Ray Peat Interview THINGS HIDDEN 61: Dr. Ray Peat Deconstructs the Fake Left

md_a

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
468
David Gornoski sits down with Dr. Ray Peat, researcher of aging, nutrition, and hormones. Why are so many areas of science off-limits for criticism? Is Noam Chomsky really an anti-establishment figure as the Left claims? Why was postmodernism spread into the various institutions of America? Is there a conflict of interest between American and European GMOs? Join Dr. Peat as he takes his nutrition science gloves off and offers his insights on our current political and cultural state of affairs.

 

Herbie

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
2,192
Great interview, Ray talking about his UFO experiences and saying who the enemy's are.
 
P

Peatness

Guest
Great interview. Dr Peat always sees the bigger picture.

Stop being divided and conquered - Ray Peat
 

CastorTroy

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
192
Location
Spain
If they choose to refuse to get jabbed its OK, but they must comply with isolating themselves forever. If by so they aren't able to get some food, thats their problem. Chomsky "the libertarian". One of the guest appearances on the movie "The Corporation". The fu*king co-author of the book "Manufacturing Consent".

Can you believe it? What a wonderful times we are living in.

 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
I always wonder why Dr. Peat isn't a libertarian. I tend to think it's because of lack of knowledge of libertarian thought and also custom based upon his upbringing. He is suspicious enough of government but never makes the jump to libertarianism.
 

JCastro

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
101
If they choose to refuse to get jabbed its OK, but they must comply with isolating themselves forever. If by so they aren't able to get some food, thats their problem. Chomsky "the libertarian". One of the guest appearances on the movie "The Corporation". The fu*king co-author of the book "Manufacturing Consent".

Can you believe it? What a wonderful times we are living in.


Chomsky is the Saruman, Ray is the Gandalf, of our times.
I always wonder why Dr. Peat isn't a libertarian. I tend to think it's because of lack of knowledge of libertarian thought and also custom based upon his upbringing. He is suspicious enough of government but never makes the jump to libertarianism.
I agree. Others have pointed out his bias. Have you seen that he thinks Stalin was a "great leader, not corrupt" and has defended Mao? To my memory, he is unwilling to specify what his particular political ideology is. He defends the term "communism", saying it just means to "decrease tyranny" and, I think he said "promote liberty"[?], but he's unwilling to call himself a communist or any other label when pressed. He seems to be more of an actual anarcho-syndicalist than the very Chomsky who identifies as one. Ray might also be called an Ilichian socialist.
 

Lilac

Member
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
636
From an old thread by Peatful:

“What would you like your legacy to be?”

Peat: Ending oligarchy and ending the digital culture are important goals.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
251
Ray might also be called an Ilichian socialist.
It's worth mentioning that this term is interchangeable with 'Illichian-Kropotkian anarchist'.


01:46:12

Haidut: Let me ask the question which Danny didn't, but it's right there, somebody asked, is Ray Peat a communist? And I know it's a very loaded word...

Danny Roddy: ...well I thought you answered it already, that's why I didn't ask it.

Haidut: ...no there was another one, whether he's a Social Anarchist but somebody asked directly is Ray Peat a Communist? There you go.

RP: I'm not sure what the difference is, if you define either of them very thoughtfully, there's not really any difference, you want to get rid of tyranny and you want to have cooperation, and the idea of communism essentially goes back to Christianity as the main source of those ideas and it has developed a lot of historical confusion around it, but the christian beliefs are at base, you could say that they're predominantly communistic.

Haidut: Didn't William James say say that Christ was a communist or something along those lines?

RP: A lot of people have, yeah, because of the his attitude towards money changers and the common person, even the outcasts of the system, he was definitely a bottom-up person and you can call that anarchism or communism either way.

Haidut: Do you think it's possible to have Christianity without the involvement of the church and by the church i specifically mean corrupt structures like the Vatican with their history of child abuse and financial machinations and supporting the Nazis and everything else?

RP: Yeah, I think one of the most interesting books on Christianity was Wilhelm Reich's book the murder of Christ and he gets much of his guidance from the new testament.


01:29:00

Danny Roddy: Okay, does Ray identify himself as a social anarchist in the sense of excluding rent sinking, forming worker cooperatives, freeing the individual from authority, collectivism, direct democracy, mutual aid, et cetera?

RP: No, I think organization —if it's allowed to develop... — the systems have been very quick to kill any incipient organization, but to the extent that they can spontaneously come into existence you'll have consumers, cooperatives and producers cooperatives and the organization will be what suits the people on the ground-level but if that's allowed to develop, it will develop and they will find the best way for these ground-level cooperative organizations to cooperate on a larger and larger scale, so I think that's a natural course of development. If they could... if some of these spontaneous cooperative groups could somehow take over the state then you'd have the problem of maybe the consumers having more control than the producers but if it goes up from the ground up you're going to have to solve the problems of each level of organization as they come about so I don't think there's any any problem with evolving even a world level state as long as it's based on these spontaneous surface level.

Haidut: Is there any truth to... I mean the way it at least looks to me, is that the social structure in the political structure are in a sense a metabolite of the health of the people that are building them so if the if the people are relatively healthy they can thrive under a variety of systems without them being exploitative and you know and degenerating into the worst that a particular system has to offer, so instead of worrying about a specific political system, wouldn't be the most prudent thing would be to just sort of like optimize or maximize individual health and then see what kind of structure emerges from there?

RP:
Yeah, because different cultures, for example military-oriented cultures are... there's evidence that they are very tightly connected with child abuse and body mutilation and repression of sexuality in in children, those things are closely tied with sadistic group policies and sadistic war-making —head chopping and so on— and those... you don't want one of those societies to take over a larger government, it has to be a basically indulgent social organization that doesn't oppress its own children.

Haidut:
But in a group of healthy people that sort of society wouldn't form to start with, my concern is that as soon as we say 'oh we should prevent that sort of culture taking over', and then establishing itself, then, the only way to fight such a vicious thing, is through basically other kinds of violence which ultimately tends to be kind of self-defeating, because if you continue this conflict long enough even the good peaceful culture will eventually militarize itself, through this constant conflict that has been going on so it seems to me that the only way to ensure a sort of like semi-stable existence of a large group of people is make sure that as many of them are as healthy as possible and then a natural or naturally non-exploitative order should arise.

RP: Yeah, the the problem is that an urge to conquer tends to lead to conquest, and that involves such things as being hostile, outline good food for example, the conquest can take the form of establishing a medical system that doesn't allow preventive methods, says everything has to be focused on killing the pathogens, cutting out the defects and so on, so the society that asserts the importance of being healthy is itself in danger of offending the sadistic cultures and stimulating oppression from them.

Haidut:
So I guess there is some some truth to the saying that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom even for healthy people.

RP: I think so. Until two or three generations you might outgrow the sadistic tendencies that have been inculcated for so long.

 
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
251
41wxT9D-YqL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


The True Story of How a Communist Spy Team, Government Hoodlums and Sick Psychiatrists Destroyed Sexual Science and Cosmic Life Energy Discoveries


'...most of Wilhelm Reich’s troubles with the US government at the end of his life were instigated by Communists who viewed his work as a serious threat to their efforts to promulgate a Stalinist ideology and to influence world events. While no contradictory information has been published since the first edition of this book, much confirming evidence has been established. Some of this information has been included in this edition,including the telling “Document 20” in which Comintern agents in Russia compiled a list of German exiles to be arrested or “liquidated” as enemies of Stalinism. Wilhelm Reich’s name is included in this1936 hit-list in connection with a German associate who was arrested and spent five years in the gulags, primarily for his connection to Reich. Some writers continue to argue that Wilhelm Reich was a victim of “McCarthyism” or the alleged “right-wing, conservative” tenor of America in the 1950s. It is true that a few lone conservative individuals took issue with the content of Reich’s writing, but nothing came of these efforts and they had no connection to each other. Meanwhile, the leftists who sprang to Stalin’s defense had strong connections to each other through the international Communist web and fit perfectly into Reich’s description of a “Red Thread of Conspiracy.”

'In Reich’s case there is an opportunity to examine the records of both sides in the Cold War, since the fall of the Soviet Union has resulted in the release of numerous state secrets. If the Communists covertly harassed Reich, then the evidence should be publicly available now. This book is my attempt to sort through the evidence and present it in an objective way, while maintaining my contact with the tragic problem of secrecy and conspiracy as a social disease.This book, then, is not a conspiracy theory, but a documentation of conspiracy as a social force. The elements of a conspiracy are simple and omnipresent. Literally a breathing together, conspiracy is a well-defined criminal act involving two or more conspirators make a secret agreement to conduct an illegal act, or a legal act in an unlawful manner. Conspiracy is the rule, not the exception.Most “conspiracy theory” books miss the point, I believe, when they try to identify one ruling group of conspirators responsible for all malfeasance and social control. The evidence everywhere suggests that far more insidious to the social welfare may be concurrent, overlapping,interpenetrated, and cross-conflicted groups with no discernible goal other than secret power. Reich himself had two working hypotheses about conspiracy. One was the idea of an emotional conspiracy that worked without secret agreements and depended upon the mass sexual suppression world-wide. The other conspiracy identified by Reich, an actual conspiracy of American agents of the USSR, who were dedicated to global political control and subversion. Both of these viewpoints are valuable. The more concrete description of the conspiracy was impossible to verify or disprove until recently, when the Soviet Union collapsed and for a time,even opened the archives of the most lethal and feared police state apparatus, the KGB. What has emerged, like a stale miasma from the Pharaoh’s tomb, has shocked and outraged the Western public. It will take years to digest the new revelations, especially when it involves collating the information with documents from the CIA and NSA, which have been slow incoming.'



'In 1933, the Communist Party expelled Reich as a “sexual determinist."

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom