KMUD: 6-17-16 Authoritarianism

[Dan W]

A politically charged show this month, but it also includes some discussion on digestion and circulation.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Very quick!

 

[jaguar43]

Thanks for this, brilliant !!

 

[Greg says]

 

[Makrosky]

Thanks Dan!

 

[Gl;itch.e]

Sorry Dan. Dont know whats different lately but I can't download this show again. The link you put up for me specially last time worked fine though.

 

[Dan W]

Sorry Dan. Dont know whats different lately but I can't download this show again. The link you put up for me specially last time worked fine though.

Here ya' go:
http://www.toxinless.com/kmud-160617-authoritarianism.mp3

 

[lindsay]

I just listened to this episode and am so disappointed in Andrew :-( Granted, he's allowed to like Trump if he wants to, but he said he's a libertarian and he didn't even mention Gary Johnson. Jeez!

 

[burtlancast]

Nothing like politics to ruin a show.

Andrew and Ray (to a certain degree) drew a blank here.

 

[johnwester130]

Protesters in the late 60's would sometimes mix DMSO and LSD and put it in squirt guns and squirt the cops with them when they came to arrest them.

 

[pepsi]

Its that annoying lady again. Except she wasn't annoying this time, she actually sounded smart.

Ray Peat is amazing. What subject isnt he knowledgeable about?

 

[lindsay]

Its that annoying lady again. Except she wasn't annoying this time, she actually sounded smart.

I was thinking the same thing!! I was like, way to make sense this time - Trump is a jerk and so are many of his followers. He may have the freedom to be a jerk, but a president should be composed and say mean things gracefully, IMO

 

[Herbie]

I was exited by the title but disappointed that I didn't think Ray had much opportunity to get into much of the subject due to Andrew and the callers, I don't know about other people but I listen to these to here what Ray has to say.

 

[Gl;itch.e]

Here ya' go:
http://www.toxinless.com/kmud-160617-authoritarianism.mp3

You are a true champ! Thanks a bunch yet again

 

[cdg]

I just listened to this episode and am so disappointed in Andrew :-( Granted, he's allowed to like Trump if he wants to, but he said he's a libertarian and he didn't even mention Gary Johnson. Jeez!

Yes I was going to send Andrew but did not get around to it : THE MOVIE

 

[narouz]

I'm going to have to lower my previously rather high estimate of Andrew and Sarah
based upon this show.
And, sadly, because Dr. Peat allowed himself to be associated with the opinions put forth
by those guys,
I'm also going to have to view with some suspicion Peat's political ideas.

I listened at work, so not a perfectly concentrated listening on my part.

Andrew tends to drift about, and this show was no different in that regard.
What was different was that he apparently felt a somewhat urgent need,
in this political season here in the U.S.,
to let us know something about his distress regarding threats to free speech
and--I guess?--how Donald Trump can help us feel better about that threat...?

The title of the show is "Authoritarianism,"
but--again, this from memory--the way Andrew seemed to launch off
was by way of threats he felt to our freedom of speech--
freedoms we might soon be called upon to die for, he seemed to say,
though he never made at all clear what the threat was or where it came from.

Then he found his way into another related stream of thought:
"political correctness."
Andrew offered next to nothing that I recall in terms of definition of terms--
what he was meaning by "political correctness."
This is a very difficult topic--one which requires careful thought and nuanced consideration.
Neither was employed in this rambling...rant? I guess it was a bit of a rant on his part.
I have heard very interesting discussions of the topic--
complaints from the right and the left lodged with good insights--
but not here.

Donald Trump was mentioned or referred to implicitly or explicitly at several points as I recall.
It seemed to me that Andrew was trying to say
that Trump had something important to say
about freedom of speech
and about political correctness.

I'm sorry, I will just declare my perspective here,
and say that any discussion opening
with the notion that Donald Trump can help the U.S.
with threats to our freedom of speech
and with problems of political correctness
is pretty much a non-starter for me.

For instance, when Trump exclaimed recently at one of his rallies,
"Look at my African-American over there!"
I didn't really think he was lifting the country up with his way of communicating.

We had to detour around callers asking about sulphites and probiotics.
Also with extended questions from a woman whose voice was somewhat similar
to the caller familiar to all of us,
usually asking dumb questions.
I'm not sure it was her though,
because she was pretty much on target in lodging fierce complaints about Andrew's ramblings.

When we returned to the topic, such as it was,
we had some confusing talk from Andrew about pre-war Germany,
ideas about freedom of speech he apparently felt were related to our present context now in the U.S.
And then he hopped over to post-war Germany,
the Nuremberg trials,
and "The New World Order."
I didn't know what he was talking about here...felt the need to drop a question to burtlancast on that one.

Andrew bemoaned what was happening to his ex- country, England, over the last 15 years.
He said that when he came to the U.S. he drove on the right-hand side of the road like a good American.
Apparently he did not like the influence of immigrants in England--their not assimilating
but rather changing his former country, I suppose.
This is not an unreasonable view.
But what exactly was he implying about the current situation in the U.S. along these lines?
That we need to build a wall, and Trump could help us with this?

I lumped in Sarah, above, with Andrew's views
because she did seem to chime in from time to time,
agreeing with her husband.
She said she had once been in the hospital here in the U.S.,
and that the hospital treated her in a "fascist" way.

I don't doubt this.
In fact, I sympathize.
But I'm not sure what this has to do with freedom of speech or political correctness,
and I very much doubt Donald Trump has much to offer in the way of ideas about how to make that situation better.
(Sure, Trump along with the Repubs, could kill "Obama-Care."
That has always been the beginning and end of what they have to offer on the issue.
For us Peatheads, none of the parties are gonna help us much
with changing the nature of healthcare in the U.S.
Arguably, taking healthcare away from poor people,
which is what Repubs would do,
is a good thing from a Peat point of view.
Personally, this has not made a Republican out of me.)

Dr. Peat chimed in here and there.
He said that Hillary was just as bad as Donald Trump
but that she knew how to dress up what she said in fakey politically correct language.

I'm not averse to granting weaknesses with HRC.
But I also draw a clear distinction between her and Trump,
seeing Trump as a plain threat to democracy (and freedom of speech, specifically!)
and an existential threat to our country and, for that matter, to the world...
while, problematic though she may be, I see HRC as a politician likely to nudge things toward the better.

So...sorry to say...a strike against my otherwise beloved Dr. Peat there.

He did seem to make a positive comment about Bernie Sanders.
Dr. Peat should note that Sanders has emphatically endorsed HRC
and that Sanders sees Trump as a clear and present danger to the country and the world.

Apologies for any fuzziness in my representations of the interview.
Again, I listened at work this morning, and there were a few distractions (like my job :>)).
I hope to listen again and maybe have more to say on this.
I am disappointed in Andrew, Sarah, and...I'm sorry...Dr. Peat.
I have to believe he sympathizes with at least some
of the general thrusts of Andrew's hazy ramblings--
just by virtue of appearing on the show with him and not making clear if he had disagreements.

 

[cdg]

I see HRC as a politician likely to nudge things toward the better.

Dr. Peat should note that Sanders has emphatically endorsed HRC

Think you better have good listen to:
Paul Craig Roberts on the American Coup

 

[narouz]

Think you better have good listen to:
Paul Craig Roberts on the American Coup

Paul Craig Roberts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]
Of the 9/11 Commission Report, he wrote in 2006, “One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations.”[62] (see Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report). He has asserted there is a large "energy deficit" in the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, and this deficit remains unexplained.[63]

Roberts comments on the “scientific impossibility” of the official explanation for the events on 9/11. On August 18, 2006, he wrote:

I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.... Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void.[64]

In November 2012 Roberts, referred to al Qaeda’s role in the attack as “unsubstantiated.”[65]

Sandy Hook attack[edit]
In March, 2016, Roberts published an article claiming that many pictures associated with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting were "doctored." He further claimed that he was unable to determine if the shootings had actually taken place or not.[68]

Charlie Hebdo attack[edit]
In a column for the Ron Paul Institute, Roberts said that the U.S. government executed the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris to punish France for its independent foreign policy. He cited its vote to recognize Palestine as a state at the United Nations and French President Hollande’s call to ease sanctions on Russia.[60][69][69]

 

[narouz]

As I noted in my review of the show, above,
one of the things Andrew seemed to be ranting about was
"The New World Order."
He did so while seeming to make a link to the Nuremberg Trials.
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet,
but here is the Wiki on "The New World Order"...
New World Order (conspiracy theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cdg]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as I am concerned Wiki is just another front for the vested interests when it comes to such matters - did you listen to the interview? Specifically his comments on Hillary and such.?