Ray Peat And Stalinism

[snacks]

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.

Yeah broadly speaking communism was a reaction to early industrial conditions, especially those in Britain and the more industrial continental Europe, while Fascism was a reaction to the failure of communists to provide their economic system and of monarchs to preserve their social order. Communism also sprung from the wellspring of the most pseud-oriented European thinkers, esp . It also took inspiration from early leftist movements like the Paris Commune and so became and still is kind of an accumulative juggernaut of nonsense. It seems like the ideal of many fascists like Codreaneau was either a classless society organized around national or religious grounds or a monarchy with fewer or no class distinctions. This tended to be inconsistent between fascist thinkers so it's hard to talk about fascism as an ideology rather than as a cluster of ideologies with friendly international relations.

 

[snacks]

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 .

It's always funny when people try to shock-and-awe you with high school economics

 

[Ledo]

Why are we talking about Harry Hopkins now? Anyways the deportation of the Chechens and Ingush is considered genocide by everyone with half a brain and the attempts to forcibly reforge the demographic maps of the minority republics (with consequences that are relevant to this day as the Mari El are still a minority in their own "autonomous republic") should be.



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



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

Your first sentence points to a difference without a distinction with a smart guy like Peat.

But I'm really nesting a rply here because of something else you said. Its the Biden comment. Yes he is not a leftist, he's only playing one out of political obedience. I have a feeling the real man, Biden, is something much worse, something evil really. A guy willing to do every and anything told to do in the most debased, debauched wheelhouse in all of evils worse taxonomy. He is a poster boy for how we got here, a company man in the most unholy of companies.

And for this reason he and all the rest will lose.

 

[snacks]

Your first sentence points to a difference without a distinction with a smart guy like Peat.

But I'm really nesting a rply here because of something else you said. Its the Biden comment. Yes he is not a leftist, he's only playing one out of political obedience. I have a feeling the real man, Biden, is something much worse, something evil really. A guy willing to do every and anything told to do in the most debased, debauched wheelhouse in all of evils worse taxonomy. He is a poster boy for how we got here, a company man in the most unholy of companies.

And for this reason he and all the rest will lose.

Most of the establishment "left" in the US. (AOC, Sanders, Omar) are obviously controlled opposition tbh so I probably shouldn't have bothered singling Biden out. It's funny because our communist party here in Russia has a worse reputation for being controlled opp but is much more willing to act independently whenever it has a local mandate.

 

[Ledo]

It's always funny when people try to shock-and-awe you with high school economics

Yea, the average former liberal turned leftist virtue signalling hack, still thinks what a loss it was not to have China bringing 12 coal fired power plants online a month in an effort to provide us clean earth saving manufacturing and to have all those jobs it brings to chinese children disappear. "mah comparative advantage" they scream!

Snacks, what kind of reset do you think we will get?

 

[snacks]

Yea, the average former liberal turned leftist virtue signalling hack, still thinks what a loss it was not to have China bringing 12 coal fired power plants online a month in an effort to provide us clean earth saving manufacturing and to have all those jobs it brings to chinese children disappear. "mah comparative advantage" they scream!

Snacks, what kind of reset do you think we will get?

I think that we're at least slightly off script at this point and that it really depends on how patient or impatient the American people are. I'm looking forward to this in some ways but also slightly dreading it as I have family in/sometimes live in the States myself haha

 

[Ledo]

BTW, Peat was on fire with the health topics, just really great stuff.

I finally understand why he feels the way he does about lowcarb, keto/carnivore.

He described it as a lowest common denominator metabolism. One you can't push, only meant for takin it easy because it can't do much. Push it at your own peril type thing.

 

[Ledo]

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

Yes I agree with this important observation. But in the interview it was muddled as Danny tried to get to the bottom of exactly what the sides are today and maybe who the factions are. As Danny pushed, Peat dodged naming the communists, the NWO for whom burning, looting and murdering are a fun pastime as we see today. Danny finally as if for some summation named the bad guys "the fascists".

I am myself unclear on this. Just who won ww2? Do we have a controlling cabal above their two henchman in the commies and the fascists? This is the scary senario.

A group of people financing a Hegalian dialectic, false flagging Germany in 2 world wars with communist thugs like they do to us today, finally pitting us in an all bleedout war where the pick up the spoils

 

[postman]

Yes I agree with this important observation. But in the interview it was muddled as Danny tried to get to the bottom of exactly what the sides are today and maybe who the factions are. As Danny pushed, Peat dodged naming the communists, the NWO for whom burning, looting and murdering are a fun pastime as we see today. Danny finally as if for some summation named the bad guys "the fascists".

I am myself unclear on this. Just who won ww2? Do we have a controlling cabal above their two henchman in the commies and the fascists? This is the scary senario.

A group of people financing a Hegalian dialectic, false flagging Germany in 2 world wars with communist thugs like they do to us today, finally pitting us in an all bleedout war where the pick up the spoils

There isn't a communist conspiracy, TPTB just use communism as a weapon, they're not legitimately ideological communists. Speaking of false flags, Hitler pulled off tons of false flags like the Gleiwitz incident.

Capital is naturally incentivized to destroy the free market, capital doesn't like competition. John D. Rockefeller said "Competition is a sin." What better way to protect your weatlh and standing by outlawing all competition to it. Criminalize all economic activity that isn't controlled by you.

By the way it's rediculous how all these communists keep on talking about capital and its ills but they continually fail to hightlight the monetary system and how it's all a scam. You don't even need ill gotten capital by abusing workers, when you can just create unlimited money out of nothing. But they never talk about the banking cartel because communism is funded and propped up by the banking cartel. All western governments tacitly support antifa, except for Trump, maybe.

 

[managing]

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.

Do you have me confused with somebody else? Or is this your recollection of some long ago statement on an unrelated thread?

 

[managing]

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



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



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

Bad penis jokes didn't shut me up, so now you resort to clumsy insults?

 

[managing]

Stop lying.

I said 8 discrete things there. Which do you think are lies?

 

[PxD]

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

Sure it is! I'm contrasting one totalitarian despot with a kill count in the tens of millions with another totalitarian despot with a kill count in the tens of millions, who happened to be the first despot's contemporary competition.

My point is this: if you're going to give some benefit of the doubt and the "he was just misunderstood" treatment to a man who is widely known to have been a murderous tyrant, why not for the other murderous tyrant too? It's indicative of a bias and revealing about Peat's political views. That being said, I don't think he fits into any contemporary political box.

 

[snacks]

Bad penis jokes didn't shut me up, so now you resort to clumsy insults?

There's no need to be upset, I have no ill will towards you-- I was just warning the other guy

 

[snacks]

Sure it is! I'm contrasting one totalitarian despot with a kill count in the tens of millions with another totalitarian despot with a kill count in the tens of millions, who happened to be the first despot's contemporary competition.

My point is this: if you're going to give some benefit of the doubt and the "he was just misunderstood" treatment to a man who is widely known to have been a murderous tyrant, why not for the other murderous tyrant too? It's indicative of a bias and revealing about Peat's political views. That being said, I don't think he fits into any contemporary political box.

Idk to me it seems fairly obvious that he's a classical class-over-race type Marxist. Kantian is right that his politics are fairly obvious given the content of his books and the way he talks about things in interviews. Ray Peat probably has plenty of nonconformist political opinions and individual deviations from the doctrine-- he's still in the main an orthodox Marxist with the characteristic Hegelian lens

 

[PxD]

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.

You're way too hung up on this. I only put it in there because it's a Nazi theme, just like talking about imperialists is a socialist theme. It doesn't invalidate my point, and moreover it doesn't make the murderous regime in the USSR somehow qualitatively "better" than the murderous regime in Nazi Germany. The communists also had their scientific-biological pet projects which were intended to show that their politics was in harmony with nature, e.g. Trofim Lysenko. Persecuting a group because of their social status or religion (Kulaks, Christians) isn't morally superior to persecuting a group of people because of their ethnicity or religion (Jews, darker people, etc.)

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.

The USSR was de facto a Jewish creation. The Communist party had two branches: the Mensheviks were entirely Jewish, while the Bolsheviks were maybe 25-30% Jewish but that percentage was heavily concentrated in key positions. The man who invented the Gulag slave-labor system was a Jew (Matvei Berman). The man who conceived and orchestrated the holodomor/starving of the Kulaks was the very, very murderous Jewish head of the secret police (Genrikh Yagoda). Leon Trotsky's real name was Lev Bronstein. Lazar Kaganovich, another Jew, was one of Stalin's closest associates and oversaw the destruction of many Christian monuments and churches and assisted in the holodomor. Several members of the Soviet Politburo in the early days were Jewish. And, of course, Karl Marx himself was born to a Jewish family. These are just a few examples; the full list is long. Ironically, the monster they created turned against them starting in the 1950s-1960s, and by the 1970s they were fleeing the USSR. Hitler saw these goings-on in the USSR and inferred from it that communism was really just a political expression of secular Judaism, and this played a large role in informing his views and politics towards Jews. He viewed them as a subversive enemy of European peoples (with a focus on northern Europeans), who were using Marxism as the political vehicle to put their worldview into practice.

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.

That's exactly my point, in a nutshell: if you're trying to paint a more neutral picture about a guy who, when looked at objectively, was the head of a totalitarian, very oppressive regime, it's a telling signal of your political biases leaking through. Then again, Peat might just argue that I don't have the exonerating facts about Stalinism, but somehow I doubt that, when even today there are people still alive who suffered under Stalinism and can attest to the mountains of evidence on the topic.

*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.

Do you, or have you ever, owned a dog? If so, what breed is/was it?

 

[Based Kantian]

Sure it is! I'm contrasting one totalitarian despot with a kill count in the tens of millions with another totalitarian despot with a kill count in the tens of millions, who happened to be the first despot's contemporary competition.

My point is this: if you're going to give some benefit of the doubt and the "he was just misunderstood" treatment to a man who is widely known to have been a murderous tyrant, why not for the other murderous tyrant too? It's indicative of a bias and revealing about Peat's political views. That being said, I don't think he fits into any contemporary political box.

There is no serious evidence that Stalin killed "tens of millions", but he was certainly responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand nazi soldiers. The Nazis purposively exterminated and enslaved tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Stalin did nothing like that. "Totalitarian despot" is not a factual description. Insofar as "totalitarian" means anything at all, the United States was at least as totalitarian as the Soviet Union in the decades that Stalin was in charge.

 

[snacks]

There is no serious evidence that Stalin killed "tens of millions", but he was certainly responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand nazi soldiers. The Nazis purposively exterminated and enslaved tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Stalin did nothing like that. "Totalitarian despot" is not a factual description. Insofar as "totalitarian" means anything at all, the United States was at least as totalitarian as the Soviet Union in the decades that Stalin was in charge.

don't know about "10s of millions" unless you're talking about the number of deaths caused by Stalin's military incompetence but 100-200k mostly women and children died because Stalin thought (incorrectly) that the Chechens were planning some kind of massive insurrection/defection. The idea that this doesn't constitute a genocide is a little absurd on the face of it. The idea that Stalin was putting off a muslim rebellion as many stalin apologists state is easily refuted by the fact that he deported the main body of them to central asia where... all the muslims were lol.

the United States was at least as totalitarian as the Soviet Union in the decades that Stalin was in charge.

You should be grateful as FDR's soft totalitarianism was the only way the US was getting mired in the European front even as far as lend/lease was concerned

 

[managing]

You're way too hung up on this. I only put it in there because it's a Nazi theme, just like talking about imperialists is a socialist theme. It doesn't invalidate my point, and moreover it doesn't make the murderous regime in the USSR somehow qualitatively "better" than the murderous regime in Nazi Germany. The communists also had their scientific-biological pet projects which were intended to show that their politics was in harmony with nature, e.g. Trofim Lysenko. Persecuting a group because of their social status or religion (Kulaks, Christians) isn't morally superior to persecuting a group of people because of their ethnicity or religion (Jews, darker people, etc.)



The USSR was de facto a Jewish creation. The Communist party had two branches: the Mensheviks were entirely Jewish, while the Bolsheviks were maybe 25-30% Jewish but that percentage was heavily concentrated in key positions. The man who invented the Gulag slave-labor system was a Jew (Matvei Berman). The man who conceived and orchestrated the holodomor/starving of the Kulaks was the very, very murderous Jewish head of the secret police (Genrikh Yagoda). Leon Trotsky's real name was Lev Bronstein. Lazar Kaganovich, another Jew, was one of Stalin's closest associates and oversaw the destruction of many Christian monuments and churches and assisted in the holodomor. Several members of the Soviet Politburo in the early days were Jewish. And, of course, Karl Marx himself was born to a Jewish family. These are just a few examples; the full list is long. Ironically, the monster they created turned against them starting in the 1950s-1960s, and by the 1970s they were fleeing the USSR. Hitler saw these goings-on in the USSR and inferred from it that communism was really just a political expression of secular Judaism, and this played a large role in informing his views and politics towards Jews. He viewed them as a subversive enemy of European peoples (with a focus on northern Europeans), who were using Marxism as the political vehicle to put their worldview into practice.



That's exactly my point, in a nutshell: if you're trying to paint a more neutral picture about a guy who, when looked at objectively, was the head of a totalitarian, very oppressive regime, it's a telling signal of your political biases leaking through. Then again, Peat might just argue that I don't have the exonerating facts about Stalinism, but somehow I doubt that, when even today there are people still alive who suffered under Stalinism and can attest to the mountains of evidence on the topic.



Do you, or have you ever, owned a dog? If so, what breed is/was it?

I'm disappointed that you are devolving into whataboutisms and putting words in my mouth (or Peaat's). Nobody is saying that the soviets were "better" than the Nazis. Just different in a way that is illuminating. Who cares if many of the founders of the USSR were Jewish? Jews were still stripped of their religion and subject to generalized anti-Semitism. There was nothing "Jewish" about the Soviet state that stripped Jews of their religion. But they weren't murdered simply for being Jewish (typically). Again, that doesn't make Stalin a sweet misunderstood emo teen. And, again, nobody even trying to paint a neutral picture here. My whole point, and, it seemed, yours was to examine why Peat would "take another look" at Stalin and not Hitler.

 

[burtlancast]

I said 8 discrete things there. Which do you think are lies?

Your blanket statement that revisionism consists of "Nazi apologism/ horribly contrived/inconsistent/hateful/self-serving motivation." is a pot potpourri of ad hominem attacks and barbs : the reason most industrial nations have anti revisionist laws is because they cannot counter their arguments and are reduced to censor them in order to silence them.

Recently, Amazon, an US company, used the bogus pretext of revisionist books breaching their guidelines to ban them from public sale.

When revisionists authors countered in a 40 min YT documentary in 2017, their rebuttal got subsequently banned from Youtube in 2019.

The Day Amazon Murdered History – Documentary (2017) about Censorship – Banned in 2019

Amazon simply lied about the breach, and so did you.