Ray Peat On Donald Trump

[jaa]

Ray has the distasteful habit of painting all the woes of society on ruling elites. He reminds me of Chomsky (blaming everything on USA) in this regard.

No, most of the outrage isn't about not going to war with Russia or protectionism. It's about the president being totally devoid of character and lacking any moral fibre and likely being compromised by an age old nemesis. But that's tough for Ray to spin to fit his dogmatic world view.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Most of you need to go to college to understand politics, honestly. Youtube videos of Milo Yiannopoulos or Mark Dice, an admitted Illuminati conspiracy theorist, don't make you an expert of what's going on.

We have Ben Shapiro, who graduated from UCLA and then Harvard so..

You had a perfect democratic voter in me until you started doing this to me without any evidence:

What you don't realize is that it's not about Trump. Trump is just one person. No matter what happens with him, it's not going to make common sense people vote for bigger gov't and crazy leftist policies. That's what you're not grasping. At one point there will be another election and more and more people are seeing how crazy your side has become. But keep doing it. Please keep doing it because it's going to make you lose again. You will lose the next election too.

Racism has been going on for too long.

It will always go on. Do you really think you can control what individuals believe everywhere, every moment? They can believe it all they want as long as they don't physically attack someone. You'll never be able to end racism because people are free, and should be free, to be racist. As long as people look different from each other, there will always be someone who doesn't like someone because of it. Until we all blend into one "look," then racism will always exist. But then of course, even if we all look similar, there will then be more ism's that come about like how pretty vs. ugly someone is, how tall vs. how short, how fat vs. how skinny, etc. I would argue that racism is mostly genetic, meaning that there is some kind of tribal gene that some people inherit to where the look of someone with a different facial structure and skin tone is perceived as them not being a part of their tribe. But no matter how racist someone is, it should however, be illegal to perform assault and battery on someone, steal someones stuff, and destroy or vandalize someones property. It doesn't matter how much you hate the person for what they are saying, you don't get to punch them in the face and not face the consequences.

You have the typical leftist mindset in believing that it's only whites that are or can be racist. Go ask the average Mexican American middle class Dad if he's okay with his daughter dating a black guy. That's a brown Mexican man who doesn't like black people. There are mens clubs in Japan where they don't allow white men in. That's Asian men not liking white men, for no reason. I had an Indian friend who told me how racist his family was towards some people and it was crazy to me. I know a teacher in Canada who told me that his female Chinese students hate his female white students. He said it's so funny but odd. You mentioned Hawaii. I've spent a lot of time there. Most locals are friendly but there are some who are full of hate. Some of them hate anyone that doesn't look Polynesian, which includes both black and white people. They call black people "Papolo" and it's usually negative. It makes no sense because they are mostly Filipino guys who use Hawaiian history as an excuse to be racist. They are not even Native Hawaiian. And even if they were Native, hating on people today for things that happened a long time ago and hating on people who had nothing to do with the past is stupid. They revere their king Kamehameha and have statues of him all around the islands but they forget to realize that Kamehameha slaughtered and killed thousands of Native Hawaiians when he took over. Why revere someone who did that? Because they are just rednecks. You don't have to be white to be a redneck. Redneckism crosses all colors. So it's okay for the many non Hawaiian Japanese to live there but a white person can't? Pure racism. We can keep playing the historic injustices game but it gets us nowhere right now.

There are only about 8 "looks" of the world. They are:

1. African
2. European
3. Middle Eastern
4. Indian (not Native American)
5. Asian
6. Polynesian
7. Aboriginal Australian
8. Native American

Some people are then a mix of two or more of those looks. Hispanics and latinos are mostly Native American and mixed with European and African, more African in the Caribbean, and it was fairly recent, only starting about 500 years ago, when Europeans first came to the Americas. All of the 8 looks had time to evolve in their own areas for a long time.

Now, this is where I would get accused by the actual alt-right of being a "cultural Marxist." Well, too bad they don't realize that the way your face looks and your skin tone have nothing to do with "culture." What is now funny is that "race doesn't exist" or "race is just a social construct" was originally a leftist idea but it has now become a conservative idea. The left now says "No! You are a white male! I'm not ignoring that you are white! Everything that is wrong with the world is because of you!" Now leftists are the ones who do not want to be colorblind, who do not want to ignore race, who do not want to judge someone by their character but precisely by their color. It has now become a conservative position to be colorblind.

I do not support the alt-right. They are racists. No, the alt-right is not conservative. You don't know what the alt-right is. A simple article will explain it to you:

"Racism is not a fringe element of the Alt-Right; it’s the movement’s central premise. The Alt-Right comprises disparate ideological backgrounds, but at the heart of the movement lies white identity. Richard Spencer, publisher of AlternativeRight.com, describes the Alt-Right as essentially “trying to build a philosophy, an ideology around identity, European identity.” Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance who recently co-hosted an Alt-Right press conference with Spencer and VDARE editor Peter Brimelow to describe the movement, explained, "The alt right accepts that race is a biological fact and that it’s a significant aspect of individual and group identity and that any attempt to create a society in which race can be made not to matter will fail."

An Actual Conservative's Guide To The Alt-Right: 8 Things You Need To Know

It's not that race doesn't exist, it's that it doesn't really mean anything. People are people. Those 8 looks that I described do indeed exist, and you can see them. But so what? Why focus on them? Only racists focus on them.

The people who are against Black Lives Matters are disgusting. Blue lives don't matter, honestly. They're the ones doing the racial profiling. They are one part of the big problem. I don't think it's okay for cops to get killed, but a lot of cops have killed innocent blacks time and time again. The number of few cops who have died will never equal the number of innocent black lives lost. Black Lives Matter has brought attention to a very big problem. They have my respect.

So you support violence against innocent people? Males who happen to be of the "African" look are not the only ones killed by police in the US. All looks get killed by the police. This is a fact that you choose to ignore. And you choose to ignore that most of it is caused by the person aggressing the police officer in the first place. That matters.

Even Vegan Gains sees how horrible BLM is: Vegan Gains on BLM

 

[Sheik]

This is not funny.

It wasn't a joke.

 

[managing]

You didn't Read the original post. Peat said that globalization are essential for the ruling class. The idea that Americans are losing economically due to trade with China is misleading. The lower classes are losing, but the ruling class is benefiting from it. Corporations can have products cheaply produce in countries like China and sold in the U.S. But at the expense of the working class back home. To deny that there are opposite interest involved in different strata's of the class system is being biased. Just like Mr. Peat said that the culture has been created to remove the idea of classes.

This falls apart when you look at the flipside though. Does manufacturing domestically remove the idea of classes? Quite the opposite. It reifies the separation of the means of production from its capital. This is the old Marxist theme. I realize some would rather have a politicized class system rather than a mystified class system. But erosion of class itself is the higher goal.

Additionally: RP rants against the mystified class system. We think there isn't one, but its worse than ever. The politicized class system is the old marxist/union us/them dichotomy. Erosion of the class system is not wealth seizure. Its radical globalism. Its not a total erosion of class, but its a much flatter localized class system.

 

[managing]

If you honestly think that half the population who doesn't agree with you is either immoral or stupid you obviously can't be right. They are just as smart and moral as the other side. The problem is that each side is getting a different version of reality from the MSM. They can't even have a conversation about anything because they have very different versions of the truth. Neither side is correct and neither side is wrong but both are missing the other side of the story. Try watching Fox or listen to talk radio and see what the other side of the story is. I watch MSNBC all the time to understand what the other side is thinking and see what I'm missing.

Very enlightened. Proof that "the other side" isn't ignorant. It might not even be the "other" side . . .

 

[managing]

The only thing guaranteed to keep you from knowing the truth is thinking that you already know it. I can tell from your past posts that you are young and very liberal and there is nothing wrong with that but I have to tell you that you don't know history or politics as well as you think you do. Nobody does. Once you close your mind to any alternative world view you are no longer thinking for yourself but are an ideologue subject to the control of your political betters. At your age you should always be questioning what you think you know. Try reading the Gulag Archipelago and see if you still think communism is a wonderful idea.

ibid. Damn, I wish I could just "like" a post.

 

[Such_Saturation]

This falls apart when you look at the flipside though. Does manufacturing domestically remove the idea of classes? Quite the opposite. It reifies the separation of the means of production from its capital. This is the old Marxist theme. I realize some would rather have a politicized class system rather than a mystified class system. But erosion of class itself is the higher goal.

Additionally: RP rants against the mystified class system. We think there isn't one, but its worse than ever. The politicized class system is the old marxist/union us/them dichotomy. Erosion of the class system is not wealth seizure. Its radical globalism. Its not a total erosion of class, but its a much flatter localized class system.

 

[DaveFoster]

Bernie Sanders was PERFECT

the only reason he didn't win was because Fox News(the same Fox News that supported George Bush) said he was a communist(which he isn't)

 

[managing]

Care to elaborate?

I don't think my original was as clear as it could have been, but I see the opposite of clutching at straws--trying to bite off too much at once.

A lot of this now 7 pages revolves around globalism/protectionism. Most of what I am trying to do is argue that is a false dichotomy. IOW, let's quit arguing over whether we want an old-fashioned "worker" based class system or a nebulous globalist system where class differences are greater than ever, but mystified and hard to see. Both suck. Let's find a way forward.

 

[x-ray peat]

Very enlightened. Proof that "the other side" isn't ignorant. It might not even be the "other" side . . .

 

[x-ray peat]

Ray has the distasteful habit of painting all the woes of society on ruling elites. He reminds me of Chomsky (blaming everything on USA) in this regard.

No, most of the outrage isn't about not going to war with Russia or protectionism. It's about the president being totally devoid of character and lacking any moral fibre and likely being compromised by an age old nemesis. But that's tough for Ray to spin to fit his dogmatic world view.

Sounds like you have your own dogma. I like Ray's better though.

 

[x-ray peat]

A lot of this now 7 pages revolves around globalism/protectionism. Most of what I am trying to do is argue that is a false dichotomy. IOW, let's quit arguing over whether we want an old-fashioned "worker" based class system or a nebulous globalist system where class differences are greater than ever, but mystified and hard to see. Both suck. Let's find a way forward.

Any new system you could come up with would have to be forced upon people as it would be an artificial construct. Most don't realize this but capitalism is not an ideology but rather a description of how humans have always interacted economically; free exchange of goods and services with no coercion on either side. Trying to improve upon something that developed naturally over thousands of years of human civilization is a difficult task. I think the solution is to try to make that natural system work better by removing all the market distortions and unnatural impediments that make it suck. Enforcing anti-trust laws and reducing the size of banks and corporations would be a start.

 

[managing]

Any new system you could come up with would have to be forced upon people as it would be an artificial construct. Most don't realize this but capitalism is not an ideology but rather a description of how humans have always interacted economically; free exchange of goods and services with no coercion on either side. Trying to improve upon something that developed naturally over thousands of years of human civilization is a difficult task. I think the solution is to try to make that natural system work better by removing all the market distortions and unnatural impediments that make it suck. Enforcing anti-trust laws and reducing the size of banks and corporations would be a start.

Ok. So I wasn't thinking that big. Both globalism and protectionism exist within or alongside capitalism. Planned economy and classless society was tried for decades by 1.5 billion people and was unequivocal failure.

No, what I mean is the problem with globalism is everybody holding it back. And I do mean everybody. Allowed to play out, you have a very localized economy. Manufacturing far from consumption simply won't offer an advantage. More complex manufacturing will benefit from a bit of centralization such that maybe your window blinds come from a factory down the street and your car from a factory 300 miles away.

The only question in my mind is not "should we." Its, how do we get there in the fastest and most painless way?

 

[x-ray peat]

Ok. So I wasn't thinking that big. Both globalism and protectionism exist within or alongside capitalism. Planned economy and classless society was tried for decades by 1.5 billion people and was unequivocal failure.

No, what I mean is the problem with globalism is everybody holding it back. And I do mean everybody. Allowed to play out, you have a very localized economy. Manufacturing far from consumption simply won't offer an advantage. More complex manufacturing will benefit from a bit of centralization such that maybe your window blinds come from a factory down the street and your car from a factory 300 miles away.

The only question in my mind is not "should we." Its, how do we get there in the fastest and most painless way?

Saying that radical globalization is the way to get to a hyper localized economy is like saying we need to remove your thyroid so we can balance your tsh with synthroid. Globalization has and will continue to bring tremendous pain to the developed world. The goal is a levelized world where all countries are equal. Unfortunately this comes at the expense of the developed world's middle classes. Their wages will continue to spiral down as developing labor costs rise until they meet at a level that most Americans would not want to live at. A better idea would be to allow the developing world to develop their own economies internally without interference from the West. Our trade policy should be focused on what's best for our own people. Globalization is not an economic ideal but rather a political one.

 

[managing]

Saying that radical globalization is the way to get to a hyper localized economy is like saying we need to remove your thyroid so we can balance your tsh with synthroid. Globalization has and will continue to bring tremendous pain to the developed world. The goal is a levelized world where all countries are equal. Unfortunately this comes at the expense of the developed world's middle classes. Their wages will continue to spiral down as developing labor costs rise until they meet at a level that most Americans would not want to live at. A better idea would be to allow the developing world to develop their own economies internally without interference from the West. Our trade policy should be focused on what's best for our own people. Globalization is not an economic ideal but rather a political one.

Okay, now we are understanding each other.

However, I disagree wholeheartedly with one premise: zero-sum theories of economics just don't hold water. The pain of the middle class in recent years (US) is easily demonstrable as wealth redistribution. But not from our economy to foreign economies but, rather, from our middle class to the upper class. Yes, that upper class is increasingly international. But that doesn't make "foreigners" the problem. It makes wealth inequity the problem.

To be clear, we do not live in what I would call "globalist" world. It is exactly this obfuscation of class that I am sure RP is railing against. He's right, so far as that goes. But globalism tends toward a reduction in wealth inequity.

Regardless of whether we slap a political or economic label on it (and I think its both) its wrong to stick our heads in the sand. What is best for "our" people, whomever may utter that statement, is the same thing. All standards of living will be better in a radically global future. A rising tide does lift all boats. Its not a welfare state lifting "them" "up" to "our" standards. It is actually a selfish move: what is best for me? Radical globalism.

 

[thirdcatgy]

Very thoughful as usual.

 

[jaguar43]

This falls apart when you look at the flipside though. Does manufacturing domestically remove the idea of classes? Quite the opposite. It reifies the separation of the means of production from its capital. This is the old Marxist theme. I realize some would rather have a politicized class system rather than a mystified class system. But erosion of class itself is the higher goal.

Mr Peat never made that claim. His claim was that globalization is essential for the ruling class. Which I think means it's important to them as a social class. He never stated that protectionism would remove the social class system. It is possible to have certain issues such as trade, legislation, taxation that negatively or positively effect certain social classes.

Additionally: RP rants against the mystified class system. We think there isn't one, but its worse than ever. The politicized class system is the old marxist/union us/them dichotomy. Erosion of the class system is not wealth seizure. Its radical globalism. Its not a total erosion of class, but its a much flatter localized class system.

If globalism was as successful at creating wealth for "everyone" then we would see the people live's improving in the U.S. But thats not the case, globalism is only useful to the ruling class for many reasons.

 

[x-ray peat]

Okay, now we are understanding each other.
However, I disagree wholeheartedly with one premise: zero-sum theories of economics just don't hold water. The pain of the middle class in recent years (US) is easily demonstrable as wealth redistribution. But not from our economy to foreign economies but, rather, from our middle class to the upper class. Yes, that upper class is increasingly international. But that doesn't make "foreigners" the problem. It makes wealth inequity the problem.
To be clear, we do not live in what I would call "globalist" world. It is exactly this obfuscation of class that I am sure RP is railing against. He's right, so far as that goes. But globalism tends toward a reduction in wealth inequity.

Well I’m glad I don't have to jump into the Marxist swimming pool to debate that tired idea though I am sure many here would like to. However I disagree with you as well. For trade to produce a benefit to both sides, each side needs to buy what the other produces. What we have now is a lopsided deal where we have opened up our markets to developing countries and they have refused to open theirs. Our trade deficit with China alone is over 350 billion a year. To pay for this we have been selling them our debt, our companies, and other capital assets. This of course can’t go on forever as you eventually run out of assets and your debt becomes worthless. Free trade is not making us better off but just more and more in debt.

I also disagree that the loss of wealth due to free trade can be explained by increases to the wealth of the US upper class. Whatever meager benefits we have gotten from outsourcing our production has gone mainly to the elite and some to US consumers but that increase doesn’t come close to offsetting the collective loss of our country to the developing world. The numbers are too large and the US elite too small to account for it all. The vast majority of the benefits have gone to all class segments in the developing world at our expense. The Chinese now have the highest number of billionaires, the largest middle class and 100s of millions of Chinese peasants have been lifted out of poverty. This is great for them but it is coming at the expense of our middle and working class.

Regardless of whether we slap a political or economic label on it (and I think its both) its wrong to stick our heads in the sand. What is best for "our" people, whomever may utter that statement, is the same thing. All standards of living will be better in a radically global future. A rising tide does lift all boats. Its not a welfare state lifting "them" "up" to "our" standards. It is actually a selfish move: what is best for me? Radical globalism.

You are repeating the tired mantra of the globalists. They are not being raised to our level but rather we are being brought down and they are being raised up to a new middling level which will be much lower than what we have today. The tide is not rising. Our pool is being drained to fill theirs. It’s been said that in politics there are always two reasons for everything that happens; the truth and then whatever lie they tell to the public. Globalism is very different in practice than the BS they peddle on the evening news. More globalism is not the answer. That is the definition of insanity.

 

[x-ray peat]

If globalism was as successful at creating wealth for "everyone" then we would see the people live's improving in the U.S. But thats not the case, globalism is only useful to the ruling class for many reasons.

why let the facts get in the way of a good story

 

[managing]

Mr Peat never made that claim. His claim was that globalization is essential for the ruling class. Which I think means it's important to them as a social class. He never stated that protectionism would remove the social class system. It is possible to have certain issues such as trade, legislation, taxation that negatively or positively effect certain social classes.





If globalism was as successful at creating wealth for "everyone" then we would see the people live's improving in the U.S. But thats not the case, globalism is only useful to the ruling class for many reasons.

I think your right about what RP did and didn't say. Protectionism is the current political trend, not something I'm getting from him.

We have no idea what globalism is capable of from an experiential standpoint. Nowhere we've gone already is really what I would call globalism. We've only dipped our toe in the pond.