Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech
-
Note that this reply does not refute the substance of the claim by Stalin.
It does, because the content of the quote has completely changed. It in fact changes the substance completely from discussing something that supposedly happened, to instead a petition for something to happen, which did not in substance. Total aircraft given to the USSR under lend-lease was something like 15k units, while the USSR produced 140k during wartime, around ~10%. In the frame of Stalin's production figures, this would be around 1.5 months of US military production.
Nikita Khrushchev
Ah, Khrushchev. His entire political career was built off of throwing Stalin and his accomplishments under the bus. I'm not entirely sure you know this history, so I would recommend Losurdo if you care to learn.
Goebbels' 1941 diaries paint a completely different picture of the wartime situation:
July 24: We cannot doubt the fact that the Bolshevik regime, which has existed
for almost a quarter century, has left deep scars on the peoples of the Soviet
Union [...]. We should therefore clearly emphasize the hardness of the battle
being waged in the east to the German people. The nation should be told that
this operation is very difficult, but we can overcome it and get through.41
August 1: The headquarters of the Führer [...] is also openly admitting that it
has erred a little in the assessment of Soviet military strength. The Bolsheviks
are displaying more resistance than we had assumed; in particular, they have
more material means at their disposal than we believed.42
August 19: Privately, the Führer is very irritated with himself for having been
deceived so much about the potential of the Bolsheviks by reports from [Ger-
man agents in] the Soviet Union. In particular, his underestimation of the
enemy’s armored infantry and air force has created many problems. He has suf-
fered a lot. This is a serious crisis [...]. The campaigns we had carried out until
now were almost walks [...]. The Führer had no reason to be concerned about
the west [...]. In our German rigor and objectivity we have always overestimated
the enemy, with the exception in this case of the Bolsheviks.43
September 16: We calculated the potential of the Bolsheviks in a completely
erroneous way.44
November 29, 1941: “How can such a primitive people manage such technical
achievements in such a short time?”61
August 26, 1942: “With regard to Russia, it is incontestable that Stalin has
raised living standards. The Russian people were not being starved [at the time
of the start of Operation Barbarossa]. Overall, we must recognize that: work-
shops of the scale of the Hermann Goering Werke have been built where two years
ago there were only unknown villages. We are discovering railway lines that are
not on the maps.”In reality, the UK and France declared war on Germany in September 1939, after Germany invaded Poland.
Yes. And then they didn't do anything for nine months in a period known as the Phoney War.
The communists did not enter the war with Germany until 1941.
This is a weird framing of it. You are aware that Germany invaded the USSR, right? Stalin was trying to buy as much time as possible to prepare for this inevitable invasion, hence the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this difference in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed" Stalin, 1931
Difference is that Poland was part of the historical territory of the Russian Empire, lost in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk: for them it was more like reclaiming territory. For Germany, Britain's old continental rival, it was a more aggressive act. It is clear though that just as they let Hitler annex Austria for free, that even this declaration of war brought no military action. Truly they were trying to sit it out, crossing their fingers for a military defeat of the USSR.
Especially WInston Churchill, who was a rabid anti-communist. In 1919 he led a military invasion of the USSR by Britain, which would have proceeded and expanded was it not for the discontent of the domestic British labor movement.
“I think the day will come when it will be recognized without doubt, not only on one side of the House, but throughout the civilized world, that the strangling of Bolshevism at its birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race.”
Mr. Seymour Cocks (Lab.) interrupted: “If that had happened we should have lost the 1939–45 war.”
Churchill replied: “No, it would have prevented the last war.”
After the war, he had drafted up a plan to invade the USSR himself using nuclear weapons deployed on Moscow: "Operation Unthinkable".
-
@Rah1woot I'm still not seeing any refutation of Stalin and Khruschev's claim. You are being very selective with figures to craft your narrative - 10% of aircraft. No mention of the percentage of trucks, munitions, raw materials, etc provided by the liberal US to the communists. Even pointing out that Lend Lease provided only 10% of aircraft doesn't actually refute the point, since that 10% could be what made the difference.
Since it's impossible to definitively prove a counterfactual (i.e. that Germany would have defeated the communists if the liberals hadn't bailed them out), we can demonstrate the point in a different way. If racial and national differences aren't real, which Eastern Bloc country had the highest living standards and economic productivity per capita? Why is it that the answer to that question is exactly what a "Nazi" race scientist would predict?
Also, lol @ the double standard of saying that the USSR was justified in reclaiming the Russian Empire's territories in Poland but Germany wasn't justified in reclaiming the German Empire's territories in Poland. The situation is literally identical, but like the liberals of 1939 you give a pass to your ideologically preferred side.
-
You are being very selective with figures to craft your narrative - 10% of aircraft. No mention of the percentage of trucks, munitions, raw materials, etc provided by the liberal US to the communists. Even pointing out that Lend Lease provided only 10% of aircraft doesn't actually refute the point, since that 10% could be what made the difference.
I am referring to aircraft in particular because, if you read the source of the quote that I linked, this is what Stalin was referring to.
Since it's impossible to definitively prove a counterfactual (i.e. that Germany would have defeated the communists if the liberals hadn't bailed them out),
I will remind you that 85% of Lend-Lease supplies arrived in 1943 and later, well after the battle of Stalingrad in which the USSR had already turned the tide of the Nazi invasion. If Lend-lease had any effect, it was making the remainder of the war mildly less painful. But it is very unlikely that it would have changed the final outcome. It even makes complete sense from a political perspective: why would you give loans to a system that will fail and default?
If racial and national differences aren't real
I don't think racial and national differences aren't real. I just don't think they're immutable (as the Romans correctly identified Germanics, Britons, and Franks as being irrelevant barbarians in that time, for example). To a large extent, such differences are the product of the material-social-political-technological environment. Which is once again, the entire point of the bioenergetic worldview: that the environment you are in, or create for yourself, changes your mind and your being. Your being here (as well as the inheritance of acquired characteristics) refutes the perspective that everything has already been decided by your genes.
The massive increases in life expectancy found in Communist regimes are a great example of this. As are the fact that average heights are actually increasing in China decade after decade.
Lysenko represents the truly materialist scientific methodology. Western genetics represents the rationalist reductionist view of reality. This is why they had to remove him.
Ray Peat, PhD.
Why did Vietnam win the Vietnam war? Why did the US fail to defeat Korea? Why did Rhodesia lose to ZImbabwe? Nazi Race Science would have gotten you nowhere with explaining these things that Actually Happened.
Also, lol @ the double standard of saying that the USSR was justified in reclaiming the Russian Empire's territories in Poland but Germany wasn't justified in reclaiming the German Empire's territories in Poland.
I don't think it was "justified". I do not believe in any justice other than being correct, being in harmony with actual material reality, in optimizing the function of the mitochondrion worker-units and the Central Government of the brain. I am saying it was more politically acceptable to Britain and France.
-
@VehmicJuryman said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:
Also, lol @ the double standard of saying that the USSR was justified in reclaiming the Russian Empire's territories in Poland but Germany wasn't justified in reclaiming the German Empire's territories in Poland. The situation is literally identical, but like the liberals of 1939 you give a pass to your ideologically preferred side.
.The USSR would have been jusitifed in LIBERATING all of Europe, you fucking retard. Justification has nothing to do with it.
You are so fucking stupid.
-
@CO3 said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:
@VehmicJuryman said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:
Also, lol @ the double standard of saying that the USSR was justified in reclaiming the Russian Empire's territories in Poland but Germany wasn't justified in reclaiming the German Empire's territories in Poland. The situation is literally identical, but like the liberals of 1939 you give a pass to your ideologically preferred side.
.The USSR would have been jusitifed in LIBERATING all of Europe, you fucking retard. Justification has nothing to do with it.
You wrote two sentences that immediately and blatantly contradict each other. No offense but you are genuinely an imbecile, and overly emotional too.
-
Did @Prometheus88 get banned, if so, why?
-
Nationalists don't reduce absolutely everything to genes or ethnicity without regard to environment. They simply have a better understanding of the role of genes and ethnicity in human society than anyone else, especially liberals and communists. The USSR was very ignorant about the role of these things and ascribed almost all racial differences to 'material conditions'. The USSR has been described as the world's first "affirmative action empire". It had double standards nationalism for its petty peripheral minorities while denigrating and discriminating against Russians, for example, up until Stalin was forced to make a limited embrace of Russian nationalism in the face of WW2. Even after that it spent the entire Cold War supporting Third World anti-colonial revolutions based on the idea that "exploitation" and "imperialism" explained the clear racial differences at play. One of the central tenets of Marxism is that workers of different nations have more in common with each other than their own upper class countrymen.
The US accomplished its objectives in Korea. Vietnamese are actually one of the highest IQ populations in the world (higher average IQ than Swedes) and were fighting on their home turf in a conflict where their adversaries had huge domestic political problems in continuing the conflict. Rhodesians decisively outperformed the Black militants in every military engagement but ultimately surrendered due to economic sanctions from other White countries. None of this conflicts with the nationalism understander's view of history. In fact it's pretty clear to me that racial competition theory explains these conflicts far better than Marxist theory. Vietnamese and Blacks etc. didn't like colonialism because of race, not because of economics. Economic conditions in these places were severely retarded by communism, but they would rather be impoverished and ruled by communist members of their own race than prosperous and ruled by foreigners.
-
The USSR was very ignorant about the role of these things and ascribed almost all racial differences to 'material conditions'.
This is not such an inappropriate perspective to have when the USSR sent the male literacy rate from 30% to near 100%, literally inventing a number of languages and writing systems along the way that are still used today (e.g., Azerbaijaini). Modifying the population by the exploitation of materialist perspectives.
The USSR has been described as the world's first "affirmative action empire". It had double standards nationalism for its petty peripheral minorities while denigrating and discriminating against Russians, for example, up until Stalin was forced to make a limited embrace of Russian nationalism in the face of WW2.
I wonder what you think the "correct" perspective is here. Should Stalin have been more Racist in favor of Russians at the expense of a colonized periphery (which in turn fueled the Nazi-collaborating OUN of Ukraine)? Or do you believe in a philistinism of many scattered, narrow, ultra-racist fiefdoms, like pre-unification Germany or Italy? Taken in either direction, the "nationalist" perspective is Gnostic and unserious.
Even after that it spent the entire Cold War supporting Third World anti-colonial revolutions based on the idea that "exploitation" and "imperialism" explained the clear racial differences at play.
This move irreversibly changed the face of the world, sending the age of widespread vulgar imperialism to an end, and was largely successful. To this day the definitive weapon of insurgency is the cheap AK-47 and variants. And it was exactly the distribution of this weapon and others that fueled the success of anti-colonial fighting, where the so-called "racial characteristics" had not changed. The same is shown true by your example of Rhodesia in an opposite way. Racism was not enough to win the support of the White world.
Vietnamese are actually one of the highest IQ populations in the world
Do you honestly believe that this was the case during the era of colonialism and guerilla warfare? I would sooner say that Communism and its focus on self-development and rigorous study for the entire population explains the difference, if any, observed today.
Economic conditions in these places were severely retarded by communism,
That is just counterfactual. In fact Communism was probably the single greatest political force for the improvement of living standards for the global majority in the entire 20th century.
(Interesting and related read: https://sci-hub.ru/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/347925/)
(Here you have Russia: note the dip caused by the Capitalist reforms of the 1990s, with restoration under the Putin regime)
-
Whatever he was, or what he believed, I don't think his scientific or biological views can be reduced to politics.
He said he visited Russia in college. Well, Tim Walz went to China in college and is running as VP; Bernie Sanders went on a honey-moon in Moscow; Swalwell had a fling with a CCP spy; and there are countless other examples known and unknown.
What is "communism" at this stage, really? It's obvious that the UK got friendly with Russia via Churchill and the Jewish bankers/oligarchs, and that the US provided the firepower for destroying Germany and arguably implementing global "democratic" communist governance across the world - all throughout South America, Europe, Central Asia, East Asia, etc. I think post-WWII, we can say Communism and Fascism are thesis and antithesis, if you will, and the US/UK/Israel-Zionist-globalist project became the synthesis.
In short, many of Peat's political opinions I find to be silly. I can't see how his lefty views could somehow influence all of his opinions and statements about nutrition, health, energy, etc. I don't think there's a conflict, and if anything he always struck me as a great example of "horn theory" - where the far left and far right merge into a new synthetic position.
-
This and Operation Paperclip are basically a macro-view of enslavement during tribal warfare. Generals either will obey a new king or be killed. High-ranking Germans that obeyed were tolerated or promoted. Those that didn't suffered Nuremberg, whether guilty or not.
-
@Rah1woot said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:
That is just counterfactual. In fact Communism was probably the single greatest political force for the improvement of living standards for the global majority in the entire 20th century.
Yeah, only like 50-60+ million people had to die or be killed for "better living standards." China is still a panopticon prison state. Russia is the same. Eastern Europe is similar. Oligarchs make bank, the government gets enriched, and everyone else pretty much works for the state. Then China developed a 1 child policy. Now they allow 2-3 children - because their population is declining. The gov't obviously has a central role in major aspects of life. The so-called liberal western democracy or global "fascism" only differs in that if there is more profit to be made, certain ideals and norms can be abandoned. Hence the push for de-growth, the push for transgenderism, legal prostitution, legal drugs, etc. Self-destruction becomes fairly profitable when citizens can be literally imported from the terminally over-populated Africa, India, Bangladesh, etc. into the US and Western Europe. We're all being played no matter what the system appears to be.
-
UK got friendly with Russia via Churchill and the Jewish bankers/oligarchs,
What are you talking about? As I show above, Churchill was an avowed anti-communist. Honestly part of the reason why Britain today is irrelevant.
Whatever he was, or what he believed, I don't think his scientific or biological views can be reduced to politics.
Ray Peat said:
US people don't realize how ridiculously degraded their standard of living has become. Nutrition is political economical. The governments tell people to eat beans and bread for a reason.
You said:
Oligarchs make bank, the government gets enriched, and everyone else pretty much works for the state.
China (and Vietnam) execute billionaires. We don't go there.
What is "communism" at this stage, really?
The latest synthesis of Communism is Xi Jinping Thought of China + Deng Xiaoping. "Housing is for living in, not for speculation", and so on. The objective material development of China seems to me hard to argue with for those that have paid attention: with its sanctions etc. the US seems to be quite literally stuck in the 20th century in a lot of ways, and not the cute and quaint ones. Where it has failed to actually develop itself for fear of inevitably creating socialism, making the position of the current ruling class irrelevant, it has compensated by jacking up the price of all of the various non-optional scams, like housing, education, food, childcare. Certainly you can work to avoid these, usually using family connections, and so just as in the late USSR, a vast "shadow economy" forms alongside the official economy, which stifles the real thing nearly to death. Home ownership rates in China (and Russia) are something like 90%+, in the US it is 65%.
I can't see how his lefty views could somehow influence all of his opinions and statements about nutrition, health, energy, etc.
It's very Maoist. "Make blast furnaces in your backyard" maps onto "Consume Fruit to Grow Your Brain' pretty well. All the more so because right-racialists lean toward the brain's trajectory already being fixed. Have you read Peat's "Mind and Tissue"? He himself lays it out pretty well in that book.
arguably implementing global "democratic" communist governance across the world
You are correct that the US is already by necessity in a pseudo-socialist condition. Many of the current "left" types today miss this, not understanding that factory shifts in Marx's time were 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, there was no public schooling, it was still legal in many places (Russia, USA) to own people, and only the minority knew how to read. Capitalism honestly ended in 1929. Maybe even in 1917 when the US became obsessed with war debt, initiated income taxes, the Federal Reserve, broke its century-long policy of isolation in order to make sure that Britain would not default. Capitalism today is a "superstructural" phenomenon, less so a "base" one, especially with the 1971 end of the gold standard. (Read "Superimperialism" by Michael Hudson for more on the effects of this internationally).
I do defend Stalin, and I disparage especially unproductive creditor-type financial capitalism of the US. In spite of its Eurasian-type vulgarity (which is overemphasized, but is present), Marxism-Leninism has changed the world like quite literally nothing else. And so I consider myself a part of this tradition. Which is something the right side misses: that this is an entire family of thought and less so a dogmatic thing that started and ended with the USSR. The late USSR and late rule of Mao Zedong I personally am not keen on defending.
You do seem like one of the more intelligent right-ish people here. Nice job. In spite of this, your touting the lie of 500 trillion victims of Communism shows that it was not sublated into the liberal-fascist project. It is the true opposition to it, which is why it seems, from the other side of the aisle, like the actual "Spectre" of pure evil, as Marx himself described already in 1848.
-
@Rah1woot said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:
your touting the lie of 500 trillion victims of Communism shows that it was not sublated into the liberal-fascist project. It is the true opposition to it, which is why it seems, from the other side of the aisle, like the actual "Spectre" of pure evil, as Marx himself described already in 1848.
I said 50-60 million; those are figures I've read and I have no way of verifying if the historians are lying on behalf of the Cold War/US propaganda angle. I sense that these numbers are inflated, and I have no problem stating that western powers continued endless wars throughout the "developing" world post-WWII. Communist countries typically did this at a domestic scale and most offered very little to the world (in arts, sciences, etc) with Russia being the exception. I suspect an ethnic component to "Russian exceptionalism," however silly that may sound. Even still, Russia has had many natural resources and important industries after the 19th century, which is very important to their relative development as a communist or now semi-communist country.
The Holodomor claimed several million in Ukraine via famine, intentional starvation, etc. This is suppressed because the UK/US helped suppress negative press and reporting on the real Communist Russia. This paved the way for communist policies to continue deceiving populations as they battled for parliaments in the wake of post-war Europe. Then Operation Gladio set out to destroy all communist or socialist opposition parties through state-sponsored CIA-Vatican terrorism. The "Holocaust," meanwhile, became "gospel truth;" questioning it became illegal, and teaching it became mandatory, though it's fabricated and false. The Second Vatican Council was a Judaic overhaul of the shell of the Catholic Church, which is fitting given the intelligence apparatus of the Church.
The creators of communism were obviously Jews, and communism is nothing but a way of initiating a global Judaic world governance. Lincoln brought soldiers and other Europeans from the 1848 revolution(s) to fight on the Union Army against the Confederates. The Confederates were holding onto slave labor to finance their meager existence which was being robbed of them due to the Jewish bankers in New York and Jewish bankers in London. In other words, Judah Benjamin was Jeff Davis's right-hand man and co-conspirator in the South, while Lincoln was clearly another Masonic president serving the same function of bringing the US to its knees under what would become the Federal Reserve a few decades later. Lincoln wrote to Marx; Marx admired Lincoln. Jews loved Lincoln; Lincoln was a radical reformer and the legacy of leftist/progressivism in America to some extent starts with Lincoln's flood of European immigrants / political prisoners.
There was never a true opposition - there were battles that could have been avoided but were fought at the expense of the soldiers' lives. The war killed expendable people, not often those of importance. Lincoln's death is about as believable as JFK's.
The opposition, whether it be then, or now, is controlled, or will be controlled.
You can talk about communitarian living, farming, etc. but where did that get Russian farmers? By the time the bankers and their government came around to collectivize property and land, the earnest farmer, the honest person was robbed and killed. Ownership may be an illusion but collective work is also an illusion. And obviously, as was true 3,000 years ago, the Jews are involved on all sides and are the first to know. Hence they are able to steer events in ways that benefit them financially. -
The USSR could increase literacy to 100%, but nothing it could do would ever make it so that IQs between ethnic Germans and Russians and Tatars were par with each other. Maybe this is why leftists like mass migration so much? It looks like Germany and the US are currently on par with Russia's IQ, presumably as a result of mass migration. Mass migration is the solution that finally achieves what Communism never could: equality between the First and Third world.
I think the correct position would have been for Russia to modernize into a nationalist state. At the very least, Communism would probably been more successful in its goals had it openly presented itself as what it actually is: an alliance of underachieving ethnic groups in conflict with First World nations. This is more or less what modern Russia is and the idea behind 'Third Worldism' and the 'Global South'. No reason to waste 50-70 years on mass killings of their own population and severe government mismanagement of the economy, Russia and China could have skipped that stage and immediately arrived at what they are now, geopolitical leaders of the Third World with functioning liberal economies. This is probably what would have happened if Lenin hadn't stolen power from the SRs. Ultimately, Russians and Chinese are high IQ peoples who would be better off without shackling themselves to either the 'international proletariat' or the 'Third World' but if that's what they want it would be more effective than rigid economic Marxism.
That communism retards economic growth is pretty well established. Note that I said it retards growth, not that it leads to economic decline. Compare Finland to the USSR, West Germany to East Germany, Taiwan to China, South Korea to North Korea, or Thailand to SE Asian communist states like Vietnam and Laos. I've never seen a convincing argument that any of these places would have been better off under communism.
-
The Holodomor claimed several million in Ukraine via famine, intentional starvation, etc.
This is suppressed
The Holodomor is not "suppressed". It is name-dropped in a completely ahistorical way in HBO's Chernobyl TV-series, for example. Cartoons and such depicting Holodomor from that time people are readily available.
You are right that the Holocaust is relatively more propagandized... in part because it is an important part of the mythology of Israel.
The Confederates were holding onto slave labor to finance their meager existence which was being robbed of them due to the Jewish bankers in New York and Jewish bankers in London.
Lincoln wrote to Marx; Marx admired Lincoln.
Indeed, the CPUSA venerated Lincoln in the 1940s. Images of this are readily google-able.
You are aware that the USSR supported and made possible in its current form the anti-Zionist movement, right? And today, it is China that hosts the foremost anti-Zionist factions? Does this consist of "Judaic governance" in your view?
Stalin had killed perhaps the second-most prominent Bolshevik Jew, Trotsky, with an ice axe. The USSR's universities, like American ones, had Jewish Quotas.
Perhaps there are ways you explain away such things in terms of "fall guys" and such. A Hierarchy of Jews. But the story seems inconsistent to me.
-
nothing it could do would ever make it so that IQs between ethnic Germans and Russians and Tatars were par with each other.
There is no reason to think this completely immutable. Something you have not addressed in any comments of mine for obvious reasons: your presence here on the diet-improves-brain forum proves that intelligence is not fixed by genes. I have no reason to hope for the fixed nature of IQ: I want as many people as possible to be intelligent. And history does not seem to show a fixed intelligence over time within some ethnic group (usually for the worse these days with the effects of Covid)
Maybe this is why leftists like mass migration so much?
I don't like mass migration, or as I call it, "irrational migration", where it is harder to import intelligent foreigners legally than less intelligent ones illegally. As @Corngold points out it is largely Capitalist interest that requires mass migration for cheap labor: in the Communist countries it is not there. It was East Germany that built the Berlin Wall.
That communism retards economic growth is pretty well established.
China is the world's fastest growing economy. And it's likely underestimated because they still use the Leninist MPS system to compute GDP, instead of Western systems that include things like illegal drug dealing, in the case of Britain.
I will agree with you that in the long run, undeveloped Leninism (killed off in its development by Khruschev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev) wasn't scalable to going beyond providing what we would call basic needs such as electricity (at a historically unprecedented pace). Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping, provide the latest synthesis. The current condition of liberalism by contrast is economically disastrous, but you would call this the fault of "leftism", probably, where it is exactly the result of not questioning the right to debts, private property (in the sense of telecommunications as privately owned, not your house), and vulgar individualism buttressed by non-optional socialized scams. In some sense you are right: the tendency of people to be safe and snuggly "leftists", instead of capital-C Communists, helps to perpetuate the problem for a few years more.
-
@Corngold said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:
This and Operation Paperclip are basically a macro-view of enslavement during tribal warfare. Generals either will obey a new king or be killed. High-ranking Germans that obeyed were tolerated or promoted. Those that didn't suffered Nuremberg, whether guilty or not.
Yeah that infographic was hella gay. Like they won’t show all the former ww2 Wehrmacht in East German uniforms serving a soviet state post Nazi affiliation.
-
@Rah1woot said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:
…The "aristocratic superiors" of today ARE the political Saturday Night Live class, Jeffrey Epstein, liberalism, the Ivy League, NGOs, Think Tanks.
…if you were actually right wing, you would support the actual aristocrat Jeffrey Epstein. That's what it means to be right-wing: to support the ruling class. If you think it means something else, you are a victim of CIA psyops.
…You are not actually right-wing, because you do not support the actual ruling class: I don't care about any Jew-oriented blabber you generate to justify the dissonance, I've heard all of it on four chan dot org many years ago.
I’m not trying to make arguments for the guy you were arguing, but found these quotes disagreeable to the bigger picture from the right wing perspective.
Most modern right wingers don’t know what they are of. The counterparts of the American right wing in Europe are more honestly titled “social democrats” or “Christian democrats” or whatever.
The 20th century right wing is populistic propaganda dating back to esoteric groups like jacobins and occults of renaissance Europe.Left wing populism and right wing populism come from the same source. What distinguishes the two is how they answer the question: “how far do we deconstruct social order?”
Left wing: if you don’t support mandatory sex changes for infants and intermarriage with martians who eat humans you’re a Nazi.
Right wing: let’s stop evolving at Edmund Burke.Directly to your point, nobody alive today knows what an aristocrat looks like. Anytime social order begins to reconstitute, you begin to see its vestiges in business fat cats who pay for a lavish lifestyle, but wealth is merely the popular and recognizable part, hardly the substance. Today’s version of an aristocrat would’ve been called a whore by a self-respecting aristocrat anytime in the last 5,000 years.
Today’s aristocrat competes in an equality/fraternity/liberty context, that rewards the most psychopathic. Prostitution, drug dealing, wallstreet, and politics — are all base capitalism. Machiavelli was inspired to write his book precisely because he was in the inner workings of a democracy. His works were verboten amongst the aristocracy of Europe at the time, yet proudly read by all the jacobins, Freemasons, and revolutionaries, including the in the USA.
A real aristocrat is a paternal/maternal figure, because of their organizational skills, who leads their micro community, and is recognized and co-opted by a more powerful neighboring community willingly or unwillingly. This is necessarily regionalistic in nature, yet simultaneously hierarchical in nature. It’s also authoritarian. This is where you’re getting the idea that the right wing sticks with any and all “aristocracy.” But you can see how that needn’t automatically be the case.
In the post-revolutionary new world order, Indeed, many times the middle class develops symbiosis toward the business class to maintain stability, to the detriment of the bottom poor, and this is where the battle lines are often drawn today. Yes, the right picks up many things once considered leftist in these quirky culture wars of personal advocacy — like classical liberalism. Which communists call right wing, but is of the original hierarchical deconstructions for “fraternity, equality, and liberty.”
…MAGA base is left-wing in real terms: their program (so they hope) asserts their Human needs to eat above that of Capital.
I said it above that the broader right picked up capitalistic arguments for economic stability of their primary demographic, but that was not the right wing cause 200 years ago, and thankfully that’s reverting again.
I guess you’re associating capital with power, not just with capitalism? By the metric of power equals wealth, yeah I think aristocrats having wealth is fine, but how they get it and their corresponding priorities for their people they under no uncertain terms own, makes all the difference between good capitalism and bad capitalism, re me speculating your definition… i.e., Walmart doesn’t offer the elderly any form of decent retirement, but the lord of a feud would call that backwards and primitive whilst all peasants who were too old to work, got to live with their families and eat decently until death in old age, participating in all religious and cultural activities.
Likely more aristocratic than yours. The Bolshevik state killed my ancestors, who had unwisely taken up arms against them.
This reminds me of the smooth reverse uno move by the French revolutionaries who committed regicide and then a few days later when the peasants around the countryside revolted, they were then the traitors to the government who needed to be put down for their insolence LOL.
-
Left wing populism and right wing populism come from the same source. What distinguishes the two is how they answer the question: “how far do we deconstruct social order?”
I agree. I think "leftists" that aren't Communists are basically equal to Ben Shapiro. They're not a serious political position and they both end up supporting WEF Fascism.
if you don’t support mandatory sex changes for infants and intermarriage with martians who eat humans you’re a Nazi.
It is Communist China that banned "effeminate men" on television. Semi-communist Russia which banned "LGBT Propaganda".
Today’s version of an aristocrat would’ve been called a whore by a self-respecting aristocrat anytime in the last 5,000 years.
Aristocracy imho does actually have a history of being degenerate. The French aristocracy of the 1700s is an easy example. As are the Bound Feet of pre-Communist China.
A real aristocrat is a paternal/maternal figure, because of their organizational skills, who leads their micro community, and is recognized and co-opted by a more powerful neighboring community willingly or unwillingly. This is necessarily regionalistic in nature, yet simultaneously hierarchical in nature. It’s also authoritarian.
Sure. Mao Zedong and George Washington are good examples of this.
makes all the difference between good capitalism and bad capitalism, re me speculating your definition… i.e., Walmart doesn’t offer the elderly any form of decent retirement, but the lord of a feud would call that backwards and primitive whilst all peasants who were too old to work, got to live with their families and eat decently until death in old age, participating in all religious and cultural activities.
Sure. I'm not the kind of so-called "leftist" that disparages capitalism from start to finish, without some form of capitalism this forum conversation would be technologically impossible. Capitalism still ended, and it will still end. I want the aristocratic "form", if you will, of having free time, having strength and intelligence, having enough money to pursue work and projects beyond immediate survival, to expand to as many people as possible. The only program that works towards this is capital-C Communism, ending the financial domination made possible by overextended property rights for corporations. Ending PUFA ideology.
Your description of some kind of Epic Retvrn of Good Capitalism is a fantasy though. You are probably aware of that. The epistemology of right-ish people is always Gnostic, reaching outside the real. That is why they keep losing. Only an unconditional leap into the abyss that is reality, and the Future, might offer a way through.
I guess you’re associating capital with power, not just with capitalism?
I don't really care about the SNL aristocracy of today on the face of it: they are just robots for a much larger leviathan. Even if they have a decent amount of money and maybe even three nice houses. Pales in comparison to BlackRock at owning something like 25% of all houses.
My wording of Humanity versus Capital was deliberately chosen. This is how I see the world. There are those things which are pro-human and those which are anti-human. Extortionate lending is anti-human, as is militant gender ideology, and degrowth.
-
@Rah1woot said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:
You are aware that the USSR supported and made possible in its current form the anti-Zionist movement, right? And today, it is China that hosts the foremost anti-Zionist factions? Does this consist of "Judaic governance" in your view?
In what sense? I've heard Stalin did use anti-Jewish anti-Zionist tactics occasionally. I've not heard that China is anti-Zionist. If anything I understand the opposite, that because of their central importance in the western and global economy, they rely on strong bankers. Soviet Jewish bankers helped establish Mao IIRC.
