Ray Peat And Stalinism

[boris]

I mean the things i read here are often the opposite of what RP actually said. WTF?

Peat isn't a Stalinist, to suggest so is mental.

It's just like the "Peat diet killed me" or "Quitting Ray Peat saved my life" threads. It's people taking him out of context on purpose or actual comprehension problems.

 

[ecstatichamster]

It's just like the "Peat diet killed me" or "Quitting Ray Peat saved my life" threads. It's people taking him out of context on purpose or actual comprehension problems.

I don’t care about Dr. Peat’s politics anyway.

 

[snacks]

I just will point out that in the current Youtube



and listen to his comments. He definitely is a Stalin apologist. I feel that he believes Stalin did not commit atrocities. That Stalin has been misrepresented in Western history.

Wow that was probably the worst political "discourse" I've ever heard coming from the mouth of a smart person outside of my college

 

[Elie]

Me (to Peat):
The info you shared about the allegiances of the soviet leadership was interesting.
Did Stalin not kill and imprison many of his citizens?
Did millions not die?
My parents who left the Soviet Union in 1973 told me things such as indoctrination, ease of being sent to prison (even if a neighbor said something) and line ups for basic items.
If you can recommend books or articles that would be great.

Ray: Several of Grover Furr’s books are good introductions to the subject. The lines for buying certain things were real and unpleasant; Venezuela and Iran are now experiencing similar things, for similar reasons. North Americans are just starting to experience some similar shortages.

Grover Furr's suggests that Stalin was demonized by Khrushchev and following leaders who started a very close relationship with the elite of the west, which culminated in Gorbachev's dismantling of the Soviet Union.
I have not evaluated Furr's work and can speak to its truthfulness.

Any political system lead by uncaring, greedy and power thirsty individuals is bound to be harmful, while the opposite is true, regardless on whether it is socialist or capitalist.

 

[snacks]

Me (to Peat):
The info you shared about the allegiances of the soviet leadership was interesting.
Did Stalin not kill and imprison many of his citizens?
Did millions not die?
My parents who left the Soviet Union in 1973 told me things such as indoctrination, ease of being sent to prison (even if a neighbor said something) and line ups for basic items.
If you can recommend books or articles that would be great.

Ray: Several of Grover Furr’s books are good introductions to the subject. The lines for buying certain things were real and unpleasant; Venezuela and Iran are now experiencing similar things, for similar reasons. North Americans are just starting to experience some similar shortages.

Grover Furr's suggests that Stalin was demonized by Khrushchev and following leaders who started a very close relationship with the elite of the west, which culminated in Gorbachev's dismantling of the Soviet Union.
I have not evaluated Furr's work and can speak to its truthfulness.

Any political system lead by uncaring, greedy and power thirsty individuals is bound to be harmful, while the opposite is true, regardless on whether it is socialist or capitalist.

Furr, best known for rubbing himself raw to .jpgs of Stalin and openly lying to preserve the status of his idol while accusing basically the entire population of post-soviet populations of the same. His one and only resort to refuting the mass of evidence of people's experience of the holodomor is "muh ukrainian nazi collaborators," as if they decided to side with the Nazis for a good time rather than because they'd been consistently mistreated over decades. The Galician SS also saved thousands of women from being raped by Soviets at different times (chiefly in Austria) so his demonization of Ukrainians is on shaky moral ground, to say the least

That this lunatic of all people is the source of Peat's, err, "take" on Stalin is beyond comical

 

[el_dundo]

Some conspiracy bits like "Gorbachev was a nazi agent" might sound new to US people, but this is a common narrative in a current Russian / old soviet propaganda: RussiaToday, TV channels, Livejournal history russian blogs. as a Ukrainian I was swimming in both parts of propaganda (European capitalistic / Ukrainian / Russian pro-soviet stuff) #1 Russian propagandist (Solovyov) looks exactly as Stalin and trying to reanimate and whitewash Stalin narrative.

So it might sound fresh from US part of the world, but it's part of last 30-40 years Russian propaganda. And most people who are nostalgic for soviet Russia with Stalin rule reanimated it today in form of Donetsk People Republic, Lugansk People Republic, Transnistria (which have soviet flag btw). So I have no idea how to share the full landscape of Russian propaganda BS but it might sound new and fresh from cultured person like RP, still it's a formely known current Russian propaganda you may here from guys like Solovyov, Puchkov and so on.

 

[Kvothe]

The Galician SS also saved thousands of women from being raped by Soviets at different times (chiefly in Austria) so his demonization of Ukrainians is on shaky moral ground, to say the least

Yeah, god save the Waffen-SS for saving all those innocent lives. Talking about beyond comical

 

[snacks]

Yeah, god save the Waffen-SS for saving all those innocent lives. Talking about beyond comical

My point wasn't that the SS in general was good (I'm Russian and know full well that they weren't) but rather that "Ukrainian Nazi collaboraters" constitute a fringe case like the Forest Brothers and weren't exactly exterminationists (or exterminationists at all) and were certainly at the very least morally superior to the Stalinists. Furr is also outright lying in saying that Ukrainian diaspora "invented" the Holodomor "myth" so take that as you will

 

[managing]

Peat isn't a Stalinist, to suggest so is mental. Peat is clearly anti-authoritatian and Stalin, more than any other European 20th Century leader was the epitome of authoritarianism. Murderous authoritarianism on a scale never seen before (until Mao) in the history of the world. Peat is an old guy that answers emailed medical queries from strangers for free.

And the Soviets weren't harmless isolationists either, lol. They "isolated" so that their populace wouldn't see how bad things were comparatively. All the while expanding their authority at every opportunity.

 

[managing]

I just will point out that in the current Youtube



and listen to his comments. He definitely is a Stalin apologist. I feel that he believes Stalin did not commit atrocities. That Stalin has been misrepresented in Western history.

Quotes please.

 

[snacks]

And the Soviets weren't harmless isolationists either, lol. They "isolated" so that their populace wouldn't see how bad things were comparatively. All the while expanding their authority at every opportunity.

The problem isn't that Peat supports Stalinism despite knowing that it's authoritarian but that he seemingly legitimately thinks that it wasn't. I was inclined to hold this against Peat's intellect or honesty but after learning what his sources were it's understandable

 

[managing]

The problem isn't that Peat supports Stalinism despite knowing that it's authoritarian but that he seemingly legitimately thinks that it wasn't. I was inclined to hold this against Peat's intellect or honesty but after learning what his sources were it's understandable

On what are you basing this?

 

[snacks]

On what are you basing this?

I've had the displeasure of reading Grover Furr before and am basing it on the fact that according to at least one person in this thread Peat recommends him. Again, Peat has so many terrible political opinions that I have trouble positing anything but bad sources

 

[managing]

The thing is, I have seen people on here claim that Dr. Peat supports Trump or, alternatively, that he is a communist. I've not yet seen either claim supported by actual evidence.

 

[snacks]

The thing is, I have seen people on here claim that Dr. Peat supports Trump or, alternatively, that he is a communist. I've not yet seen either claim supported by actual evidence.

I don't know who you're arguing with but I don't know if Peat is a communist though I would unfortunately assume that he likely is one. Plenty of people who aren't marxists take these rosy views of Stalin etc. Peat has plenty of other stupid views that are preferentially held by marxists which I've mentioned in here but at the end of the day I don't really care about his delusive political thinking as long as other people don't ape it

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Yeah. I always knew Ray had communist sympathies, which I didn't mind. But on the third to last Danny Roddy interview he mentioned some suspect things about Lenin, and then in the second to last and the last interview he just came out as a full blown Stalinist.

For those of you in this thread who haven't seen those podcasts and think you know what this thread is about: go watch those real quick.

Ray seems to be basing the vast majority of his support firstly on ideology and secondly on the book Krushkev lied. I always try to be open minded. The entire concept of being offended by whether something is true or not is childish (even though Peat would likely be offended by Nazi apologism). But I really do think he's really, really wrong here. I read parts of Kruskev lied and dug deep into Stalinism and Soviet apologism and it's all bull****.

Grover Furr (the author of Krushkev lied) is completely full of it. There's multiple instances in that book of using confessions given under torture as sources. And then the rest of the points he has about the Soviets can't be directly be debunked but have equally valid evidence against them, and a lot more of it. At one point in the book, Grover Furr uses a ******* letter Stalin himself had written as evidence that Stalin didn't actually do some bad thing.

We can also just look at how the Soviets acted. They expanded and invaded as much as they could, simultaneously invaded Poland with the Nazi's (and later raped and killed millions of them).

What annoys me the most is blatant double standard. Peat would never ever entertain Nazi apologism and would call it some names, even though historically there has been 100x times the opportunity to lie about Nazi history vs Soviet history. For instance, they lost the war, had all of their personnel executed, imprisoned, or made (and paid) to work for the US/Soviets. For years after the war the Allies enacted "De-Nazification" all over Europe, controlling the narrative for years to come. And the Nazi's never called themselves out for crimes (besides during the Nuremberg trials, under threat of death). While a Soviet (Krushkev), under no obvious threat, called out the entire Soviet state and it's figureheads for no apparent gain.

Another interesting phenomena: when you look at claims of Nazi evil, almost all of it originates from the Soviets. For instance, every Nazi death camp officially listed were the ones that the Soviets got to. Every camp Americans got to were merely listed ad POW camps. The ovens, gas chambers, Slavic atrocities, etc, they all originate from things tbe Soviets claimed the Nazi's did.

On the other hand, the Soviets have been called out by tons of different countries. America and Americans have called them out, the British called them out, the French called out them, even other Slavic countries called them out.

It's just a weird double standard he has.

I did try to investigate his claims that the Holodomor either didn't happen, or that it was actually a Nazi/American plot to kill... Ukrainians (who were at the time fighting for their freedom). But even that led to nothing. In fact I just found more evidence for it actually happening, and it being manufactured by the Soviets. At the very least, 3 million people died, according to multiple records. And the famine was manufactured. I was open to the idea of a fungal attack, but there's not a lot of evidence for it, in fact there's basically none

And the damning piece of evidence you can find is that even during the Holodomor, the Soviet government continued exporting shittons of grain, dairy, butter, etc. You can go on wikipedia and look and the records. During the Holodomor, exports did drop slightly, but even during the Holodomor, the amount of food exported could have fed everyone starving multiple times over. Meaning, food being produced in other areas could have been used, but purposefully wasn't (especially considering agriculture and food in general was controlled by the communist government). I don't think the Soviets necessarily caused the famine. Instead they saw a naturally occurring famine happening to the Ukrainians, and decided to allow it to happen. Just 10 years before it happened the Soviets and Ukrainians had had a war, which the Soviets won. It shouldn't be that surprising. And then we have records from the 1930s ot Soviet politicians talking privately about how good the famine was for Soviet control of Ukraine.

And then when you realize that Nikita Krushkev was born and raised in Ukraine, it all starts to make a little more sense.

Besides, wouldn't a Nazi engineered super fungus spread everywhere? Why would it only stay in the Soviet Union just to make them look bad.

But, Peat would never entertain any of that, because the ideology is wrong. I mean I do get it, I myself have said that though the Soviets were pretty bad, the fact that their medical industry wasn't controlled in a for-profit monopoly allowed it to blossom and that's why the Soviet medical system has lots of very safe and somewhat effective drugs (like phenibut, or glandular peptides like epitalon), and why it's so much less poisonous and toxic vs America's medical system.

But that's where it ends. The rest of the Soviet Union from all accounts appears to have been much worse.

Peat has communist sympathies and a certain ideology and has accepted certain false evidence that communist countries of the past were actually the good guys. But also that the Nazi's were super evil. But also that actually all the elites around the world are secretly Nazi's and that the KKK have invaded the police. None of his specific opinions on politics really make much sense.

Just look around. Look at all the people interested in population control, of destroying the Earth and humanity, of people in the NWO and one world government faction. What's the similarity? They're all communists. All these people are communist.

 

[snacks]

Besides, wouldn't a Nazi engineered super fungus spread everywhere? Why would it only stay in the Soviet Union just to make them look bad.

It's funny-- you can tell from the fruits of Nazi science in the US that biology was the one field the Nazis really didn't completely have a handle on and their fringe science in that field had more to do with creating super soldiers or trying to treat disease outbreaks in strange ways (like using viruses, which is actually an interesting concept). Actually even if you believe the common run of holocaust porn nazi advancements in this field mostly consisted of "IF YOU LEAVE SOMEONE IN A VACUUM THEY WILL DIE" "IF YOU MAKE SOMEONE REALLY COLD THEY WILL DIE," nothing about biologically engineered super fungi or fungi at all really. This super fungus nonsense which I've heard before is completely out of line with testimonials and is just an attempt by soviet apologists to make one lie sensible with another

The other thing is, though Hitler's expansion plans even had he won were somewhat untenable and didn't exactly make logistical sense, he at least tentatively intended to use the very fertile farmland of Ukraine and southern Russia for agricultural output and settlement. What would the purpose of deploying a possibly uncontrollable/uncontainable biological agent in that same area?

 

[managing]

Yeah. I always knew Ray had communist sympathies, which I didn't mind. But on the third to last Danny Roddy interview he mentioned some suspect things about Lenin, and then in the second to last and the last interview he just came out as a full blown Stalinist.

For those of you in this thread who haven't seen those podcasts and think you know what this thread is about: go watch those real quick.

Ray seems to be basing the vast majority of his support firstly on ideology and secondly on the book Krushkev lied. I always try to be open minded. The entire concept of being offended by whether something is true or not is childish (even though Peat would likely be offended by Nazi apologism). But I really do think he's really, really wrong here. I read parts of Kruskev lied and dug deep into Stalinism and Soviet apologism and it's all bull****.

Grover Furr (the author of Krushkev lied) is completely full of it. There's multiple instances in that book of using confessions given under torture as sources. And then the rest of the points he has about the Soviets can't be directly be debunked but have equally valid evidence against them, and a lot more of it. At one point in the book, Grover Furr uses a ******* letter Stalin himself had written as evidence that Stalin didn't actually do some bad thing.

We can also just look at how the Soviets acted. They expanded and invaded as much as they could, simultaneously invaded Poland with the Nazi's (and later raped and killed millions of them).

What annoys me the most is blatant double standard. Peat would never ever entertain Nazi apologism and would call it some names, even though historically there has been 100x times the opportunity to lie about Nazi history vs Soviet history. For instance, they lost the war, had all of their personnel executed, imprisoned, or made (and paid) to work for the US/Soviets. For years after the war the Allies enacted "De-Nazification" all over Europe, controlling the narrative for years to come. And the Nazi's never called themselves out for crimes (besides during the Nuremberg trials, under threat of death). While a Soviet (Krushkev), under no obvious threat, called out the entire Soviet state and it's figureheads for no apparent gain.

Another interesting phenomena: when you look at claims of Nazi evil, almost all of it originates from the Soviets. For instance, every Nazi death camp officially listed were the ones that the Soviets got to. Every camp Americans got to were merely listed ad POW camps. The ovens, gas chambers, Slavic atrocities, etc, they all originate from things tbe Soviets claimed the Nazi's did.

On the other hand, the Soviets have been called out by tons of different countries. America and Americans have called them out, the British called them out, the French called out them, even other Slavic countries called them out.

It's just a weird double standard he has.

I did try to investigate his claims that the Holodomor either didn't happen, or that it was actually a Nazi/American plot to kill... Ukrainians (who were at the time fighting for their freedom). But even that led to nothing. In fact I just found more evidence for it actually happening, and it being manufactured by the Soviets. At the very least, 3 million people died, according to multiple records. And the famine was manufactured. I was open to the idea of a fungal attack, but there's not a lot of evidence for it, in fact there's basically none

And the damning piece of evidence you can find is that even during the Holodomor, the Soviet government continued exporting shittons of grain, dairy, butter, etc. You can go on wikipedia and look and the records. During the Holodomor, exports did drop slightly, but even during the Holodomor, the amount of food exported could have fed everyone starving multiple times over. Meaning, food being produced in other areas could have been used, but purposefully wasn't (especially considering agriculture and food in general was controlled by the communist government). I don't think the Soviets necessarily caused the famine. Instead they saw a naturally occurring famine happening to the Ukrainians, and decided to allow it to happen. Just 10 years before it happened the Soviets and Ukrainians had had a war, which the Soviets won. It shouldn't be that surprising. And then we have records from the 1930s ot Soviet politicians talking privately about how good the famine was for Soviet control of Ukraine.

And then when you realize that Nikita Krushkev was born and raised in Ukraine, it all starts to make a little more sense.

Besides, wouldn't a Nazi engineered super fungus spread everywhere? Why would it only stay in the Soviet Union just to make them look bad.

But, Peat would never entertain any of that, because the ideology is wrong. I mean I do get it, I myself have said that though the Soviets were pretty bad, the fact that their medical industry wasn't controlled in a for-profit monopoly allowed it to blossom and that's why the Soviet medical system has lots of very safe and somewhat effective drugs (like phenibut, or glandular peptides like epitalon), and why it's so much less poisonous and toxic vs America's medical system.

But that's where it ends. The rest of the Soviet Union from all accounts appears to have been much worse.

Peat has communist sympathies and a certain ideology and has accepted certain false evidence that communist countries of the past were actually the good guys. But also that the Nazi's were super evil. But also that actually all the elites around the world are secretly Nazi's and that the KKK have invaded the police. None of his specific opinions on politics really make much sense.

Just look around. Look at all the people interested in population control, of destroying the Earth and humanity, of people in the NWO and one world government faction. What's the similarity? They're all communists. All these people are communist.

This reads like an indictment of Grover Furr. I have no opinion on the matter, as I've not read him. But then, all I see is an unsupported assertion that Ray came out as "a Stalinist".

This is what I mean. Do you have quotes? Evidence? Support. I must admit, I don't have 2 hours to watch, lol. If you want to indicate a specific time segment that supports your position, I'd give it a listen.

Of course nobody is one dimensional. But when you try to make a criticism of somebody for saying "the Nazi's were super evil" you start to sound like a Nazi apologist.

And, again, I find it hilarious that one faction argues Peat is a Trumper, and another that he is a Stalinist. I doubt Ray Peat is boring and unoriginal enough to do anything like either of those.

 

[snacks]

Start from 1 hour 10 min the video he posted. This is just him defending stalinism rather than him actually going leftard to the extent that he's gone other places but I also don't want to spend all my time on this

 

[BigYellowLemon]

This reads like an indictment of Grover Furr. I have no opinion on the matter, as I've not read him. But then, all I see is an unsupported assertion that Ray came out as "a Stalinist".

This is what I mean. Do you have quotes? Evidence? Support. I must admit, I don't have 2 hours to watch, lol. If you want to indicate a specific time segment that supports your position, I'd give it a listen.

Of course nobody is one dimensional. But when you try to make a criticism of somebody for saying "the Nazi's were super evil" you start to sound like a Nazi apologist.

And, again, I find it hilarious that one faction argues Peat is a Trumper, and another that he is a Stalinist. I doubt Ray Peat is boring and unoriginal enough to do anything like either of those.

See, you're one of the people I was talking about. This thread is about the podcast: if you want to know what we're talking about, go watch the podcast. Danny Roddy has timestamps for most of his podcasts with Peat and you'll see what we're talking about. I'm not really interested in a play-by-play dissection of what Peat said nor am I interested in spoon feeding, it'll be all the same anyways if you just watch it yourself.

You're actually making yourself sound ignorant, as we have all seen it, and he makes it very clear that he is basically a Stalinist, or at the least has rock-hard sympathies. On the other hand, you're still arguing about whether he even said anything about Stalin. That's not what this threads about. This thread is about whether he's right or wrong, and how it can be fit into the 'Peat framework'. It's not about whether he said Stalinist things: he did. It's whether he's right ir wrong about them.

Note: I don't remember him ever directly saying "I am a Stalinist", but there's a solid hour or more of him saying pro-Stalin stuff, saying all the history is wrong, apologising for Lenin and Stalin, etc. If it walks like a Stalinist and talks like a Stalinist, then it's a Stalinist. If you defend or downplay mostly everything a country did, with very little reliable evidence, then you support that country.

I mean, maybe I interpreted what he said wrong. Maybe he is just slightly sympathetic to the Soviets. But that's not how I interpreted him.

As for how Peat can be a Stalinist and a Trump supporter: I don't think he's that much of a Trump supporter. I think he has (or had) hope in Trump, and if you watch the Danny Roddy podcast you'll see him mention that the only two presidential candidates saying anything that actually matters is Trump and Bernie. I think Peat's ambivalence and slight hope in Trump got people here excited considering how much negative coverage he gets + because Peat doesn't seem like the kind of guy to support a Republican.

Peat is also obviously very complex, so it"s not like two sides are seeing what they want in him. I think he genuinely believes what he said about Trump but has more nuance on the inside.

And about defending Nazi's: it doesn't matter who you defend, as long as they didn't actually do what they've been accused of. If someone says Hitler killed Jesus it doesn't make you a Nazi when you defend Hitler. The concept of "defending making you a part of" is actually why the Nazi's were accused of progressively more hysterical things over the years, like human skin lampshades (which never happened).

If you're wrong though, and are obviously just defending them because they're on the "right side", then that kinda does make you a supporter. Defending because you agree with them ideologically makes you a sympathizer and perhaps even a supporter, at the least.

On the other hand, Peat doesn't just refute a few things, he basically thinks all of the history of the Soviets is false and that they were the good guys. And on the other hand, he sees Nazi's hidden in every corner, responsible for all the world's ills.

But that's just my interpretation of him.