Peat Supports Anarchism (Talking With Ray Peat #3: The Origins Of Authoritarianism)

[narouz]

I agree with your point on Libertarians, but am less-enthusiastic than you about the idea that we can have "less-benign airbags" in this U.S. system; especially the example of Putin. Not that he's a great guy, he's a piece of garbage, but the "benign female leader" we're soon to elect has made more than her fair share of overtones along with Robert Kagan/Victoria Nuland/NATO that she's ready to attack Russia by virtue of them being Russia. I think the knowledge of Putin that we have great nuclear capability is enough to allow us to be "Hobbit-like". See: Cold War 1945-1991. As far as protecting us from other powers, that idea is a farce; the only thing we have to protect, at this point, is our hypocritical exceptionalism.

Also, the quality of being benign amongst our elected officials would be much more possible if we were allowed to use an instant runoff system of voting and had paper ballots, as we see what happens when these machines falter or have questionable results: no paper trail! The Brexit vote at least had that going for it.

"...she's ready to attack Russia by virtue of them being Russia."

A bit overwrought, methinks.
Take a look at the map and the giagantic land mass that is Russia.
And yet we see him probing and pushing and sneaking his little green men wherever he sees a weakness.
And we have long seen him closing down their free press.
Talk about corruption! There's ya feature!!
H. Clinton was wrong about invading Iraq, but then most of us (Americans) were.
She has no illusions about Putin being a cool guy we can trust--I'm good with that.

"As far as protecting us from other powers, that idea is a farce; the only thing we have to protect, at this point, is our hypocritical exceptionalism."

I agree about the exceptionalism.
But about the need for protection against the likes of Putin, ISIS, China (encroachments in China Sea,
for example)...not a farce at all in my view.

 

[explosionlord]

"...she's ready to attack Russia by virtue of them being Russia."

A bit overwrought, methinks.
Take a look at the map and the giagantic land mass that is Russia.
And yet we see him probing and pushing and sneaking his little green men wherever he sees a weakness.
And we have long seen him closing down their free press.
Talk about corruption! There's ya feature!!
H. Clinton was wrong about invading Iraq, but then most of us (Americans) were.
She has no illusions about Putin being a cool guy we can trust--I'm good with that.

"As far as protecting us from other powers, that idea is a farce; the only thing we have to protect, at this point, is our hypocritical exceptionalism."

I agree about the exceptionalism.
But about the need for protection against the likes of Putin, ISIS, China (encroachments in China Sea,
for example)...not a farce at all in my view.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on some of that, but glad you're on board with exceptionalism and hatred of right libertarianism, heh heh.

I think what's most important to realize is the fact that we (western worlders) brought ISIS, the Syrian crisis, and yes, even China's mentioned forays into the aptly-named China sea with our meddling in the middle east (and far east), not excluding benign Hillary's act of no-fly zones and weapons-sharing with groups like Al Nusra and our consistent true encroachment of Russia with not only multiple military bases, but the expansion of NATO (when the early 90s agreement stipulated no further expansion) in the Baltic countries.

Again, I hate Putin for his murdering of dissidents like Nemtsov and media silencing you mentioned , but typical Russian people are going through really tough times, and the size of Russia has little to do with their "threat status". The destabilization of Ukraine was not a Putin plan, but again, one of Nuland and Clinton, as has been uncovered in her e-mails.

I find it funny that Britain and western Europe are finally getting their just desserts, being colonized just as they colonized so many years ago. The sad part is that immigrants are being blamed for all the problems, not trade policy, banksters, or illegal wars.

Sad too, for us in the states, we're likely being paraded into another war by a supposedly leftist president, the likes of Barack "send in the drones" Obama. I for one hope the American people are smarter this time, and really take to the streets if we see war with nuclear powers on the horizon. After the almost universal condemnation of Obama's declaration of Venezuela as a threat to US Sovereignty, it can already be seen that most of the world, including BRICS countries with nuclear power, is tired of the true bully, the U.S. Hiding behind an autocrat like Putin is a cowardly way for us to go about the agenda of world domination.

 

[narouz]

Andrew Sullivan is live blogging the Repub Convention,
and he addresses the theme of authoritarianism at work there...

"8:38 p.m. A reader writes:

Can you imagine then-Senator Barack Obama weaponizing a 9/11 widow on stage in Denver, in 2008, to rant and rage against George Bush?

I’ve never seen anything more stomach-churningly distasteful on a political stage, and I’ve attended a Sarah Palin rally.
The exploitation of that woman’s emotions is, yes, another new low. But I suspect we are going to have an orgy of this kind of gut, primary feeling this week, and trying to counter it rationally is close to impossible. That’s how deliberative democracy is dismantled, bit by bit, feeling by feeling. Yes, it’s preaching to a very small choir, but Trump has no rational, calm side. He is pure id. So it is completely appropriate and predictable that his convention will simply channel the crudest, strongest emotions – fear, patriotism, family, tribe. These are the key themes of the authoritarian soul. And he’s just getting started.

...

8:10 p.m. A reader writes:

Here’s a question for you to answer right at the top: in your wildest imagination, could you ever have seen the Republican party in the state it is now when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, i.e. if you could have hopped in a time machine and advanced 8 years (from 2008 to 2016), how shocked/surprised/appalled would you be?

I wish I were more surprised. What actually shocked me was the response of the GOP to the first black president. I actually believed they might have seen the historical significance of that, and extended a modicum of respect and even some deference to the new figure as he took over in a moment of national crisis. I was wrong. Their ideological extremism and their clearly revealed racial animus became very quickly clear. I see the nomination of Trump – a white racist nationalist – as the GOP’s final response to that opportunity. It’s tragic. But helps frame what this election has now become about: decency and democracy against foul demagoguery, authoritarian brutality and race hatred.

I see no reason to moderate my loathing of what the GOP has revealed itself to be in 2016. Its defeat is a global necessity...."

Andrew Sullivan Liveblogs the RNC, Night 1

 

[kyle]

The KMUD interview on political correctness gives you some hints about Peat's views.

 

[narouz]

The KMUD interview on political correctness gives you some hints about Peat's views.

Hmmm...
I don't know that one.
Do you recall the title/date?

 

[kyle]

6-17-16 authoritarianism

 

[Hugh Johnson]

"...she's ready to attack Russia by virtue of them being Russia."

A bit overwrought, methinks.
Take a look at the map and the giagantic land mass that is Russia.
And yet we see him probing and pushing and sneaking his little green men wherever he sees a weakness.
And we have long seen him closing down their free press.
Talk about corruption! There's ya feature!!
H. Clinton was wrong about invading Iraq, but then most of us (Americans) were.
She has no illusions about Putin being a cool guy we can trust--I'm good with that.

"As far as protecting us from other powers, that idea is a farce; the only thing we have to protect, at this point, is our hypocritical exceptionalism."

I agree about the exceptionalism.
But about the need for protection against the likes of Putin, ISIS, China (encroachments in China Sea,
for example)...not a farce at all in my view.

Again pushing for a war, narouz? I can see why you'd hate Trump:

Trump Enrages the War Party - Antiwar.com Original

 

[narouz]

Again pushing for a war, narouz? I can see why you'd hate Trump:

Trump Enrages the War Party - Antiwar.com Original

Doubling down on overwroughtness I see, Hugh.

So now, to be suspicious of Vladimir Putin's plans, is to be "pushing for war"...!?:)
I find this especially ironic
given that you would seem to be a supporter of Donald "we're gonna knock the sheet out of 'em!" Trump.
Though no one can divine any clear idea of what he might do as Commander-in-Chief,
his general belligerence and bellicosity give you little room to beech about pushing for war!

 

[narouz]

Proposed:
Roger Ailes is a widely revered type of right-wing Authoritarian.
Go!

 

[Area-1255]

I think it's notable that many groups, both Legitimate & Criminal, indirectly are using their means to sort of validate Anarchism. At least what is defined so for the respective country (see forth as IRA, various Rebel groups in the middle east, and technically some Mafia groups, then there's Tea Party and all that).
The fact that both good guys and bad guys fight for these principles may actually be hinting at a paradigm that relates to human instincts for survival. This alone justifies Anarchism as man is intent on having his own freedom, and it is when *under pressure* and threat of control from another that the most volatile and aggravating circumstances occur, and behavior that is human behavior, becomes more erratic and aggressive.

Government thus encourages hostility, not just through these means, but because always trying to ration power through what they say is the 'better cause' ends up hurting several thousand people severely, and negatively impacting millions more. We're talking about poverty here - and that happening all the time is telling us what is really going on. Of course, one can argue that ''the elite'' have done so on purpose because it makes the remainder of survivers and thrivers easier to locate or quantify.

Question is what sort of union is powerful enough to knock over the current structure, and what the proportion is of Force:Agreement (ratio) that would inevitably precede the arrangement that would benefit humanity equally. ~Area-1255~

 

[narouz]

An excerpt from a very fine essay by Adam Gopnik.
The focus here is on fascism...

"What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. It promises to turn back time and take no prisoners."
Being Honest About Trump - The New Yorker

 

[kyle]

New Yorker is a pretty pro-status quo publication to be honest.

the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason

I think in fact Trump supporters do not worship the current power holders. Aren't they motivated by changing things up? Also, there seems to be a strong element of favoring the rule of law.

As for the reason part, there seems to be a contradictory between "worshipping power" and contempt for "rule of law." It seems like this guy is the one lacking reason.

I wish I had a knack for such double speak, I'd probably have a job at some big time newspaper by now.

 

[narouz]

New Yorker is a pretty pro-status quo publication to be honest.

Well, to be perfectly candid, it is not "pro-status quo" at all.

Also, there seems to be a strong element of favoring the rule of law.

Sure, until it inconveniences him:
as nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States,
Trump made the charge that
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel--
judge in the Trump University lawsuit--
is incapable of doing his job because of his race--Trump said he is "Mexican" (he's not).

Also, Trump has said
that if elected President
he would bring back waterboarding and worse--which is now against U.S. law.
But Trump said he would still order those illegal torture tactics to be used,
and that he would see to it that U.S. officials obeyed his orders.

 

[kyle]

Well, to be entirely frank, the New Yorker, and any big name MSM outlet, is bound to be full of ***t. Feel free to disagree.

There is a concept in law where judges cannot preside over cases that they cannot make neutral judgments on because of conflicts of interest.

The Judge was a member of a La Raza law organization founded to promote Mexican interests. Trump didn't say having Mexican heritage means he can't be a judge per se.

 

[narouz]

Well, to be entirely frank, the New Yorker, and any big name MSM outlet, is bound to be full of ***t. Feel free to disagree.

The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post...all "full of ***t," eh?
How very convenient for you though, I must say.

I believe Trump prefers The National Enquirer, right?
Donald Trump wonders why the National Enquirer didn’t win a Pulitzer Prize. Here’s why.

Recommended reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/opinion/the-judicial-system-according-to-donald-trump.html
Have Republicans Grown Tired of Supporting the Rule of Law?

 

[kyle]

Actually it is a huge inconvenience if you think about it.

Go check out their health section. Get back to me when you find anything remotely Peaty. Why should I feel any differently toward their politics section?

 

[narouz]

Actually it is a huge inconvenience if you think about it.

Go check out their health section. Get back to me when you find anything remotely Peaty. Why should I feel any differently toward their politics section?

If we made that our standard, our requirement for reliability--
that a newspaper or magazine
must recognize the views of Peat as supreme in truthfulness...

Well I guess that leaves us with this forum as our only trustworthy media outlet.
I'm mean I really like this place and all but...

 

[kyle]

You know what I mean though.

The status-quo papers ignore Peat because the oligarchs have their agenda.

Same is true of the politics section.