Ray Peat On Donald Trump

Discussion in 'Political Talk, Alternative World Theories' started by docall18, Feb 24, 2017.

  1. Queequeg

    Queequeg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,191
    Gender:
    Male
    only pboy would know.
     
  2. Queequeg

    Queequeg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,191
    Gender:
    Male
    wasn't yours as well being a penal colony?
     
  3. bdawg

    bdawg Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    291
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    well that settles it then...

    My point was in refutation of the 'Displacing Americans with imported slaves is not an option on the table', which seems ironic when was that was exactly the main force behing USAs early economic domination apart from abundant natural resources, native Americans were displaced with free labour they and the world could not compete with

    'Lefty' source:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2_2.html
     
  4. zztr

    zztr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2016
    Messages:
    295
    Gender:
    Male
    It's ironic that you seem to miss the parallels. You appear to be trotting out the strange argument that because once there was slavery it might be a good idea again. Slavery in America had the effect of producing a class of billionaire oligarchs while driving down wages, slowing investment in technology, and overall retarding economic development and national cohesion. It was bad for Americans and bad for business on the whole. It only served a tiny minority of propertied people, much as is the case with modern mass immigration.
     
  5. Queequeg

    Queequeg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,191
    Gender:
    Male
    I was just pointing out the double irony. But I have to agree with @zztr. Many countries in the Americas had slavery and an abundance of natural resources but none developed as much as America. The North had all but abolished slavery by the Revolution and it was the North that was principally responsible for the rapid growth of the country. Slavery is similar to the Oil curse where the easy money made from oil can ruin a country because it doesn't bother to develop in any other area.
     
  6. yerrag

    yerrag Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    Messages:
    5,466
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Manila
    Or the gold curse that ruined Spain as a world power, upended by the industry of the British. Spain relied on gold mined from colonies, and this singular focus made its status as an empire vulnerable. When the flow of gold dried up, Spain had no recourse. In its wake, it left a legacy of sloth in its colonies. The creoles and the mestizos, which form the landed class in these colonies, had no interest in industry and are the equivalent of the US' current "intellectual but idiot" class. This has retarded the development of many countries which were once colonies of Spain. To be fair, Spain was dominated by the Castilians, whose master-slave mentality is not shared by the Basques nor by the Catalans. Compare Singapore and Malaysia to the Philippines and Indonesia, the former were British colonies and the latter were Spanish and Portuguese (later Dutch) colonies. Even in the Philippines, the Chinese minority do not share the same industry as the Chinese in Thailand, nor Taiwan, much less China. This is a reflection of how the Chinese aspired to be like the Spanish, who were the society elites. The Spanish legacy of relying too much on the goose that lays the golden eggs, and killing it as a result, has such a long and lingering effect it is like a cancer that can't be cured.
     
  7. thomas00

    thomas00 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    None of what I was talking about actually stems from Marx, so it wouldn't make sense for me to defend Marxism.

    But for the record the changes you regard as Marxist which were accompanied by mass killings weren't anything like what he actually envisioned. That's pretty evident from his writing.

    General strikes can achieve what I suggested. Legal justification isn't needed if the law is unjust.

    Obama brown shirts? Do you think it's a hysterical claim when people call Trump, Hitler?
     
  8. Queequeg

    Queequeg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,191
    Gender:
    Male
    In every single instance that the tenets of Marxism have been employed, mass murder and genocide has followed. Seems like a strange coincidence that all of these avowed Marxists somehow misread their copy of the Communist Manifesto but you know better.

    “… there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
    - Karl Marx (“The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848)

    “We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” - Karl Marx (“Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849)

    "You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible." Karl Marx Communist Manifesto

    “All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.”
    - Friedrich Engels (“The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849)

    “... in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness…”
    - Friedrich Engels (“Democratic Pan-Slavism,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, February 15, 1849)

    The Communists As They Really Are
     
  9. thomas00

    thomas00 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, that's just incorrect. But the more pertinent point to making here is that everywhere capitalism has been employed, those same atrocities have followed. If you are looking to take the high ground you need a better position than simply as an opponent to the USSR and Cambodia.

    Definitions change over time. The word terror didn't always have violence implicit in it, as it does these days. Mass strikes were considered a form of terror then. In that context it's a leap to suggest that revolutionary terror he writes about constitutes a call for workers to investigate the kind of violent activity that defines the term today.

    Anyway, if you read the original text it's a response to massacres by state police and soldiers of workers so even if it was a call to violence it would be a reaction (self defence) not an initiation of violence.

    The fact that he condemned individual acts of violence as 'stupid' calls the accusation into question even more.

    More of the same really. These are just observations of history. The Marx quote speaks nothing of extermination of people, just dis empowerment and sidelining. If you want to make a case for the communist manifesto being some kind of bible which the cretins who ran China, Vietnam, the USSR etc used to justify mass killings then you're on fairly thin ice. Marx never really went into great detail about how to institute change. It's also not the wisest thing to link to somebody who is an egregious apologist for Jewish apartheid in the middle east, if you are trying to take a moral stance against killing people in the name of ideology.

    As for your dismissal of the idea that Marxism is world's apart from Maoism, Leninism and Stalinism... if you'd read anything by Marx you'd see that he never argued for a ruthless and powerful elite which could justify starving people by the millions to be ushered into power. He did the exact opposite. State power was supposed to decentralised and localised and involve a high degree of worker participation. Those things obviously didn't happen in any 'communist' state. He even argued that parliamentary democracy could be utilised as a means of workers gaining control in some countries. Maoism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Leninism are all very different to one another, and don't fit with the ethics of Marxism.

    I'm merely arguing this as a point of historical accuracy and what I see as some degree of hypocrisy, not because I care about Marxism. Which I don't.
     
  10. Queequeg

    Queequeg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,191
    Gender:
    Male
    “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Karl Marx
    I think this was more of an ironic prediction than an observation as it is the neo-Marxists (and the neo-Anarchists) that don’t seem to learn anything from history.

    You can parse those quotes all you want but historical facts remain, anywhere from 100 to 200 million people died as a result of the Marxist fantasy. Your false reading of what is plain as day is laughable. Despite what you claimed, Marx and Engels both called for the use of terror to implement the revolution and genocide and mass killings to secure the resulting Dictatorship. This is an inherent part of Marxism as they are trying to force an unnatural ideology upon people who don’t want anything to do with it. What is also tragically farcical, yet karmic, is that the true believers are often purged once they realize they have been duped and there is no workers paradise. Sadly many still clinged to their Marxist fables as they were lined up in a firing line. These dreams are as enticing as they are deadly.

    I am sure the Anarchists would have been equally murderous if they had ever gotten in power. They engaged in far more acts of assassination and terrorism than the Marxists ever did. For a long time Anarchism had been synonymous with terrorism. And no the definition of terror or terrorism has not changed; terrorism to Marx meant that same as it does today, the systematic use of violence to secure a political objective. Even your own Communist propaganda source says that Marx supported Terrorism.
    He only thought that the one particular act of the Fennians was stupid because of its timing as it destroyed the support of the English working classes he was trying to build.

    Nothing done in the name of Capitalism comes even close to the methodological, industrialized killing of Marxism. On the contrary free market capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty, more quickly than any other political system in history. The poorest people in the West have some of the highest living standards in the world. China, since embracing some aspects of free market capitalism, has brought its people out of abject poverty to see the rise of the largest middle class. Marxism had only gotten them misery and mass murder.
     
  11. thomas00

    thomas00 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    I gather you'll be providing the proof for this? Good luck btw.

    Clearly the word terror was used. But saying this was a direct call to genocide is ridiculous. Does having 'night terrors' have anything to do with actual violence? You call it false reading, but you are obviously projecting your beliefs here.

    I would suggest reading what they actually argued for rather than relying on interpretations from other people. Try finding a passage where they suggest a brutal ruling party should rise to power and lord over all workers and deny them any kind of participation, even killing them if it was seen as in the greater interest. Good luck with that as well.

    When Anarchists took power in Spain none of what you are 'sure' of, actually happened. Funny that.

    Proof?

    Carpet bombing and spreading agent orange over vast amounts of Vietnamese land is certainly methodological and industrialised. Unless you want to stick your head in the sand.

    It's a strong indictment of capitalism that the only arguments people can use in favour of it's imposition is that it hasn't killed as many as some other ideology.

    Capitalism is a system which has basically destroyed it's own habitat. Massive species loss, pollution related death and injury, degradation of the food supply. It's list of misdeeds isn't quite as short as you'd like me to think it is.

    Sigh.Can you demonstrate where there has ever been a free market?

    The poorest people in the west live on the streets. Somehow I don't think they'd agree with you that they have 'some of the highest living standards in the world'.

    China's (partial) alleviation of poverty has happened under working conditions we in the west would consider slavery.
     
  12. Queequeg

    Queequeg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,191
    Gender:
    Male
    If we can't use English properly to debate then we really can’t have a proper debate. If you want to argue that the word terror was used differently in 1850 than today then it is up to you to prove it. It’s funny because the word actually comes from the late eighteenth century French Reign of Terror which was infamous for its brutality and mass killings. I guess the word must have changed its meaning in 1850 to something less extreme and then changed back to its original meaning today.

    Here is a nice summary of what Marxism has cost in order to secure their workers’ paradise. Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia

    Some quotes stand out:
    and
    As for Anarchists, they practically invented modern day Terrorism Propaganda of the deed - Wikipedia
     
  13. thomas00

    thomas00 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    noun
    1.
    intense, sharp, overmastering fear:
    to be frantic with terror.
    2.
    an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causingterror:
    to be a terror to evildoers.
    3.
    any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign ofTerror in France.

    The dictionary says not every definition of the word involves violence. So, if you want to prove that the use of the word terror in that newsletter constituted a call to violent action then you're obviously going to need more information than that to provide context.

    The bigger issue is, of course, so what if it was a call to violence like you are so convinced it was?

    You've posted about all these governments that liquidated people. Why are you getting a bee in your bonnett about some guy who wrote a newsletter saying people should defend themselves against the very thing you don't like?

    People can post all the stats on mass killings all they want. It won't change the fact that any claim about Marx being the brainchild of a bunch of slave states any more historically incorrect. Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, Trotskyism and Marxism are all very different. For people who are interested in facts, that's signficant.

    That list contains some of the worst people in history. Your position doesn't appear to have a great deal of moral clarity. Stalin was awful but somebody who tried to kill Mussolini is on the same heap as Al Qaeda?

    And it makes the wars and terrorism capitalist governments have been responsible for look like a walk in the park.

    If you think throwing bombs is all there is to anarchism then you've been misled. Anarchist communities gave people freedoms they never had before. Spanish anarchists were the first ones to give women abortion rights and education for example.
     
  14. Queequeg

    Queequeg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,191
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess you are backing away from your unsubstantiated claim that terror meant something different to Marx 150 years ago since you didn't provide any proof. This second attempt at redefining terror is unfortunately just as untrue. All the above meanings of terror still carry the implication of violence or threat of violence. What do you think is the most likely reason for someone to feel terror?

    I also find it interesting that you would leave out the most applicable definition of terror when used in a political context like Marx was.
    “4. violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.” the definition of terror

    But before we completely lose track of what we were discussing, the point I was trying to make is not that Marxism or Leninism or whatever was the only dangerous political idea but that all man-made Utopias, including the one you were proposing, are dangerous and will always carry with it the dangers of immense state violence. Once you try to restrict people’s economic freedom in one way or another you will need some form of coercion to enforce it. Your idea of forcing people to pay more for workers who work the riskiest jobs will not only result in all jobs becoming more and more risky but will require some form of coercion to enforce that. The more arbitrary rules you can come up with the more coercion will be required.

    Anarchy at the other extreme can never work on any meaningful scale or for any meaningful length of time because of the complete absence of coercion. A system without government requires men to be fair in their dealings with one another and to respect each-others rights. Since this is not always the case, Anarchism will eventually devolve into tyranny as people seek protection from one another through whatever form of government that they can get. Its interesting that both communism and anarchism both lead to dictatorships; Perhaps they are meant to.

    Free market capitalism in contrast is not an ideology or a man made utopian theory; it is a description of real world human trade that has evolved for thousands of years. The excesses and abuses in capitalism come about because we have moved farther and farther away from the free market, allowing companies and governments to become too big of a force in people’s lives. The answer is not to try and come up with a new unnatural system to replace it but rather to get back to what is required of a free market. One of the most important requirements is that no company should be so large that they can exert an unfair influence on the market or power over the individual. Breaking up the big companies and banks and forcing them to actually compete would be a good start. Removing many of the crazy Government regulations on business and people would be another.
     
  15. chrismeyers

    chrismeyers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    110
    I'm not white (very brown heh), voted for Trump twice (primary and general) and Id vote for him forever and every time he runs. I didnt bother reading the 15 pages of posts here because I, and I guess most people, dont analyze politics to such an infantiscimle level. Heard him many times, got a feeling, liked his message, got my vote.
     
  16. pimpnamedraypeat

    pimpnamedraypeat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,045
    Gender:
    Male
    That's good. One should always follow their feelings. It's not like they can be manipulated or anything.
     
  17. signalguy

    signalguy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages:
    40
    Wow. Now I really need to start following Ray's advice on nutrition. Anyone who can diagnose the political situation with that degree of specificity is a genius. And with the news that Trump is about to sell out his "white working class" base with his new budget, I'd bet my last dollar that Peat would've correctly predicted that. Amazing.
     
  18. thomas00

    thomas00 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    No I'm still holding you to your unsubstantiated claim about it meaning violence. Terror doesn't necessarily mean violence in our modern age. I don't know why you think that was different over a century ago.

    And you didn't address my question:

    The bigger issue is, of course, so what if it was a call to violence like you are so convinced it was?

    You've posted about all these governments that liquidated people. Why are you getting a bee in your bonnett about some guy who wrote a newsletter saying people should defend themselves against the very thing you don't like?


    Including the ones that don't involve a state? :lol:

    Certain systems have been designed to ensure abuses of power couldn't happen- by making sure those powers didn't exist.

    I have no idea why you consider it a 'utopia'. Sounds like you've resigned yourself to a certain level of suffering and want to defend your right not to alleviate it.

    I didn't suggest anybody force anyone to do anything.

    And you are acting as if there were no coercion now.

    lol

    When did this happen?

    It's a description of a system that does not exist and has never existed.

    So, you want businesses to be free from 'crazy' regulations but you also want to determine how big they can be and how they can conduct themselves. In other words, you want them regulated. Presumably you want the state to do this, which means giving it more power. But you think the government is too big and intrusive. You don't like monopolies but you advocate for the very thing that allows them to run wild (free markets).

    There's a fair bit of irony in your critique by the fact that capitalism is the very type of 'utopian' political idealogy you warn will become hijacked and lead to massive state violence. It was offered up as liberation from feudalism and inequality yet here we are: everybody working for a master and entire countries being run by insurance companies, weapons manufacturers, mining and media barons and politicians who think nothing of going to war if it means consolidating their careers. Workers treated like machinary, assaulted for protesting and even killed in some countries. The system is functioning exactly as it should. Anybody who thinks otherwise has succumbed to propaganda.
     
  19. Frankdee20

    Frankdee20 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,815
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Intensive Case Manager
    Location:
    Sun Coast, USA
    Hillary is blaming everything but herself on losing the election in her new book, she is disgraceful, without dignity, and not humble at all. I don't understand why she can't gracefully bow out, instead chooses to further divisive narratives herself. What's her agenda ?
     
  20. Namer

    Namer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2017
    Messages:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    "Clever sillies: Why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense"
    Medical Hypotheses: Clever Sillies - Why the high IQ lack common sense

    Those in control in the political establishment and urban centres, don't have nearly the high iq's that they think they do. They are also some of the most unimaginative people on earth. They maintain control, not through superior intelligence, but by ruthlessness, and lack of empathy.
    An uncomfortable fact about leftist academics, ( the older kind ) is that their IS a noticeable intelligence gap between the left and right, among the masses at least ( once you know how to divide things...) Right wing pundits are sometimes more intellectual ( or appear to be, given what used to be their composure...) they've had to be, given their uphill slog, lefties are more about theater, and thus seem less intelligent.
    The masses however...are a different story, it sometimes seems to be the opposite.

    Those with libertarian leanings, however, tend to be most intelligent ( better looking, slimmer...) sorry, couldn't resist :)
    But they do though...
     
Loading...