Ray Peat And Stalinism

[postman]

Got it: If you defend Nazism, you are just being factual. But if you discuss Stalin, you are a Stalinist.

Thank you. I appreciate you pointing me in the direction, which is all I wanted. I really don't hear much in the way of defending Stalin and I hear nothing ideological at all (ie, defending Stalinism).

I think the most "favorable" thing I heard him say was that Stalin was defending the interests of the Russian people against the Rothschilds. He does seem to argue that Stalin was an idealist. Ray also seems willing to call the US (and UK and Germany) "imperialists". I suppose that is what a Stalinist (or any other Soviet) would call them. He does say Kruschev created a campaign of slandering Stalin, which seems demonstrably true. But accepting that doesn't mean that one denies that Stalin did anything bad.

What I see is that he is a strong contrarian in all things. That definitely comes through. He seems fascinated with what he views as a historical mistake. I think he is infatuated with the story and contrary view. But I wouldn't mistake that for an infatuation with Stalin, nor with Stalinism. Rather, he sees an alternative narrative as a way to indict the "victors who write the history books" by detailing how horribly wrong they may have gotten some things. Nitpicking this argument for things true or not would miss that point altogether. Why not do it with Nazism one might ask? I suppose he could, if a compelling counternarrative existed. But what Nazi apologism/holocaust denial is out there is horribly contrived and inconsistent, and doesn't even try to hide its hateful, self-serving motivation.

The only thing I find consistent in his "ideology" or politics is anti-authoritarianism. History, those who write history books, are authorities. He takes delight in finding holes in their narratives. I really don't have an opinion on whether he is right. And even he consistently declaims "authority" over biology, health, medicine, as well as politics and history, and art. I don't think he would see himself as taking an authoritative position on what Stalin did or anything else. I think all of that, inevitably, is being projected on him (just like the idea of "a Peat diet") because of conditioning to expect people to choose sides and fight for a dogmatic interpretation.

As usual, with Ray Peat, I think he could (maybe should) end it with one organizing principle: Think. Perceive. Act.

I honestly can't tell if you're a master troll or if you're actually earnest. Bravo.

 

[managing]

Those quotes are strongly related to health because of their association with learned helplessness and serotonin. Again, RP is a health guru or "mentor".

I guess guru is too much of a religious term, but it's a term that's more well-known than mentor. Then is RP a health mentor, or a physiology mentor. How do I tell dim or verbally deficient people who RP is in a couple of words?

Well, telling them he is an authority would be like telling somebody unfamiliar with cars that they are horses. They may share certain vague functions, but they are utterly unrelated.

 

[managing]

Real answer-- no amount of describing someone will convey who they really are. The way to go is to build a strong physique and healthy body so that when people ask you what you did you just say "oh, look into Ray Peat he's a real smart guy." hair-splitting about terminology not as effective as this

Rather indirect, but absolutely right in avoiding the "RP is an authority" oxymoron.

 

[managing]

I honestly can't tell if you're a master troll or if you're actually earnest. Bravo.

Quite earnest. You will note that my responses to @snacks and to @BigYellowLemon were quite different. I found lemon's response disingenuous and pointed it out. Snacks I felt was engaged but blinded by his--was it emotions?--about Stalin and Furr. But @Based Kantian led me, intentionally or not, to those awesome interviews. Which grounded me in what, IMHO, RP is first and foremost: Anti-authoritarian. Which led me to Ray's peculiar (but brilliant) perspective on knowledge. Which I tried emulating. If I had just gone at them with evidence why they are wrong, I doubt it would have done anybody any good. If instead, I've provoked thought, I am humbled. I am much better at didactic argument (which shuts down thought and inquiry) than at provoking thought and inquiry, unsatisfying though didactic argument is.

 

[snacks]

Rather indirect, but absolutely right in avoiding the "RP is an authority" oxymoron.

All you're doing right now is engaging in mental masturbation over dictionary terms (guru, authority, leader etc.), please stop quoting/tagging me in this

 

[schultz]

RP doesn't like being called a guru, but what's a better term? Physiologist? Health expert? Like a doctor? There's the lack of verbal distinction that RP mentioned. And if RP isn't a guru, how about other people in the health sphere? A person isn't something because they refuse to be called something, that's decided by whoever is talking.

I think of him as a teacher. Or a guide of sorts.

I once read that when Ray started the newsletter he had sort of hoped that, instead of being something thought of as fact and authority, that it would actually lead to discussion between people who read the newsletter and Ray. He wanted to present ideas and then discuss them with people, not to cram information into your brain. Unfortunately I think most of the e-mails he gets are not related to his newsletters and various theories but just little mundane questions like "are bananas okay to eat?"

So I guess he thinks of his readers as colleagues or "co-conspirators" rather than students.

 

[managing]

All you're doing right now is engaging in mental masturbation over dictionary terms (guru, authority, leader etc.), please stop quoting/tagging me in this

You're right, let's just call him an expert and tell people who disagree with him that they are stupid.

 

[ken]

Want to thank you for reminding me of the Vision and Acceptance interviews. I clearly must have read them when they came out.

 

[PxD]

Just for fun, let’s flip this dictator-pedestaling around and see if it still sounds good when the tables are turned:

===============================

“Thank you. I appreciate you pointing me in the direction, which is all I wanted. I really don't hear much in the way of defending Hitler and I hear nothing ideological at all (ie, defending Fasism).

I think the most "favorable" thing I heard him say was that Hitler was defending the interests of the German people against the Rothschilds. He does seem to argue that Hitler was an idealist. Ray also seems willing to call the US (and UK and Ussr) "inferior nations". I suppose that is what a Nazi (or any other fascist) would call them. He does say Brandt created a campaign of slandering Hitler , which seems demonstrably true. But accepting that doesn't mean that one denies that Hitler did anything bad.

What I see is that he is a strong contrarian in all things. That definitely comes through. He seems fascinated with what he views as a historical mistake. I think he is infatuated with the story and contrary view. But I wouldn't mistake that for an infatuation with Hitler, nor with Fascism. Rather, he sees an alternative narrative as a way to indict the "victors who write the history books" by detailing how horribly wrong they may have gotten some things. Nitpicking this argument for things true or not would miss that point altogether. Why not do it with Stalinism one might ask? I suppose he could, if a compelling counternarrative existed. But what Stalinist apologism/holodomor denial is out there is horribly contrived and inconsistent, and doesn't even try to hide its hateful, self-serving motivation.

The only thing I find consistent in his "ideology" or politics is anti-authoritarianism. History, those who write history books, are authorities. He takes delight in finding holes in their narratives. I really don't have an opinion on whether he is right. And even he consistently declaims "authority" over biology, health, medicine, as well as politics and history, and art. I don't think he would see himself as taking an authoritative position on what Hitler did or anything else. I think all of that, inevitably, is being projected on him (just like the idea of "a Peat diet") because of conditioning to expect people to choose sides and fight for a dogmatic interpretation.

As usual, with Ray Peat, I think he could (maybe should) end it with one organizing principle: Think. Perceive. Act.”

 

[michael94]

Just for fun, let’s flip this dictator-pedestaling around and see if it still sounds good when the tables are turned:

===============================

“Thank you. I appreciate you pointing me in the direction, which is all I wanted. I really don't hear much in the way of defending Hitler and I hear nothing ideological at all (ie, defending Fasism).

I think the most "favorable" thing I heard him say was that Hitler was defending the interests of the German people against the Rothschilds. He does seem to argue that Hitler was an idealist. Ray also seems willing to call the US (and UK and Ussr) "inferior nations". I suppose that is what a Nazi (or any other fascist) would call them. He does say Brandt created a campaign of slandering Hitler , which seems demonstrably true. But accepting that doesn't mean that one denies that Hitler did anything bad.

What I see is that he is a strong contrarian in all things. That definitely comes through. He seems fascinated with what he views as a historical mistake. I think he is infatuated with the story and contrary view. But I wouldn't mistake that for an infatuation with Hitler, nor with Fascism. Rather, he sees an alternative narrative as a way to indict the "victors who write the history books" by detailing how horribly wrong they may have gotten some things. Nitpicking this argument for things true or not would miss that point altogether. Why not do it with Stalinism one might ask? I suppose he could, if a compelling counternarrative existed. But what Stalinist apologism/holodomor denial is out there is horribly contrived and inconsistent, and doesn't even try to hide its hateful, self-serving motivation.

The only thing I find consistent in his "ideology" or politics is anti-authoritarianism. History, those who write history books, are authorities. He takes delight in finding holes in their narratives. I really don't have an opinion on whether he is right. And even he consistently declaims "authority" over biology, health, medicine, as well as politics and history, and art. I don't think he would see himself as taking an authoritative position on what Hitler did or anything else. I think all of that, inevitably, is being projected on him (just like the idea of "a Peat diet") because of conditioning to expect people to choose sides and fight for a dogmatic interpretation.

As usual, with Ray Peat, I think he could (maybe should) end it with one organizing principle: Think. Perceive. Act.”

I think its because Race is unimportant to Ray Peat so he could never sympathize with Hitler. Whereas the Soviet Union was more of a multi ethnic state ( regardless of what you make of Pan-Slavism, since it included many non-Slavic regions ) and Communism itself had an International angle to it.

Speaking from an economic perspective ,Fascism and Communism were both responses to Finance Capitalism which had stemmed from the City of London and had found a new home in America.

 

[Based Kantian]

Just for fun, let’s flip this dictator-pedestaling around and see if it still sounds good when the tables are turned:

===============================

“Thank you. I appreciate you pointing me in the direction, which is all I wanted. I really don't hear much in the way of defending Hitler and I hear nothing ideological at all (ie, defending Fasism).

I think the most "favorable" thing I heard him say was that Hitler was defending the interests of the German people against the Rothschilds. He does seem to argue that Hitler was an idealist. Ray also seems willing to call the US (and UK and Ussr) "inferior nations". I suppose that is what a Nazi (or any other fascist) would call them. He does say Brandt created a campaign of slandering Hitler , which seems demonstrably true. But accepting that doesn't mean that one denies that Hitler did anything bad.

What I see is that he is a strong contrarian in all things. That definitely comes through. He seems fascinated with what he views as a historical mistake. I think he is infatuated with the story and contrary view. But I wouldn't mistake that for an infatuation with Hitler, nor with Fascism. Rather, he sees an alternative narrative as a way to indict the "victors who write the history books" by detailing how horribly wrong they may have gotten some things. Nitpicking this argument for things true or not would miss that point altogether. Why not do it with Stalinism one might ask? I suppose he could, if a compelling counternarrative existed. But what Stalinist apologism/holodomor denial is out there is horribly contrived and inconsistent, and doesn't even try to hide its hateful, self-serving motivation.

The only thing I find consistent in his "ideology" or politics is anti-authoritarianism. History, those who write history books, are authorities. He takes delight in finding holes in their narratives. I really don't have an opinion on whether he is right. And even he consistently declaims "authority" over biology, health, medicine, as well as politics and history, and art. I don't think he would see himself as taking an authoritative position on what Hitler did or anything else. I think all of that, inevitably, is being projected on him (just like the idea of "a Peat diet") because of conditioning to expect people to choose sides and fight for a dogmatic interpretation.

As usual, with Ray Peat, I think he could (maybe should) end it with one organizing principle: Think. Perceive. Act.”

What had Hitler in common with the man who defeated him? Being a "dictator" is not enough to warrant your analogy

 

[burtlancast]

But what Nazi apologism/holocaust denial is out there is horribly contrived and inconsistent, and doesn't even try to hide its hateful, self-serving motivation.

Then why make laws to silence it ?

Wouldn't it be better to let it express itself and then be judged by the public on the merits of their facts ?

Why this obsession of censuring them ?

Could it have anything to do with the trillions of dollars in reparations given to Israel, while no other genocide in history, no matter how better documented and important, receives such monetary compensation ?

 

[managing]

Just for fun, let’s flip this dictator-pedestaling around and see if it still sounds good when the tables are turned:

===============================

“Thank you. I appreciate you pointing me in the direction, which is all I wanted. I really don't hear much in the way of defending Hitler and I hear nothing ideological at all (ie, defending Fasism).

I think the most "favorable" thing I heard him say was that Hitler was defending the interests of the German people against the Rothschilds. He does seem to argue that Hitler was an idealist. Ray also seems willing to call the US (and UK and Ussr) "inferior nations". I suppose that is what a Nazi (or any other fascist) would call them. He does say Brandt created a campaign of slandering Hitler , which seems demonstrably true. But accepting that doesn't mean that one denies that Hitler did anything bad.

What I see is that he is a strong contrarian in all things. That definitely comes through. He seems fascinated with what he views as a historical mistake. I think he is infatuated with the story and contrary view. But I wouldn't mistake that for an infatuation with Hitler, nor with Fascism. Rather, he sees an alternative narrative as a way to indict the "victors who write the history books" by detailing how horribly wrong they may have gotten some things. Nitpicking this argument for things true or not would miss that point altogether. Why not do it with Stalinism one might ask? I suppose he could, if a compelling counternarrative existed. But what Stalinist apologism/holodomor denial is out there is horribly contrived and inconsistent, and doesn't even try to hide its hateful, self-serving motivation.

The only thing I find consistent in his "ideology" or politics is anti-authoritarianism. History, those who write history books, are authorities. He takes delight in finding holes in their narratives. I really don't have an opinion on whether he is right. And even he consistently declaims "authority" over biology, health, medicine, as well as politics and history, and art. I don't think he would see himself as taking an authoritative position on what Hitler did or anything else. I think all of that, inevitably, is being projected on him (just like the idea of "a Peat diet") because of conditioning to expect people to choose sides and fight for a dogmatic interpretation.

As usual, with Ray Peat, I think he could (maybe should) end it with one organizing principle: Think. Perceive. Act.”

I respect what you did there if you are trying to genuinely expand my (our) mind with what Kenneth Burke would call "Perspective by incongruity". I think Ray would approve and find it entirely consistent with what he advocated in the interviews I excerpted a few pages ago. In that regard, its a great way to test both my argument about Ray and Stalinism as well as my dismissal of Nazi revisionism.

I thought your first paragraph was quite smart. However, subbing "Inferior nations" for "imperialists" took it from a political argument to a biological one*. And the notion of racial inferiority/superiority is not only trite and unsupported, but also morally repulsive. Where as imperialism is just a thing, which one might support, oppose, or be indifferent to. Arguments can be made about politics all day long. And science is contestable. But there is no valid scientific argument about racial hierarchy.

And that is where the argument turns around the Rotschilds. The Soviets were not kind to Russian Jews by any stretch, and by no means was this only a fascist anti-religion theme. But Stalins opposition to Rothschild was personal and direct. Not religious, not racial. He did not rationalize racial superiority from it nor indiscriminately kill Jews because of it.

So, its interesting. And certainly a fair warning against doing what Ray is doing. An illustration that it could be taken too far, and that one should not overgeneralize from it to things like "Stalin was a sweet, cuddly, misunderstood idealist". Somebody like Ray of course wouldn't do this. But I can see naive and dependent people potentially getting this out of it.

*One might suggest that "inferior nation" would be simply a political insult, but coming from a Nazi it clearly means, mixed races, theoretically equal, and, most of all, non-Aryan.

 

[managing]

Then why make laws to silence it ?

Wouldn't it be better to let it express itself and then be judged by the public on the merits of their facts ?

Why this obsession of censuring them ?

Could it have anything to do with the trillions of dollars in reparations given to Israel, while no other genocide in history, no matter how better documented and important, receives such monetary compensation ?

Don't understand. There are no laws to silence it in the US. Or do you mean me? I haven't done those things either. Or do you mean Germany? They don't silence history. They silence racism and zealotry.

As for your last paragraph, whataboutism never is relevant.

 

[Ledo]

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.

He told Roddy he felt Trump was at least coming in as a free agent and not already completely controlled by the cabal, my word choice like all recent past presidents had been.

Ray expressed Trump had a much more rational understanding of Russia with no preconceived notion that war with them was inevitable or desirous like the loony left (Hillary) and her minions and otherwise brainwashed sheeple were manipulated into...

And I think if I recall correctly he mentioned the China policy of holding them accountable for bribing all of our leftist politicians (like Biden) for the purpose of fleecing us and never mentioned once any babble about "mah comparative advantage".

He even mentioned sars2 virus propagation in reference to China and their trustworthiness.

All in all , pro Trump.

In the latest video he said no [resident was going to get themselves killed by the cabal which made real progress problematic

 

[managing]

He told Roddy he felt Trump was at least coming in as a free agent and not already completely controlled by the cabal, my word choice like all recent past presidents had been.

Ray expressed Trump had a much more rational understanding of Russia with no preconceived notion that war with them was inevitable or desirous like the loony left (Hillary) and her minions and otherwise brainwashed sheeple were manipulated into...

And I think if I recall correctly he mentioned the China policy of holding them accountable for bribing all of our leftist politicians (like Biden) for the purpose of fleecing us and never mentioned once any babble about "mah comparative advantage".

He even mentioned sars2 virus propagation in reference to China and their trustworthiness.

All in all , pro Trump.

In the latest video he said no [resident was going to get themselves killed by the cabal which made real progress problematic

I recall all of those except for the third paragraph. None of which make him a Trump supporter. The vast majority of the political ideas and principles he has discussed are decidedly anti-Trump. And then there are those who call him a Communist, Anarchist, Stalinist, etc.

Generally, trying to stuff a sophisticated, intelligent person into a box with a label just suggests a lack of subtlety.

You are making the same mistake as @snacks . Saying something clear and not necessarily negative about somebody is not the same thing as declaring yourself to be on their team.

 

[Ledo]

What I found revealing was that in this video #35, peat laughed about the absurdity of original sin being roughly similar to some other concept people fall for, can't remember what at the moment, but in the end laughing at the basis for much of Cristianity, one can easily see in the grand potential of people in the universe, Peat is a secular humanist and thinks Man is perfectible while Christians should be laughed at.

He like other progressives will fall on that pike for eternity. No man is perfectible and communists will kill everyone in their path trying to do so

 

[postman]

Don't understand. There are no laws to silence it in the US. Or do you mean me? I haven't done those things either. Or do you mean Germany? They don't silence history. They silence racism and zealotry.

As for your last paragraph, whataboutism never is relevant.

Stop lying.

 

[snacks]

What had Hitler in common with the man who defeated him? Being a "dictator" is not enough to warrant your analogy

Why are we talking about Harry Hopkins now? Anyways the deportation of the Chechens and Ingush is considered genocide by Europe and would probably have wider recognition than that if anyone actually cared tbh. I don't think that we're going to agree since the authors we trust on this topic are vastly different so since you don't seem to be dishonest I'll apologize for being antagonistic earlier in this thread and leave it with this

Stop lying.

Don't think he's lying from deliberation, might just actually be that dumb

He told Roddy he felt Trump was at least coming in as a free agent and not already completely controlled by the cabal, my word choice like all recent past presidents had been.

Ray expressed Trump had a much more rational understanding of Russia with no preconceived notion that war with them was inevitable or desirous like the loony left (Hillary) and her minions and otherwise brainwashed sheeple were manipulated into...

And I think if I recall correctly he mentioned the China policy of holding them accountable for bribing all of our leftist politicians (like Biden) for the purpose of fleecing us and never mentioned once any babble about "mah comparative advantage".

He even mentioned sars2 virus propagation in reference to China and their trustworthiness.

All in all , pro Trump.

In the latest video he said no [resident was going to get themselves killed by the cabal which made real progress problematic

With politics it's a mistake to conflate supporting some of someone's positions with support for the man. Peat's stated opinion on trump from the interviews that I've found constitute a kind of furtive hopelessness. Biden isn't a leftist tbh but yeah you're right about everything else. He's expressed a kind of furtive hope that trump would either be different or deliver a dialectical paradigm shift. I wonder what his opinion would be in light of everything that's happened lately

 

[Ledo]

I recall all of those except for the third paragraph. None of which make him a Trump supporter. The vast majority of the political ideas and principles he has discussed are decidedly anti-Trump. And then there are those who call him a Communist, Anarchist, Stalinist, etc.

Generally, trying to stuff a sophisticated, intelligent person into a box with a label just suggests a lack of subtlety.

You are making the same mistake as @snacks . Saying something clear and not necessarily negative about somebody is not the same thing as declaring yourself to be on their team.

Very good! I put that paragraph in there to see if you were paying attention. You were very condescending in the post you made to me explaining how China was a great free trader and of course big concepts like "comparative advantage" if I were smart and educated enough to understand should assuage my lament for loss of our industrial base to them, china.

Well you were wrong. We were being hollowed out by Obama monetary policy, trade policy, tax, and a host of others and the carcass and bones were all we were to have as the UN and their agenda 21 goons were administered by Hillary with a Chinese surveillance system developed by google.

Now that may still happen but it will only be by intrigued and not rationally by silly words like comparative advantage .