Ray Peat And Stalinism

[snacks]

FWIW I grew up in South Africa. Every time I go back there I get the feeling the streets are more crowded. There are also ****-tons of illegals there from other African countries now. Every other waiter seems to be from Zimbabwe. I think conducting a thorough census there is virtually impossible because the government really has no idea who is inside of its borders. Do you think the GIGO could work the other way too though, in that it might undercount population due to the simple inability to do the counting very effectively?

On a sidenote, I don't understand how unskilled day-laborers who make up a huge chunk of the population can afford to eat nowadays. 20 years ago, being a maid or a yard worker would pay enough weekly to buy weekly food staples, modest rent, electricity, water. Nowadays it covers maybe 2 days of food. Whatever the true population levels in African countries are, I don't see them doubling and tripling from here. Eat, what? Drink, what? If the calories of energy (wealth) aren't there in the first place, they can't be consumed.

South Africa is the only country that may be undercounting IMHO. As you mentioned, there's huge inflows of immigration from Zimbabwe and other failed bantu utopias. In general, there are far more incentives to overcount than undercount, especially from the standpoint of international aid and the way in which African leaders estimate their own prestige. Think of it this way: imagine a country DOES conduct a formal census, and asks a tribal leader how many people are in there village. Would you overestimate to make yourself look like a leader of more people and potentially a recipient of a greater amount of aid, or underestimate and gain literally nothing? Now extrapolate that on a national scale and you understand the psychology behind it all.

 

[PxD]

I'm more inclined to believe that mass outflows of migrants to just about anywhere else in the world from Africa in recent years is a sign of population peak and impending collapse, rather than another 80 years of exponential growth.

 

[snacks]

I'm more inclined to believe that mass outflows of migrants to just about anywhere else in the world from Africa in recent years is a sign of population peak and impending collapse, rather than another 80 years of exponential growth.

It depends on how committed protestant and neo-marxist (same thing really) NGOs are to allowing africa to continue on an unsustainable course forever. I think the money will run out as American power and prestige continues to decline but it really depends

 

[managing]

You stated in an earlier post that communist class-based/anti-imperialist policy was reasonable, but Nazi race-based policy was inherently repulsive to you because it revolved around race.



That didn't come until later, in the 1970s. As someone else pointed out, the USSR under Lenin and Stalin had very strict anti-Semitism laws until 1949 or so. I think it's hard to argue there's no Jewish fingerprint on something when they made up <1% of the country's population but constituted maybe a quarter of the communist political elite, and the ideology itself was heavily driven by Jewish intellectuals, and had no qualms about getting their hands bloody.



If I understood you correctly, you think it's because Stalin's brutality was somewhat justified, because anti-capitalism is OK, and Hitler's wasn't, because racism isn't, and so Hitler isn't worth re-examining.

I have a much simpler explanation. You might like it. It's not a political argument or a moral argument - to me those are just ex-post socially acceptable rationalizations.

It's because Germany lost WW2 and the USSR won. That's it. The penalty for losing was that the loser's ideology was exterminated and banned worldwide - total war, total defeat. The spoils of winning was continued survival and therefore the continued spread of the victor's values and ideology.

If German generals and troops had succeeded at Stalingrad in '42, then:
- communism dies in Europe
- communist ideology and cultural Marxism almost certainly wiped off the map in Europe
America and fascist Europe eventually on diplomatic terms (negotiated peace, wars don't last for ever), and then far-right influence into American politics and culture rather than Soviet far-left, thus
- a much weakened or even no black Civil Rights Movement
- we wouldn't be reading books that attempt to rehabilitate Stalin's and communism's image, because the books would be banned; but we'd probably be reading such about Hitler
- no SJW campus culture
- no Antifa
- no BLM
etc.

We draw a moral distinction, in hindsight, between the two when I think the reality is that the one side has gotten to live for another 70 years and continue to spread its agenda around the world, while the other side was exterminated. In a nutshell, victors write history.

Your first paragraph: I said nothing remotely like the bolded. If you want to quote it, I'll admit I was wrong.

Second bolded: I didn't say that either. The question I was addressing was whether Stalin was anti-Semitic or simply anti-Rothschild.

Third bolded: Nope. Didn't say that either.

Its funny, many of you on this thread seem to think you either have to hate or love something. Nuance is lost. But the loss of nuance is a loss of intelligence.

Even your reading of "to the victor go the spoils" is comically simplistic.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

I mean, if you can consume 30 g of lactose (about 1 liter of milk, according to the carton I'm drinking now) without any negative symptoms I'd be hard-pressed to call you lactose intolerant, biomarkers be damned. It also makes sense given that peat recommended a gradual increase in milk consumption for supposedly lactose-intolerant people, so it could be the microbiome adapting.

By the way, isn't H2 supposed to be this CO2-like super gas even used in canonical medical practice? I bought some pills before lol, though I didn't really notice anything

Well, eating 30g "without any bad symptoms" simply means that they weren't bent over with stomach pains or that they weren't on the toilet for hours. They're still not digesting those 30g of lactose, and so all of that lactose is being consumed by bacteria.

Peatarians should hate any non-digestible carbohydrate. This is also something I've commented on in the past with resistant starch people/the mainstream: if you want more bacteria in your gut producing more byproducts, isn't lactose or sucrose intolerance a good thing? It's basically like eating fiber or resistant starch. In fact it's even more potent, as it's not only far more soluble than either of them, but the bond in lactose is super easy to break (like sucrose). Meaning 30g of lactose is equal to even more grams of cellulose. The conversion ratio could probably be calculated by looking at different studies and finding the H2 production/grams of lactose/cellulose ratio.

This is why in the Peat context, anyone with any amount of lactose deficiency should be getting zero grams of lactose a day. It goes against the goal of reducing microflora and indigestible carbohydrates (like cellulose).

Of course, lactase is cheap and does the job equally well. But this is more about what Peat said.

And yeah, H2 is good from what I've seen, but the amounts produced from 30g of lactose are low, from what I understand.

 

[MatheusPN]

i dont like his other ideas too.


ok! so cuba is direct democracy. you need to ask their people ,let them express themselves(without any danger or fear) then you will find out what percent of that country are happy about their system. their athletes run away from cuba in any international tournament to live somewhere else. i guess only problem is that they cannot go back to cuba after that.

there is no need to have any poor people in country ,your happy whole country's economy is destroyed and most people are poor? i bet you in all of these countries there are layers connected to power and live like a king! without that such government cannot survive , they need it to have a power circle to oppress society to stay in power.
economic corruption is over the roof in these countries.

So you don't know the billionaire communists who exist for more than a century?
Direct democracy and egalitarian, rich communists. As I said before, reality tells otherwise! HaHaHa

Lets compare Cuba without taking in consideration that it is: a country against the world and recently enslaved by the US, against countries which profits creating misery and massive massacres. Seems reasonable

Besides the first part which seems fairly comprehensible for a Brazilian's attempt at English

I guarantee you that most Brasilians say the same about my PT texts. BTW.: Bulgarian is better at it.

What?

What?

 

[paymanz]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqmI3rBjv0c

 

[Oleg]

Hello there, independent thinking friends. If you be not cultists and slaves, I ask how you square your support of Peat with his sayings, though?

A lot of people on this forum discussing things they don’t know much about, and what they know mostly a propaganda. Ray Peat is talking from his personal experience. He visited SU and he read much broader scope of literature on the subject. I was born and raised in SU, and can tell you that Ray Peat has a much clearer picture of the world including SU, than most Americans.

 

[SatoshiPufamoto]

I think Danny is essentially provoking Peat to talk about extremely complicated topics in such a short amount of time. Peat isn't given nearly adequate time to address all the complexities and Danny unfortunately is just not good at interviewing Peat sometimes and gets too convoluted with his questions and topics, not to mention his shortsighted hyperfocus on conspiracies.

It's also really disappointing to me on just how ignorant the right is about socialism and Marxism. To properly critique these, it's important to understand the true intentions and meanings. They are highly complex topics with highly complex histories. Authoritarianism can creep into any system when it becomes corrupt. Capitalism isn't immune either.

What is the right fundamental misunderstanding about Marxism?

 

[Elie]

What is the right fundamental misunderstanding about Marxism?

Exactly.
Implementation of Marxism hasn't gone quite well for the tens of millions killed in communist countries.

However, what is often though of "capitalism" in the west is a devolution into cronyism - not a whole lot different that how "marxim" was implemented, in as much as a small group at the top with wealth and power uses its wealth and power (via governments) to accumulate more of it.

Both are driven by psychopaths' and sociopaths exerting their control over empaths.

Humanity needs to evolve to a state of 100% empaths - an evolution of consciousness.

 

[lvysaur]

Humanity needs to evolve to a state of 100% empaths - an evolution of consciousness.

I've met self-described "empaths" and I wasn't too impressed. Other traits are at least equally important, in my opinion

Personally I think that utopian communism is doable, with all inhabitants of the world living at a quality of life akin to, or better than 1960s America. But it would require a complete defeat of the current leadership, an essentially "one world government", and a very advanced understanding of neurology, personality types, and many other things to make sure certain leaders don't try to usurp others via oppressing their own people.

Aside from maximizing nutrition, minimizing pollutants, biodiverse agriculture etc., a "benevolent world socialist" government could also implement job rotation, so that everyone shared some part in doing undesirable jobs, manual labor, etc. I think the increased novelty and "things to look forward to" could keep adults in a "university" type mood throughout their entire lives.

But the question of "how to get there" is different from "is it possible to do", and it would definitely be very complicated to simply do and maintain it even if the chance was given tomorrow

 

[SatoshiPufamoto]

Exactly.
Implementation of Marxism hasn't gone quite well for the tens of millions killed in communist countries.

However, what is often though of "capitalism" in the west is a devolution into cronyism - not a whole lot different that how "marxim" was implemented, in as much as a small group at the top with wealth and power uses its wealth and power (via governments) to accumulate more of it.

Both are driven by psychopaths' and sociopaths exerting their control over empaths.

Humanity needs to evolve to a state of 100% empaths - an evolution of consciousness.

I actually think both capitalism and Marxist communism lead to the same place, a total monopolization of all aspects of life. First economic, then socio-political

 

[Elie]

I actually think both capitalism and Marxist communism lead to the same place, a total monopolization of all aspects of life. First economic, then socio-political

Maybe I conflate "capitalism" with "free Market economics", but what we have is cronyism.

"Benevolent" communism requires empathy. But the idea of a centralized government being benevolent? Certainly hasn't happened yet.

 

[Peater]

Maybe communism could work in low serotonin, high trust high dopamine societies. But I can't get on with no personal property rights. Even animals fight over that.

 

[Nebula]

Maybe communism could work in low serotonin, high trust high dopamine societies. But I can't get on with no personal property rights. Even animals fight over that.

No mammals at least. Eusocial insects accomplish it within their colonies by centralizing reproduction. A fate I hope humans will reject, but it seems to be nature’s biological solution to very high population density. I’ll pass on that evolutionary direction.

 

[Peater]

No mammals at least. Eusocial insects accomplish it within their colonies by centralizing reproduction. A fate I hope humans will reject, but it seems to be nature’s biological solution to very high population density. I’ll pass on that evolutionary direction.

Yup. No bugman life for me either.

 

[Peater]

What if "evolution" actually works backwards?

 

[SatoshiPufamoto]

Maybe communism could work in low serotonin, high trust high dopamine societies. But I can't get on with no personal property rights. Even animals fight over that.

No I don’t think so. Natural hierarchies will always arise. Communism’s fatal presupposition is that it thinks it can eventually solve for this problem, which is why is practice it always ends up being so violent

 

[Razvan]

Communism was all created by zionists, that is what they want to push us until 2030, "one world government", Lenin was the leader of the destruction of the Tzar in Russia, almost all revolutions were founded by zionists in their advantage. I dont understand the appreciation of Stalin from the Peat view, you can see Stalin in various photos holding the hand in a similar manner to other illuminists like Napoleon.
He gets it right with the CIA and some other phantomatic views, but the picture is bigger than that, there will always be the "evil" and the "good" in an "orchestrated" movie. Yet the "hero" and the "good" could be friends after acting.

 

[SatoshiPufamoto]

Communism was all created by zionists, that is what they want to push us until 2030, "one world government", Lenin was the leader of the destruction of the Tzar in Russia, almost all revolutions were founded by zionists in their advantage. I dont understand the appreciation of Stalin from the Peat view, you can see Stalin in various photos holding the hand in a similar manner to other illuminists like Napoleon.
He gets it right with the CIA and some other phantomatic views, but the picture is bigger than that, there will always be the "evil" and the "good" in an "orchestrated" movie. Yet the "hero" and the "good" could be friends after acting.

I’m still struggling to make sense of Peats respect for Stalin and Lenin. Trying to remain open minded as they might have some redeeming ideas I may have missed. I’ve yet to see how this radical materialistic worldview can work