Dandruff or scalp irritation? Try BLOO.

    Bioenergetic Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?

    The Junkyard
    52
    265
    14.4k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • KvirionK
      Kvirion @Norwegian Mugabe
      last edited by

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

      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.

      Yeah, you're right I am often too generous (comprehensive) with my arguments...

      I often forget that You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

      A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
      Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
      There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
      And drinking largely sobers us again.
      ~Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • KvirionK
        Kvirion @Mulloch94
        last edited by

        @Mulloch94 I assume that the problem is more complex than a one-dimensional left-right axis...

        PoliticalCompass.gif
        This picture is a bare minimum to consider - to start comprehending that we have at least two dimensions to think about...

        BTW the whole economics and practical thinking about economies need a serious upgrade with a multi-perspective approach... https://evonomics.com/new-ways-to-teach-economics/

        A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
        Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
        There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
        And drinking largely sobers us again.
        ~Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • lutteL
          lutte @Kvirion
          last edited by

          @Kvirion
          Economists have not invented capitalism. Thomas Edison has not invented electricity, or any other person. No biologist has invented life
          The capitalists arose through capital, private property, which was made possible by feudal conditions, managed to overturn the feudal system and state (monopoly on violence) through a bourgeois revolution (aided by their own employees and serfs). Long before anyone knew what it would actually bring or how it would look like.
          Tell me what is utopian about science? Or were you talking about some specific tradition of social science you are discontent with?
          Not only do we need to reassess science, history every time because of recent relevations or understandings, but also because life, everything is constant flux. Even physical laws.

          "The scientists of empire are announcing the end of
          science and art, and of all cultural progress. Their argument
          is simple: The knowable world is finite, and our knowledge
          of it grows at an increasing rate. The end must come soon.
          Some of them say that physics and chemistry are already
          finished, and that biology will be completed when a few
          puzzles are solved in genetics--and the general form of
          these solutions is already known.
          For German idealists--like Hegel or Hitler--"our
          world, our own time" tends to be seen as "the last stage in
          History." The Golden Age, or the 1000 year Reich, is
          always just now arriving. At the end of the last century,
          many physicists were certain that their science was
          complete, except for a few details.
          Idealists see "pure knowledge" as the source of
          technology, and so technology must come to an end too, a
          little later than science.
          Materialists are more likely to see our time as being
          near the beginning, not the end. For example, Marx (who
          borrowed so much from Hegel) said that "real history" couldn't
          begin until capitalism has been overcome.
          I think this observation is more tautology than
          perception. The term "materialism" describes the attitude
          that likes to begin with "the matter at hand," "idealism"
          describes an approach that emphasizes the importance of
          established ideas. One's place in the world obviously
          influences judgments as to where truth and value can be
          found.
          Ever since Heraclitus, materialists have emphasized
          change, while idealists emphasize stasis. "Pure knowledge" is
          a source of technology, but technology is also a basis for the
          development of new formalized knowledge. The steam engine
          was already in common use when Carnot and Joule formulated
          its basic theory.
          What the idealists are saying is that their science is
          nearly complete, and there is no other science. What they
          imply is that there can never be technologies which conflict
          with their laws. In the Golden Age, science must achieve
          certainly, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. Hegel's version of
          this was: "...the laws of real Freedom--demand the
          subjugation of mere contingent Will."
          German idealism has been influential in western
          science for most of the 20th century, but now scientists in
          capitalist countries are letting it guide them into cultural
          fascism."

          "Several years ago, in the quarterly publication Social
          Sciences, I noticed an article by a man whose specialty was
          exploring the future of work; he projected a future in which a
          person's desire for growth and exploration is realized in his
          work. This person's job was to clarifY the changes that must
          be made in the "economy" so that it will serve humanity--the
          workers and consumers--instead of vice versa.
          Previously, in Mind and Tissue, I had briefly discussed
          some Soviet views on labor: That work tends toward perception, as machines become available; politics, work, culture,
          and science interpenetrate; brain function, education. science,
          and work have much in common--an emphasis on purpose
          and goals, deep reorganization, and complex perceptual interaction with the material. P. K. Anokhin and A. A. Ukhtomskii, and their students have created a sound basis for the role
          of goals and future thinking.
          The attitude toward the future is an important part of how
          we orient ourselves and what concrete things we do to prepare for the future. A mechanistic view argues that we can't
          intervene to change the future, that it must fundamentally resemble the past, and that if people just invest in things that
          promise to give them a good profit the future will be nice.
          Another view sees the future as being composed of choices
          which lead to new choices, with new possibilities emerging as
          choices are put into action.

          It's important that people start talking about the possible
          choices we have. If we accept that "the choice" is between
          being unemployed and having a job, the job we get is not likely to be what we want to do with our lives. And "status" isn't
          what I'm talking about. Giving maximum meaning to our
          lives should be one of the basic things that we demand of our
          work.
          I. To start with concrete and familiar things, we might first
          want to discuss what work is, and why-wunder capitalism, and
          also under fascism, primitive cultures, and socialism. The issue of specialization could be considered here.
          2. This might be followed by considering what work could
          become, and how. The nature of history, time, and culture
          should be considered, as well as the projections that are made
          by different groups.
          3. And at some point, I think it is important to consider
          how work shapes us, how we are our work, and why it defines what we can be. Cultural, intellectual, and biological influences should be considered.
          There are some things I want to quote, because they suggest some of the things that work is, what it does to us, and
          what it should be.
          About 1790, William Blake wrote the poem "London," which begins

          "I wander thro' each charter'd street,
          Near where the charter'd Thames does flow,
          And mark in every face I meet
          Marks of weakness, markd of woe .
          . . . the mind-forg'd manacles I hear."

          Another poem, "The Human Abstract," begins
          "Pity would be no more
          If we did not make somebody Poor .. . . "

          Repeatedly, Blake tried to define the mechanisms of oppression and limitation of the human personality. He observed that the State chartered corporations, licensed
          that it used false science, devious moralizing and religion, and
          illiteracy to create a culture of obedient drudgery. Commercial interests, he pointed out, distorted and degraded human
          life, art, and science.
          "Schoolmaster of souls, great opposer of change,
          arise'! O how could'st thou deform those beautiful
          proportions Of life & person; for as the person, so
          is his life proportion'd. "
          "Thy self-destroying, beast form'd Science shall be
          thy eternal lot. "

          Blake referred to factories as the "Satanic Mills," whose
          technology was invented
          "To perplex youth. .. & to bind to labours Of day
          & night . . . that they might file and polish. . . hour
          after hour, laborious workmanship, Kept ignorant
          of the use that they might spend the days of wisdom
          In sorrowfull drudgery to obtain a scanty pittance
          of bread. In ignorance to view a small portion &
          think that All. And call it demonstration, blind to
          all the simple rules of life. "

          Several people in the following century were influenced by
          Blake's attitudes and perceptions, but most of them wanted to
          retreat to a simpler past, rather than (as Blake desired) to advance into a more generous future.

          "And when all Tyranny was cut off from the face
          of the earth living flames winged with intellect and
          Reason, round the Earth they march in order, flame
          by flame. . . . Start forth the trembling millions into
          flames of mental fire . .. "Why sit I here & give lip
          all my powers to indolence . .. ?

          [...]

          People like Blake, Higgins, and Marx have realized that
          there are different ways of being, that one is fragmented and
          diminished, and the other is whole, alive, and growing. When
          people feel that they are in possession of their own lives, then
          problems become opportunities. Each problem leads to new
          problems. The world draws us forward, and we are not defined by an "occupation" or "profession," but by the work we
          have achieved, and the problems we have confronted."

          • Ray Peat

          "The policy of some nations has given extraordinary
          encouragement to the industry of the country; that of others to the
          industry of towns. Scarce any nation has dealt equally and
          impartially with every sort of industry. Since the downfall of the
          Roman empire, the policy of Europe has been more favourable to
          arts, manufactures, and commerce, the industry of towns, than to
          agriculture, the industry of the country. The circumstances which
          seem to have introduced and established this policy are explained
          in the third book.
          Though those different plans were, perhaps, first introduced by
          the private interests and prejudices of particular orders of men,
          without any regard to, or foresight of, their consequences upon the
          general welfare of the society; yet they have given occasion to very
          different theories of political economy; of which some magnify the
          importance of that industry which is carried on in towns, others of
          that which is carried on in the country. Those theories have had a
          considerable influence, not only upon the opinions of men of
          learning, but upon the public conduct of princes and sovereign
          states. I have endeavoured, in the fourth book, to explain, as fully
          and distinctly as I can, those different theories, and the principal
          effects which they have produced in different ages and nations."
          ...
          "According to the natural course of things, therefore, the
          greater part of the capital of every growing society is, first,
          directed to agriculture, afterwards to manufactures, and last of all
          to foreign commerce. This order of things is so very natural that in
          every society that had any territory it has always, I believe, been in
          some degree observed. Some of their lands must have been
          cultivated before any considerable towns could be established, and
          some sort of coarse industry of the manufacturing kind must have
          been carried on in those towns, before they could well think of
          employing themselves in foreign commerce.
          But though this natural order of things must have taken place
          in some degree in every such society, it has, in all the modern
          states of Europe, been, in many respects, entirely inverted. The
          foreign commerce of some of their cities has introduced all their
          finer manufactures, or such as were fit for distant sale; and
          manufactures and foreign commerce together have given birth to
          the principal improvements of agriculture. The manners and
          customs which the nature of their original government introduced,
          and which remained after that government was greatly altered,
          necessarily forced them into this unnatural and retrograde order."

          "When the German and Scythian nations overran the
          western provinces of the Roman empire, the confusions
          which followed so great a revolution lasted for several
          centuries. The rapine and violence which the barbarians exercised
          against the ancient inhabitants interrupted the commerce
          between the towns and the country. The towns were deserted, and
          the country was left uncultivated, and the western provinces of
          Europe, which had enjoyed a considerable degree of opulence
          under the Roman empire, sunk into the lowest state of poverty
          and barbarism. During the continuance of those confusions, the
          chiefs and principal leaders of those nations acquired or usurped
          to themselves the greater part of the lands of those countries. A
          great part of them was uncultivated; but no part of them, whether
          cultivated or uncultivated, was left without a proprietor. All of
          them were engrossed, and the greater part by a few great
          proprietors.
          This original engrossing of uncultivated lands, though a great,
          might have been but a transitory evil. They might soon have been
          divided again, and broke into small parcels either by succession or
          by alienation. The law of primogeniture hindered them from being
          divided by succession: the introduction of entails prevented their
          being broke into small parcels by alienation."

          "Laws frequently continue in force long after the circumstances
          which first gave occasion to them, and which could alone render
          them reasonable, are no more. In the present state of Europe, the
          proprietor of a single acre of land is as perfectly secure of his
          possession as the proprietor of a hundred thousand. The right of
          primogeniture, however, still continues to be respected, and as of
          all institutions it is the fittest to support the pride of family
          distinctions, it is still likely to endure for many centuries. In every
          other respect, nothing can be more contrary to the real interest of
          a numerous family than a right which, in order to enrich one,
          beggars all the rest of the children."

          "To the slave cultivators of ancient times gradually succeeded a
          species of farmers known at present in France by the name of
          metayers. They are called in Latin, Coloni partiarii. They have
          been so long in disuse in England that at present I know no
          English name for them. The proprietor furnished them with the
          seed, cattle, and instruments of husbandry, the whole stock, in
          short, necessary for cultivating the farm. The produce was divided
          equally between the proprietor and the farmer, after setting aside
          what was judged necessary for keeping up the stock, which was
          restored to the proprietor when the farmer either quitted, or was
          turned out of the farm.
          Land occupied by such tenants is properly cultivated at the
          expense of the proprietor as much as that occupied by slaves.
          There is, however, one very essential difference between them.
          Such tenants, being freemen, are capable of acquiring property,
          and having a certain proportion of the produce of the land, they
          have a plain interest that the whole produce should be as great as
          possible, in order that their own proportion may be so. A slave, on
          the contrary, who can acquire nothing but his maintenance,
          consults his own ease by making the land produce as little as
          possible over and above that maintenance."

          "To this species of tenancy succeeded, though by very slow
          degrees, farmers properly so called, who cultivated the land with
          their own stock, paying a rent certain to the landlord. When such
          farmers have a lease for a term of years, they may sometimes find
          it for their interest to lay out part of their capital in the further
          improvement of the farm; because they may sometimes expect to
          recover it, with a large profit, before the expiration of the lease."

          "After the fall of the Roman empire, on the
          contrary, the proprietors of land seem generally to have lived in
          fortified castles on their own estates, and in the midst of their own
          tenants and dependants. The towns were chiefly inhabited by
          tradesmen and mechanics, who seem in those days to have been of
          servile, or very nearly of servile condition. The privileges which we
          find granted by ancient charters to the inhabitants of some of the
          principal towns in Europe sufficiently show what they were before
          those grants. The people to whom it is granted as a privilege that
          they might give away their own daughters in marriage without the
          consent of their lord, that upon their death their own children, and
          not their lord, should succeed to their goods, and that they might
          dispose of their own effects by will, must, before those grants, have
          been either altogether or very nearly in the same state of villanage
          with the occupiers of land in the country."

          "But how servile soever may have been originally the condition
          of the inhabitants of the towns, it appears evidently that they
          arrived at liberty and independency much earlier than the
          occupiers of land in the country. That part of the king’s revenue
          which arose from such poll-taxes in any particular town used
          commonly to be let in farm during a term of years for a rent
          certain, sometimes to the sheriff of the county, and sometimes to
          other persons. The burghers themselves frequently got credit
          enough to be admitted to farm the revenues of this sort which
          arose out of their own town, they becoming jointly and severally
          answerable for the whole rent.
          To let a farm in this manner was
          quite agreeable to the usual economy of, I believe, the sovereigns
          of all the different countries of Europe, who used frequently to let
          whole manors to all the tenants of those manors, they becoming
          jointly and severally answerable for the whole rent; but in return
          being allowed to collect it in their own way, and to pay it into the
          king’s exchequer by the hands of their own bailiff, and being thus
          altogether freed from the insolence of the king’s officers—a
          circumstance in those days regarded as of the greatest
          importance."

          "The lords despised the burghers, whom they considered not
          only as of a different order, but as a parcel of emancipated slaves,
          almost of a different species from themselves. The wealth of the
          burghers never failed to provoke their envy and indignation, and
          they plundered them upon every occasion without mercy or
          remorse. The burghers naturally hated and feared the lords. The
          king hated and feared them too; but though perhaps he might
          despise, he had no reason either to hate or fear the burghers.
          Mutual interest, therefore, disposed them to support the king, and
          the king to support them against the lords. They were the enemies
          of his enemies, and it was his interest to render them as secure
          and independent of those enemies as he could. By granting them
          magistrates of their own, the privilege of making bye-laws for their
          own government, that of building walls for their own defence, and
          that of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military
          discipline, he gave them all the means of security and
          independency of the barons which it was in his power to bestow."

          "Without the establishment of some regular government of this
          kind, without some authority to compel their inhabitants to act
          according to some certain plan or system, no voluntary league of
          mutual defence could either have afforded them any permanent
          security, or have enabled them to give the king any considerable
          support. By granting them the farm of their town in fee, he took
          away from those whom he wished to have for his friends, and, if
          one may say so, for his allies, all ground of jealousy and suspicion
          that he was ever afterwards to oppress them, either by raising the
          farm rent of their town or by granting it to some other farmer."

          "The militia of the cities seems, in those times, not to have been
          inferior to that of the country, and as they could be more readily
          assembled upon any sudden occasion, they frequently had the
          advantage in their disputes with the neighbouring lords. In
          countries, such as Italy and Switzerland, in which, on account
          either of their distance from the principal seat of government, of
          the natural strength of the country itself, or of some other reason,
          the sovereign came to lose the whole of his authority, the cities
          generally became independent republics, and conquered all the
          nobility in their neighbourhood, obliging them to pull down their
          castles in the country and to live, like other peaceable inhabitants,
          in the city. This is the short history of the republic of Berne as well
          as of several other cities in Switzerland. If you except Venice, for
          of that city the history is somewhat different, it is the history of all
          the considerable Italian republics, of which so great a number
          arose and perished between the end of the twelfth and the
          beginning of the sixteenth century."

          " Order and good government, and along with them the liberty
          and security of individuals, were, in this manner, established in
          cities at a time when the occupiers of land in the country were
          exposed to every sort of violence. But men in this defenceless state
          naturally content themselves with their necessary subsistence,
          because to acquire more might only tempt the injustice of their
          oppressors. On the contrary, when they are secure of enjoying the
          fruits of their industry, they naturally exert it to better their
          condition, and to acquire not only the necessaries, but the
          conveniences and elegancies of life. That industry, therefore,
          which aims at something more than necessary subsistence, was
          established in cities long before it was commonly practised by the
          occupiers of land in the country. If in the hands of a poor
          cultivator, oppressed with the servitude of villanage, some little
          stock should accumulate, he would naturally conceal it with great
          care from his master, to whom it would otherwise have belonged,
          and take the first opportunity of running away to a town. The law
          was at that time so indulgent to the inhabitants of towns, and so
          desirous of diminishing the authority of the lords over those of the
          country, that if he could conceal himself there from the pursuit of
          his lord for a year, he was free for ever. Whatever stock, therefore,
          accumulated in the hands of the industrious part of the
          inhabitants of the country naturally took refuge in cities as the
          only sanctuaries in which it could be secure to the person that
          acquired it."
          -Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

          KvirionK 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • lutteL
            lutte
            last edited by

            butchered formatting

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M
              Mulloch94 @Kvirion
              last edited by

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

              I assume that the problem is more complex than a one-dimensional left-right axis.

              It certainly is. In fact, I've increasingly been developing a new opinion that the left-right axis means essentially nothing in today's sociopolitical culture. The waters become even more muddy when you throw political parties in the ring too. As meaningless as the left-right axis is, democrats and republicans are even more meaningless. For example, all American democrats are right-wingers. More or less. Take all their social culture BS out of the equation for a second, because being a leftist has nothing to do with any of that. Do democrats support labor or do they support capital? The answer is definitively the latter. Republicans, also right-wingers, but far more radicalized in the sense they have a strong push toward national independence, which is naturally at odds with the establishments quest to further the globalization of capital.

              Naturally MAGA bros lack the "intellectual refinement" that their Occupy Wall Street predecessors had in the early 2000s. But that's too be expected, the OWS movement was mostly anarchists, smart ones too, like David Graeber. As much as I disagree with Graeber's economics, he understood power dynamics very well. The MAGA movement doesn't understand power dynamics well, but they do recognize corruption and know how to point at it, lol. The big difference is anarchists did it in the 2000s out of loyalty to labour. MAGA's anti-globalism is out of loyalty to the nation-state. In this light, we could see the democrats as being a party slightly more capitalistic than even the republicans. America doesn't really have a left-wing option. And since America doesn't recognize absolute property rights, they don't have a libertarian option either.

              So this two headed axis is very useless in my opinion. We're not even getting into all these little micro nuances either. Like urban liberals vs rustic blues. As soon as you get out of any major Big City shit-hole, most people, even democrats, own guns. Likewise, I've seen examples of traditionally very conservative practices like church becoming woke for LGBTQ or other groups in the inner cities. What were seeing here, in my opinion, is that environment is superseding anything people believe politically. And I think this is where bioenergetics slips into the equation. Might also be why someone like Ray Peat was never really pinned down by a particular political ideology. There's this old saying that "culture is upstream from politics." If that's true, and by all accounts it is, then bioenergetics is the source.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • VehmicJurymanV
                VehmicJuryman @CO3
                last edited by

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

                @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.

                Exposing your ignorance as usual.

                Luke 8: "1 Soon afterward, Jesus began going around from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God. The twelve were with Him, 2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support out of their private means."

                Other wealthy benefactors of Jesus mentioned in the Gospel include Joseph of Arimathea and Mary of Bethany.

                There is genuinely no ideology more antithetical to Christianity than Marxism. No ideology has ever harmed as many people or sent as many people to hell. It is an ideology of pure hatred, envy, resentment, atheism, and murder. Nobody has killed more Christians than Marxists.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • VehmicJurymanV
                  VehmicJuryman @CO3
                  last edited by VehmicJuryman

                  @CO3 I'm aware that Marxists have quoted the Bible out of context to support their hateful ideology. Satan quotes the Bible too. Btw, you're quoting Acts which happened after Christ left earth so claiming Christ lived the same way is speculative at best. It's also very different from Marxism - Marx didn't believe in voluntarily forming communities that shared property, he believed in mass murdering and terrorizing everyone in society who owned property.

                  CO3C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • CO3C
                    CO3 @VehmicJuryman
                    last edited by CO3

                    @VehmicJuryman You clearly did not know. Now the rats are fleeing the ship truly, slandering not only Christ but 'their' apostles too. The disloyalty is disgusting! No wonder Nazis were and are so partial to neo-paganism. Not one single principle between all of the people that come into this thread to make a fool of themselves.

                    Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

                    CO3C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • CO3C
                      CO3 @CO3
                      last edited by

                      Guys, I'm only gonna do this one time because at this point someone with brains has to help you guys; how about - in this topic you guys shifted to because you were having trouble arguing what was at hand - maybe bring up that the USSR was an atheist nation and repressed organized religion with an iron fist instead of bringing up 'we who shall not work shall not eat' and 'unto every man according to what he needs'. Think!

                      Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

                      VehmicJurymanV ? 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • ?
                        A Former User
                        last edited by A Former User

                        I found a wonderful explanation of the difference between the so called Left and the Right which explains why this Ray Peat community is so far right!

                        This is from a recent Tucker Carlson interview of Jake Logan, a trucker who hauls hazardous materials:
                        Tucker [00:27:41] Well, yeah, because you keep the country alive. I wonder you really get the sense. And maybe the sentence that you just told us about in Colorado was an example of that. But the people who run things in Washington and New York and LA don't like you. They don't like the way you look. They don't like your race. They don't like your gender. They don't like your attitudes. Why the hostility? What do you think you ever did to them?

                        Jake Logan [00:28:08] I think that they, this is just my personal opinion, but I believe that liberals are required to be lockstep with whatever directive comes down from on high. Yeah. From the left. Now conservatives. This is one thing that I love about being conservative, because we don't have to agree with our leaders, and we don't even have to agree with each other. Liberals are required to be lockstep with everything the left says, or they will suffer the consequences. I don't understand why, but that's just the way it is. Conservatives we have, we can think for ourselves. I am a huge Trump supporter. You know, dyed in the wool Trump supporter. I don't always agree with President Trump, but I tell you what, I have never seen a fighter as strong as President Trump. And I am happy to cast my ballot for that man this coming November.
                        -end paste-
                        Consider the difference between this forum and the all new and definitely not better RayPeatForum.com and you'll get it.

                        CO3C M 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • CO3C
                          CO3 @A Former User
                          last edited by

                          woahhhhh ... i 'm gonna have to think about things.

                          Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • M
                            Mulloch94 @A Former User
                            last edited by

                            @mostlylurking Ehhhh...I think conservatives are more opened to discourse of opinion on wedge issues, but when it comes to the bare essentials they're just as lockstep as the liberals are. The republican party is basically the cult of Trump. Look at what happens whenever those "Never Trumpers" try to shill for a new candidate....they get crushed, lol. The red wave is a Trump wave. And once Trump leaves politics for good, the conservative party will go back to being just as lame as ever with dinosaur establishment shills like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush.

                            ? 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • VehmicJurymanV
                              VehmicJuryman @CO3
                              last edited by

                              @CO3 "You clearly did not know." Based on what?

                              This is an embarrassingly feeble line of argument, frankly. I have in fact already pointed out that the USSR was an atheistic murderous regime that viciously hated Christianity, as you've now acknowledged. You're the only one who keeps harping on the fact that marxists misuse Bible verses. This doesn't disprove that marxism is antithetical to Christianity. If you want proof of that, here are some more Bible verses for you:

                              "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."
                              "You shall not murder."
                              "You shall not steal."

                              All moral precepts that marxists delight in breaking, which contradict the very heart of marxist thought.

                              fiesterF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • fiesterF
                                fiester @VehmicJuryman
                                last edited by

                                @VehmicJuryman

                                “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom 16:17)

                                Block the commie

                                “The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.” (Proverbs 20:30)

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • ?
                                  A Former User @CO3
                                  last edited by A Former User

                                  @CO3 What's interesting to me is that the most advanced form of Marxism, proceding from Marxist-Leninism to Maoism, is now Xi Jinping Thought that currently is the state doctrine of the PRC, and objectively of the most successful economies in human history over the last few decades, howsoever deviated it is from traditional Marxism via Deng's Reforms and Opening Up.

                                  Anyways, China has no organized religion but it does have a stream of Taoism-Confucianism which are respectively the esoterism-exoterism of a longstanding metaphysical tradition. This is, to give one example, a far more interesting field of research (than debating the USSR) because its ongoing and relatively unexplored, and also requires a theoretical background.

                                  CO3C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • CO3C
                                    CO3 @A Former User
                                    last edited by

                                    @jwayne it has nothing to do with marxism though? where did you even get the idea? You literally think they're communist because of the name?

                                    Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

                                    ? 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • lutteL
                                      lutte
                                      last edited by

                                      I own a farm, I inherit another smaller one, I am the administrator of the church next to me (built by Charlemagne), my great uncle was and my uncle is a catholic priest, my sister is heavily organised with catholic aid groups, I have been an altar server my whole childhood. My political views were reactionary, simply said, until I was ready to at least explore a bit of other views and traditions after reading and listening to Ray Peat. Marxism is not the problem; beaten people are

                                      CO3C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • CO3C
                                        CO3 @lutte
                                        last edited by

                                        @lutte medieval ass life but nice that you're not wholly reactionary. There's this guy who's Spanish nobility who gave up his inheritance to serve the DPRK, lived there for many years and is quite famous.Arrested by the FBI a few times I believe. Alejandro Cao de Benos

                                        Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

                                        Norwegian MugabeN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • Norwegian MugabeN
                                          Norwegian Mugabe @CO3
                                          last edited by

                                          @CO3 Alejandro Cao de Benos looks like the usual commie. Nothing noble there.
                                          This is peak commie physiognomy:

                                          350ece77-9339-428b-bcb4-18406ea567dc-Untitled.jpg

                                          Put yourself on fire for peak energy metabolism.

                                          Ignore, judge, overcommit.

                                          CO3C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • CO3C
                                            CO3 @Norwegian Mugabe
                                            last edited by

                                            @Norwegian-Mugabe His stroke was likely brought on by the two bullets lodged in his shoulder. He was one of the greatest men to have ever lived, and his monumental achievements far outshine your hero's.

                                            Hitler, the loser, killed himself and his beard because he was so incompetent. Is there any worse thing? While Lenin was directing the greatest revolution the world has ever known and taking bullets for it this weakling was making his money '''''selling art''''' in university. We all know what that means lol.

                                            Master Broth Recipe: https://twitter.com/thesquattingman/status/1737526599023526043 / https://recipeats.org/master-broth/

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 8
                                            • 9
                                            • 10
                                            • 11
                                            • 12
                                            • 13
                                            • 14
                                            • 10 / 14
                                            • First post
                                              Last post