Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?

CO3

@Truth Read it, it takes seconds! I do not mean this to be dismissive.

I posted the original hebrew on here, with the translation underneath. I would recommend using biblehub for all such interpretations, especially if you are versed in Greek or grammar generally. All the major translations are on there. Abel gives OF his firstlings, AND their fat! Abel gives grain.

My interpretation that a tiller of soil has more surplus product than a shepherd is not in the text! It is however, not entirely without a historical basis, they are different modes of living entirely. This is why crop production lent itself to feudalism.

You can ask yourself why the professions were chosen, and the representations do not stop with the simple reality of the amount of produce of course. It's also a nice implication about the value of these products, to bring it back to the ideas of Ray.

CO3

@fiester
haha he blocks and calls me weak. My counterpoint was Lenin! The great theoretician! The man who Ray looked up to for metaphysics and philosophy!

Truth

@CO3 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

@Truth

He gave of the firstlings - multiple! possibly valuable females too - AND of their fat! He has no intention to receive better than he gave, unlike his brother. It's a massive difference from giving some grain that you were going to sell. The two professions are very different in the way that you can accumulate

Are you refering to this ?

I did read the story of Cain and Abel on internet, it doesn't mention anything about Cain intending to receive more in return, nor does it mention that they do these tasks to earn money, sell to whom if they are supposed to be the first children of Adam and Eve, the first humans?

Norwegian Mugabe

@CO3 Thanks for deleting some of your unreadable posts. Now please go ahead and delete the rest. You have not argued anything. Nothing you write is coherent. People are indeed giving up, as it is impossible to reason with a moronic maniac. Keep posting Soviet propaganda pamphlets on an English health forum. I am sure this will someday help you coping with existence. We are discussing why the Bible support right-wing ideology, while you are yelling about greed and breakfast. you're at your best when you spam incoherent ad hominem attacks. Almost everyone has blocked you by now.
May you be the proof that man can endure anything.

S.Holmes

I have great respect for the out of the box thinkers that have found this forum. That being said, would you be so kind as to apply your critical thinking skills to the following? I was raised in a futurist charismatic evangelical church and spent my early married life on a pilgrimage (search for truth really) which ultimately led my family here (see link) 25 years ago. If you choose to delve into this, thoughtful discussion appreciated, but please do not use Google to critique as we all surely know by now that it's controlled by warmongering globalists who look forward to an engineered (by them) Armageddon. You will find nothing there but smears and disinformation. If this ever goes mainstream, they are DONE.
http://www.preteristcentral.com/Why I am a Preterist.html

fiester

@vesprad said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

@fiester said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

So the Bible here is not condemning the rich, simply saying they are more concerned about things that aren't of spiritual value.

What do you think this would lead to, naturally? What do you think happens when you're more concerned about things than about Heaven?

Being carnally minded leads you selfishness. Spiritually minded leads to selflessness. What roads or avenues it takes you doesn't matter as long as the world or wiles of the devil or whatever you wish to call it has it's grasp on your attention rather than God. See James chapter 2 for example, keeping in mind James is talking to people who believe on God already and aren't working, not talking to everyone including non-believers.

He was not commanding ALL rich men to give everything they have unto the poor, but he was telling how this one man who wanted to please God, how he could further please Him.

Hm... What makes him different?

He asked what else he needed to do, Christ told him. What makes him different is he is seeking the truth/God rather than more 'things'.

Not sure how this helps you at all promote communism, it clearly points out how the ratio of what you put in to what you have is pleasing to God. I guess rich people=bad because not giving more? Pretty weak.

Why wouldn't they? Do they need the money?

God only commands us to give a tithe, 10% of our gross income, what people give beyond that is up to them. God only requires our faith, beyond that what you do with your money or time reflects your obedience towards God. Like James 2 above.

Exodus 20:17

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's

Kilgore

@Norwegian-Mugabe

@Norwegian-Mugabe said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

People are indeed giving up, as it is impossible to reason with a moronic maniac

Arguing with a commie is the worst thing you can do to yourself. He has nothing to lose but you will definitely lose brain cells. Its not worth it.

CO3

@Kilgore pussy

CO3

@Norwegian-Mugabe Hilarious! So you're not gonna even attempt to argue, since your head is empty. NEXT!

lutte

Economists did not invent capitalism, it is material reality, independent of thought. The profit motive is not about being greedy, it is based on surplus value. One of the factors that weigh down on your wage (if you are employed). Socialism is easy to fail because it is the transitionary stage; balancing features of "socialism" and capitalism or actively trying to replace the laws of capitalism. Fortunately we have giant monopolistic corporations who are already planning logistics in large scale so even if there were/are no nominally socialist countries, the developement of society still tends toward it.
Eventually it becomes crystal clear that a planned economy is not only possible but good; then the topic might finally move away from whether certain people are "tranny crybabies" " jealous/lazy" or "feigning sympathy". Capitalism is holding us back already.

VehmicJuryman

@CO3 Christ did not live in a commune. In fact his ministry was largely financed by donations from wealthy people. Landlords, merchants, religious clerics, government officials. The very group of people your Marxist idols hated and massacred.

CO3

@VehmicJuryman
Incredible the way in which you slander Christ, saying he and his flock were dependent on welfare from the rich. You are already implying it here; you pharisees would be the first to judge such a way of living where property was shared. Disgusting.

You are more of an opponent to his ideas than maybe anyone else, because you fake your allegiance to him and even use it to justify the satanic order of things in the world.

The point is the mask you call your 'religious' views are downstream of your covetousness. You proved it in this thread but are too blind to see it.

CO3

@VehmicJuryman
Referring to this, dummy?

Acts 4 32-35

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need

Probably wouldn't even recognize that last line from another work, because you guys unironically take pride in ignorance.

Kvirion

@lutte said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

Economists did not invent capitalism, it is material reality, independent of thought.

LOL! What an exponential BS!

You have never heard about Adam Smith and the (especially recent) critique of his works, do you?

BTW, you have mistaken a local exchange of goods with the whole capitalistic doctrine...

I will not comment on the rest of your scribble, because I guess that ignorance is bliss for you... ;--)

fiester

@S-Holmes

iirc Preterists believe most if not all prophecy has already been fulfilled, basically disallowing any dual-fulfillment, and their eschatology is wacky and unbiblical. I would suggest everyone avoid this site.

lutte

@Kvirion economists have not invented capitalism. biologists have not invented life.

S.Holmes

@fiester said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

@S-Holmes

iirc Preterists believe most if not all prophecy has already been fulfilled, basically disallowing any dual-fulfillment, and their eschatology is wacky and unbiblical. I would suggest everyone avoid this site.

I've observed that those who make these claims have never really done a deep study of eschatology and usually just go along with the Scofield crowd, whether they're aware of it or not. (I bet you didn't even skim the article.) It's also interesting that you don't think others can critically assess whether or not preterism is true, so you unwisely advise them to steer clear. If you have scholarly (IN CONTEXT) arguments to refute it I would like to hear them. I've been asking futurists for nearly 25 years for a thorough refutation. I'm STILL waiting.

Every person we have studied this with were convinced, one the son of a Baptist minister, and ALL well versed in scripture. They were astonished and asked how we all could have missed something so obvious and hiding in plain sight for so many years. Futurism is the brainchild of the criminal and scoundrel Cyrus Scofield (and John Darby). The Zionist puppetmasters had/have deep pockets and hired Scofield to author the commentary which was then distributed far and wide, for FREE. Once people read it, and began watching the sky they lost interest in being good stewards, and leaving an inheritance (liberty or wealth) to their families. I mean why polish the brass on a sinking ship? We must reverse the lies told by Scofield.

This is the truth I had been searching for. Let people make up their own minds.

Kvirion

@lutte said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

economists have not invented capitalism. biologists have not invented life.

Your argument is a simple (ontological, epistemological) fallacy
You mistook (weak, utopian) social science with natural science...
You seem to not have any idea about philosophy, which is a necessary condition to discuss such topics...

BTW If you don't know that something exists it does not mean it doesn't... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Norwegian Mugabe

@Kvirion Point number two is enough to bury his argument. Men created capitalism, so it does not make sense to compare it with biological life forms, which were not made by man.

Mulloch94

Capitalism describes a system of ownership. So I would agree it should be differentiated from a simple commodity exchange, which is something even Marx himself took notice of. The fatal misconception in the left's argument is believing private ownership doesn't (or otherwise can't or never has) existed outside the scope of State decree and artificial scarcity. Ownership occurs at that precise moment when the natural environment has been transformed by the physical labor of another individual.

And once this transformation has taken place, then the owner can exchange with another individual who has also transformed nature via physical labor to create property. Hence how the early free-market radicals viewed capitalism...a system of voluntary exchange. This is also why wealthy plutocrats originally feared the early libertarian radicals in the late 1960s, as this radical approach to property appropriation would make Big Business a thing of the past. Murray Rothbard's homestead principle paper entails the situation perfectly. It would basically be a proletariat takeover without the nationalization. Basically Rothbard took Marx's idea and upgraded it. Then the libertarian movement got corrupted in the 70s by the kochtopus and has essentially been seen as a pro-corporate movement ever since (except for another brief stent in the 90s when libertarians allied with right-wing populists). But typically speaking, true right-wingers are rarely free market supporters.

When you drift far enough to the right, it's basically the same thing as the left. Fascism is Socialism with a side of nationalistic fervor. If you go ALL the way to the end of the right-wing spectrum, which is Eco-Fascism, then you arrive at "reactionary anti-capitalism." There also anti-human in general, but that's besides the point I guess. I suppose the point I am making is that Capitalism has not held a clear distinction of itself throughout the 700 years of it's existence. And from a historical analysis, a critique of Capitalism largely rests on the land grabs by English parliamentarians in the 16th century. Although modern leftists continually forget (or remain ignorant to) the State itself is what made those land grabs possible, and that forcing people into a wage-rent cash nexus is mutually exclusive to transforming labor into private property.