenz and his apologists in biology departments offered me a new perspective on the motivations involved in the uniformity of the orthodox views of biology and medicine.

In being introduced into a profession, any lingering tendency toward analogical-metaphoric thinking is suppressed. I have known perceptive, imaginative people who, after a year or two in medical school, had become rigid rule-followers.




Noam Chomsky is and always has been a spook
We are told Chomsky founded RESIST in that same year with Dwight MacDonald, among others. Remember, this was the late 1960s and the FBI and CIA have now admitted in declassified documents that they were running many covert projects then in the US, under the headings CHAOS and COINTELPRO. They just don't bother to tell you what the actual projects were. We have seen that the Tate murders were once such event. Woodstock was another. The Chicago Eight was another. Well, as it turns out, RESIST was yet another. With hindsight, we can see that Dwight MacDonald is another obvious spook. He got his start at TIME and Fortune magazines, working for Henry Luce. He was married to Nancy Rodman of the wealthy Rodman family. He then edited Partisan Review from 1937 to 43, so we have that connection again. As an editor he worked with Lionel Trilling, Mary McCarthy, Orwell, and so on. More Intel connections. He was the associate editor for Encounter in 1955, which his own Wikipedia page admits was outed as a CIA front. They try to whitewash him by saying he was unaware of it, but of course all those denials were garbage. The CIA reversed field and outed all these people in the 1960s, saying they knew very well where their money was coming from. See CIA program director Tom Braden's Saturday Evening Post article of 1967, which you can read online for free. MacDonald was also a staff writer for the New Yorker, not exactly a leftist mag. He was the movie critic for Esquire magazine in the 1960s, and he also reviewed movies for the The Today Show. So what exactly were his qualifications for founding RESIST? Are we supposed to think he was some kind of radical?

.....
To explain my knowledge of perspective as a child we then have various possibilities. Had I been an artist in a previous life? Or was I tapping into the memory of our species? Or was I simply noticing things and drawing correct conclusions? The third possibility might seem the most likely—because it requires fewer assumptions, if for no other reason. However, it still begs the question of innate intelligence of a rather complex sort, since the ability to infer correct conclusions from raw data is not straightforward in itself. How, precisely, did I do that? It would seem to require the collation of a broad range of knowledge, knowledge that would not necessarily be expected to fall out of a child's limited experience with such ease.

Chomsky rarely gets into this, since he has mostly limited himself to the generative grammar, and trying to understand how children fit an innate grammar to a real grammar. But the understanding of grammar is only one small part of the innate kit of children. What I would say is a more interesting question is where does this kit come from? If we could understand that, we might have some chance of solving Chomsky's problem. But until we understand that, I would say we have no chance of understanding Chomsky's problem. For instance, two answers to my question historically have been 1) the knowledge is prewired or stored in the brain or nervous system somehow, and is directly inherited. In this way all these ideas are a memory of the species. 2) There is a soul and the soul has memories and abilities that do not depend on the body or brain. Number 2 has always been seen as unscientific, since no one could see how an incorporeal soul could have memories or ideas. However, modern science is discovering things about light and photons that may bear on this question. Quantum physicists have discovered structures in light that do not seem to be dependent on matter. That is, light and charge can form structures on their own, without the presence or focusing of matter. Since structure is what allows for information to be stored and transmitted, we now have evidence light and charge can store and transmit information. Since that is so, there is no longer any scientific reason for dismissing 2) out of hand. In fact, the soul was always suspected of being some kind of light structure, so it may be that the common interpretation is not far wrong. I am not promoting that theory, understand, just putting it back on the table.

I mention this because either 1) or 2) would greatly simplify Chomsky's question. If either one could be demonstrated, it would mean the question is not as mysterious as it now appears. If a child is tapping either memories of the species or of a soul, then the mysterious pretty much evaporates. The mystery pertains only in the case you dismiss both 1) and 2) out of hand, and then try to understand language acquisition without either one. In that case, Chomsky is correct: the question is supremely difficult if not impossible. In that case, to even begin to create an answer, we have to broaden all our definitions and expectations, and in short allow the sort of unconscionable fudging we have seen in Modern physics to invade linguistics.

It is informative to see Chomsky talking about action at a distance, in this regard. He says in the debate with Foucault that action at a distance was seen as occult even by Newton, who used it as the basis for his gravitational field but was never happy with it beyond that. But Chomsky admits we have simply decided to accept that, without necessarily understanding it any better than Newton did. [That isn't exactly true, since we would have to discuss Einstein and curved fields and so on—which dispense with action at a distance to a certain extent—but Chomsky is roughly correct.] A lot of the old problems have been swept under the rug, and this sweeping has been defined as progress. What is informative is the way Chomsky suggests in the debate that linguists may need to do what physicists have done, sweeping some of the old demands of science under the rug. He doesn't put it that way, but that is the gist. However, I have shown on my physics site that this sweeping hasn't been necessary. Those like Bohr and Heisenberg told us via the Copenhagen interpretation (1926) that physicists had to undergo a revolution, not allowing themselves to ask the old mechanical questions. This is why I redflagged Thomas Kuhn's late interview with Niels Bohr, above. Bohr didn't just accidentally make an appearance in this paper, since he is connected to all the things we have been studying. All of science has been of a piece in the 20th century, and I am showing you how and why Chomsky is following the lead of physicists and those controlling physicists. In all fields, these Modern fudges have been required for any number of reasons, but one reason is that scientists were forbidden from asking certain questions or studying certain possibilities. We have seen that Chomsky's atheism—which is a prejudice just as vicious as any others—prevented him from looking at what I would say are the two most likely causes of language acquisition. In the same way, Modern physicists have been prevented by the rules promulgated by previous dogmatic and prejudiced physicists like Bohr from researching the most likely causes of various phenomena such as charge, E/M, gravity, and so on. This is what has caused havoc in the field, not the irrationality or incomprehensibility of Nature. If you wish to short-circuit science, the most efficient way is by sealing off all paths to the truth.

Of course this is just one cause of havoc, and perhaps not the primary one. I have shown that the intrusion of Intelligence into every field is the more likely cause of most meltdowns in sense and reason. I no longer think Chomsky is just accidentally promoting atheism, for instance, or that Bohr was just accidentally promoting non-materiality, non-causality, or other spooky forces. Those behind all the spooky forces of the 20th century were spooks. They were promoting all the things they were promoting because these things allowed them a broader and finer control, as well as a larger profit margin. This would mean that Chomsky was misdirecting on purpose through both his politics and his linguistics.
 
Last edited:

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
Where they split is that Chomsky is an agent.




2 seemingly opposing points, arriving at a corresponding conclusion:

In the humanities and social sciences, a fad appeared in the 1960s, in which a theory of grammar advocated by Noam Chomsky of MIT was said to explain human thinking and behavior, and specialists in anthropology, psychology, literature, rhetoric, sociology, and other academic fields, claimed that it informed their work in an essential way. The rapid spread of a doctrine for which there was essentially no evidence suggests that it was filling a need for many people in our culture. This doctrine was filling some of the gaps left by the failure of genetic determinism that was starting to be recognized. It gave new support to the doctrine of inborn capacities and limitations, in which formulaic indoctrination can be justified by the brain's natural structure.

.....
Although Bob Altemeyer's scale mainly identified right-wing, conservative authoritarians, he indicated that there could be left-wing authoritarians, too. Noam Chomsky is identified with left-wing political views, but his views of genetic determinism and a “nativist” view of language learning, and his anti-empiricist identification of himself as a philosophical Rationalist, have a great correspondence to the authoritarian character. The “nativist” rule-based nature of “Cognitive Science” is just the modern form of an authoritarian tradition that has been influential since Plato's time.

The first thing a person is likely to notice when looking at Chomsky's work in linguistics is that he offers no evidence to support his extreme assertions. In fact, the main role evidence plays in his basic scheme is negative, that is, his doctrine of “Poverty of the Stimulus” asserts that children aren't exposed to enough examples of language for them to be able to learn grammar--therefore, grammar must be inborn.

I think Chomsky discovered long ago that the people around him were sufficiently authoritarian to accept assertions without evidence if they were presented in a form that looked complexly technical. Several people have published their correspondence with him, showing him to be authoritarian and arrogant, even rude and insulting, if the person questioned his handling of evidence, or the lack of evidence.

For example, people have argued with him about the JFK assassination, US policy in the Vietnam war, the HIV-AIDS issue, and the 9/11 investigation. In each case, he accepts the official position of the government, and insults those who question, for example, the adequacy of the Warren Commission report, or who believe that the pharmaceutical industry would manipulate the evidence regarding AIDS, or who doubt the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission investigation.

He says that investigation of such issues is “diverting people from serious issues,” as if those aren't serious issues. And “even if it's true” that the government was involved in the 9/11 terrorism, “who cares? I mean, it doesn't have any significance. I mean it's a little bit like the huge amount of energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. I mean, who knows, and who cares…plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happens to be John F. Kennedy?"

"If there was some reason to believe that there was a high level conspiracy" in the JFK assassination, "it might be interesting, but the evidence against that is just overwhelming." "And after that it's just a matter of, uh, if it's a jealous husband or the mafia or someone else, what difference does it make?" "It's just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don't matter. And I think the same is true here," regarding the events of 9/11. These reactions seem especially significant, considering his reputation as America's leading dissenter.

The speed with which Chomskyism spread through universities in the US in the 1960s convinced me that I was right in viewing the instruction of the humanities and social sciences as indoctrination, rather than objective treatment of knowledge. The reception of the authoritarian ideas of Lorenz and his apologists in biology departments offered me a new perspective on the motivations involved in the uniformity of the orthodox views of biology and medicine.

In being introduced into a profession, any lingering tendency toward analogical-metaphoric thinking is suppressed. I have known perceptive, imaginative people who, after a year or two in medical school, had become rigid rule-followers.




Noam Chomsky is and always has been a spook
We are told Chomsky founded RESIST in that same year with Dwight MacDonald, among others. Remember, this was the late 1960s and the FBI and CIA have now admitted in declassified documents that they were running many covert projects then in the US, under the headings CHAOS and COINTELPRO. They just don't bother to tell you what the actual projects were. We have seen that the Tate murders were once such event. Woodstock was another. The Chicago Eight was another. Well, as it turns out, RESIST was yet another. With hindsight, we can see that Dwight MacDonald is another obvious spook. He got his start at TIME and Fortune magazines, working for Henry Luce. He was married to Nancy Rodman of the wealthy Rodman family. He then edited Partisan Review from 1937 to 43, so we have that connection again. As an editor he worked with Lionel Trilling, Mary McCarthy, Orwell, and so on. More Intel connections. He was the associate editor for Encounter in 1955, which his own Wikipedia page admits was outed as a CIA front. They try to whitewash him by saying he was unaware of it, but of course all those denials were garbage. The CIA reversed field and outed all these people in the 1960s, saying they knew very well where their money was coming from. See CIA program director Tom Braden's Saturday Evening Post article of 1967, which you can read online for free. MacDonald was also a staff writer for the New Yorker, not exactly a leftist mag. He was the movie critic for Esquire magazine in the 1960s, and he also reviewed movies for the The Today Show. So what exactly were his qualifications for founding RESIST? Are we supposed to think he was some kind of radical?

.....
To explain my knowledge of perspective as a child we then have various possibilities. Had I been an artist in a previous life? Or was I tapping into the memory of our species? Or was I simply noticing things and drawing correct conclusions? The third possibility might seem the most likely—because it requires fewer assumptions, if for no other reason. However, it still begs the question of innate intelligence of a rather complex sort, since the ability to infer correct conclusions from raw data is not straightforward in itself. How, precisely, did I do that? It would seem to require the collation of a broad range of knowledge, knowledge that would not necessarily be expected to fall out of a child's limited experience with such ease.

Chomsky rarely gets into this, since he has mostly limited himself to the generative grammar, and trying to understand how children fit an innate grammar to a real grammar. But the understanding of grammar is only one small part of the innate kit of children. What I would say is a more interesting question is where does this kit come from? If we could understand that, we might have some chance of solving Chomsky's problem. But until we understand that, I would say we have no chance of understanding Chomsky's problem. For instance, two answers to my question historically have been 1) the knowledge is prewired or stored in the brain or nervous system somehow, and is directly inherited. In this way all these ideas are a memory of the species. 2) There is a soul and the soul has memories and abilities that do not depend on the body or brain. Number 2 has always been seen as unscientific, since no one could see how an incorporeal soul could have memories or ideas. However, modern science is discovering things about light and photons that may bear on this question. Quantum physicists have discovered structures in light that do not seem to be dependent on matter. That is, light and charge can form structures on their own, without the presence or focusing of matter. Since structure is what allows for information to be stored and transmitted, we now have evidence light and charge can store and transmit information. Since that is so, there is no longer any scientific reason for dismissing 2) out of hand. In fact, the soul was always suspected of being some kind of light structure, so it may be that the common interpretation is not far wrong. I am not promoting that theory, understand, just putting it back on the table.

I mention this because either 1) or 2) would greatly simplify Chomsky's question. If either one could be demonstrated, it would mean the question is not as mysterious as it now appears. If a child is tapping either memories of the species or of a soul, then the mysterious pretty much evaporates. The mystery pertains only in the case you dismiss both 1) and 2) out of hand, and then try to understand language acquisition without either one. In that case, Chomsky is correct: the question is supremely difficult if not impossible. In that case, to even begin to create an answer, we have to broaden all our definitions and expectations, and in short allow the sort of unconscionable fudging we have seen in Modern physics to invade linguistics.

It is informative to see Chomsky talking about action at a distance, in this regard. He says in the debate with Foucault that action at a distance was seen as occult even by Newton, who used it as the basis for his gravitational field but was never happy with it beyond that. But Chomsky admits we have simply decided to accept that, without necessarily understanding it any better than Newton did. [That isn't exactly true, since we would have to discuss Einstein and curved fields and so on—which dispense with action at a distance to a certain extent—but Chomsky is roughly correct.] A lot of the old problems have been swept under the rug, and this sweeping has been defined as progress. What is informative is the way Chomsky suggests in the debate that linguists may need to do what physicists have done, sweeping some of the old demands of science under the rug. He doesn't put it that way, but that is the gist. However, I have shown on my physics site that this sweeping hasn't been necessary. Those like Bohr and Heisenberg told us via the Copenhagen interpretation (1926) that physicists had to undergo a revolution, not allowing themselves to ask the old mechanical questions. This is why I redflagged Thomas Kuhn's late interview with Niels Bohr, above. Bohr didn't just accidentally make an appearance in this paper, since he is connected to all the things we have been studying. All of science has been of a piece in the 20th century, and I am showing you how and why Chomsky is following the lead of physicists and those controlling physicists. In all fields, these Modern fudges have been required for any number of reasons, but one reason is that scientists were forbidden from asking certain questions or studying certain possibilities. We have seen that Chomsky's atheism—which is a prejudice just as vicious as any others—prevented him from looking at what I would say are the two most likely causes of language acquisition. In the same way, Modern physicists have been prevented by the rules promulgated by previous dogmatic and prejudiced physicists like Bohr from researching the most likely causes of various phenomena such as charge, E/M, gravity, and so on. This is what has caused havoc in the field, not the irrationality or incomprehensibility of Nature. If you wish to short-circuit science, the most efficient way is by sealing off all paths to the truth.

Of course this is just one cause of havoc, and perhaps not the primary one. I have shown that the intrusion of Intelligence into every field is the more likely cause of most meltdowns in sense and reason. I no longer think Chomsky is just accidentally promoting atheism, for instance, or that Bohr was just accidentally promoting non-materiality, non-causality, or other spooky forces. Those behind all the spooky forces of the 20th century were spooks. They were promoting all the things they were promoting because these things allowed them a broader and finer control, as well as a larger profit margin. This would mean that Chomsky was misdirecting on purpose through both his politics and his linguistics.
very, very interesting read. i hadn't seen that. Ray does indeed seem to have a lot of grievance with him, however, based on all those criticisms, i still don't think he's an agent. then again i'm not familiar with his work at RESIST, but i'm not gonna make a conclusion off one paragraph. at a certain point you can question everyone and everything as being involved with the government. like how many people do you know that you respect who don't spend time questioning 9/11, JFK, etc?
 
Last edited:

mariantos

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2021
Messages
483
very, very interesting read. i hadn't seen that. Ray does indeed seem to have a lot of grievance with him, however, based on all those criticisms, i still don't think he's an agent. then again i'm not familiar with his work at RESIST, but i'm not gonna make a conclusion off one paragraph. at a certain point you can question everyone and everything as being involved with the government. like how many people do you know that you respect who don't spend time questioning 9/11, JFK, etc?
JFK was killed by his wife at that time,
or rather husband, those who lead the world are a bunch of transsexuals, they sold their soul, implicitly their body in exchange for power.

Most of those who work in the media and promote satanic plans and raise them to the level of art, promote the abnormal as normal through petty manipulation containing 99.99% lies and a little bit of truth, through induced terror, etc. Most of them are transsexuals, also mayors, kings and queens, performance sportsmen and women, famous singers, film actors, famous actresses, models, famous fashion designers, famous businessmen, very rich inventors, they are all transsexuals. and the list goes on.

Some people know that many of them are gay or lesbian and pedophile, unfortunately very few have come to see beyond the smoke and mirrors, but there is still hope, for everything that hides in the dark will come to light.
 

boris

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,345
very, very interesting read. i hadn't seen that. Ray does indeed seem to have a lot of grievance with him, however, based on all those criticisms, i still don't think he's an agent. then again i'm not familiar with his work at RESIST, but i'm not gonna make a conclusion off one paragraph. at a certain point you can question everyone and everything as being involved with the government. like how many people do you know that you respect who don't spend time questioning 9/11, JFK, etc?
Yeah, I wouldn't say he's a big fan :lol:. The second link goes more in depth about Chomsky's intelligence connections. You are right, at a certain point you can question everyone and everything. Although there are too many odd things about Chomsky for me. In "Manufacturing Consent" Chomsky says that the elites don't have to "control" the media, because they own the media. The media though surely seems to love him. The New York Times called him the most important intellectual of our time. Anytime he's on mainstream TV he is portrayed as a genius revolutionary. I think if he really was what he claims to be, the media would either blackwash him, or not give him a platform at all.
 
Last edited:

bk_

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
356
Chomsky has outed himself yet again as a globalist shill by reinforcing the belief that this pandemic is just a normal pandemic and the response was justified. In fact he reinforces the mainstream media that SARS-COV-2 is deadly enough (it only has a 0.15% IFR and effects elderly and terminally ill, compare the IFR stats to past epidemics) to warrant the atrocious violations of human rights and the need for vaccines instead of the myriad of prophylactic and treatment drugs proven effective.

He raises a straw man that private corporations are not interested in vaccines when in reality they literally rushed to the opportunity of making experimental vaccines and are now trying to force it on us for profit in violation of ethics and laws.

He instead says greatest threat to humanity is nuclear arms and global warming. Never mind the loss of freedoms, censorship, poverty, starvation, mental distress, and forced mass experimental vaccinations, he tells his audience to overlook everything and focus more on submitting themselves to globalization to prevent nukes and global warming (which itself is a fraud setup by Rockefeller and Maurice Strong).
View: https://youtu.be/ASPTDg_3ADE
 
Last edited:

Daniil

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
870
Location
Moscow
ray peats ideas are implemented on a national level in russia, which will make them a super nation among pufa infested societys in a matter of decades
I live in Russia, and this is definitely not true. All the people I know cook with sunflower oil. Mayonnaise is also very popular, which mainly consists (also) of sunflower oil. However, we have not yet reached the enrichment of food with iron.
 

Sapien

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
418
Location
USA
Thryoid is 7 letters, if you take the 7th letter of every 7th newsletter, it spells out broda Barnes's tombstone address, if you visit the tombstone, there is an engraving of a picture of a carrot, but if you smear it in methylene blue and shine it with a red light, it reveals a zip code in Mexico, it happens to be the biggest carrot farm in Mexico, go there and find the next clue
Illuminati confirmed
 

Sapien

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
418
Location
USA
His views on politics are totally connected and correspondent to his philosophical views, including politics, if you think that his political views are nonsense then if you don't view his science/ biologic approach as also nonsense, you're the one misunderstanding and creating paradoxes
This
 

Sapien

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
418
Location
USA
the seaweed and natural high iodine foods eaten by Japanese
I would like to add that the Japanese eat an absurd amount of goitrogenic vegetables to counteract the high iodine content of their diet (which is likley due to selenium benefits not iodine).
 

Sapien

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
418
Location
USA
also Ray does seem to prefer Trump over Biden and from what ive seen on Dannys podcast it seems Ray leans libertarian
Um no he definitely does not lean libertarian. His ideal candidate was Based Bernie if I recall correctly
 

Sapien

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
418
Location
USA
It's also curious that Ray holds quite a strong stance on betacarotene and its claimed negative effect on thyroid, yet recommends to eat daily the vegetable that is highest in betacarotene
I saw one user say he/she soaks the carrot overnight then drians the water to lower amount of BC. Really smart idea surprised Peat never thought of /implemented that. maybe cause it would soften the carrot too much?
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,316
Um no he definitely does not lean libertarian. His ideal candidate was Based Bernie if I recall correctly
He had some views or statements i remember that would be considered far right or libertarian in the mainstream.
I would like to add that the Japanese eat an absurd amount of goitrogenic vegetables to counteract the high iodine content of their diet (which is likley due to selenium benefits not iodine).

Yes goitrogens reduce iodide/iodine uptake right? Maybe even reduce uptake specifically in the thyroid? And even soy is a big goitrogen right... arent soy and fermented soy products popular
 

Sapien

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
418
Location
USA
Yes goitrogens reduce iodide/iodine uptake right? Maybe even reduce uptake specifically in the thyroid? And even soy is a big goitrogen right... arent soy and fermented soy products popular
Yeah that’s why I think it’s misleading for people to cite the Japanese on why iodine isn’t harmful.

Peat is right that iodine is dangerous imo
 

SuperStressed

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
275
I could have sworn I heard Ray approve of him, I think the question asked may have been something like who does Ray align the most with politically and Ray answered Noam Chomsky and I think ralph nader. i cant remmeber if it was a Roddy interview or a random other channel
Ray Peat hated Noam Chomsky and rightly so. He did say he likes Ralph Nader.

Ray couldn'tpoliticly align with someone who he believed has US intelligence ties could he?
 
Back
Top Bottom