Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech
-
You as an individual may not be ugly or dysgenic, but you would be a rare exception, not the rule. Look at communist antifa’s mug shots, they are the ugliest human waste I’ve ever seen.
-
I don’t care about the Middle East nigga, they can blow each other up for all I care.
Naturally I only truly care about my own people, once we have secured our future existence, then maybe I will have some bleeding heart altruism for some foreigners.
-
Look at communist antifa’s mug shots, they are the ugliest human waste I’ve ever seen.
Yeah. Those guys are under/unemployed Trotskyists, who in History actually collaborated with the Nazis to attack Stalin's USSR. Remember that guy from your JQ infographics, Trotsky, aka. Lev Bronstein? Stalin famously had him assassinated with an ice axe for reasons that are rarely understood in America. You can read Losurdo if you care to learn.
I don’t care about the Middle East nigga, they can blow each other up for all I care.
Naturally I only truly care about my own people, once we have secured our future existence, then maybe I will have some bleeding heart altruism for some foreigners.
Mm. Basically correct position. The thing is that the future existence of your people more-or-less depends on the failure of the ruling class internationally, and this is one of their chief investments. That's pretty much the extent to which I care about it myself. Beyond esoterica relating to epistemological divides.
I'm sure you could pick some ruling-class capitalist of your particular lineage out from the big American financialist oligarchy. If you were to raise an olive branch of ethnic solidarity at him he would laugh right in your face. The Human struggle is a Class struggle first and foremost.
-
I can’t believe goofy niggas like you genuinely believe money is more real and important than your own blood, it’s comical how pathetic your worldview is.
I’m sorry but I share no common ground with low income, low IQ brown skinned people, uniting a nation on the basis of what the etymology of what a nation actually means is the only thing that makes any natural sense. Uniting over being poor is so pathetic.
That is why Soviet soldiers had to be forced at the threat of death to fight and why Germans fought for the sake of fighting.
Communist ethos is so fucking gay. I hate geeky commies like you that can’t understand why your ideas only appeal to dysgenic queers.
-
I can’t believe goofy niggas like you genuinely believe money is more real and important than your own blood, it’s comical how pathetic your worldview is.
Oh, I don't think money is more important than blood. That's what your rulers, a number of whom share your blood, think. Which is why I oppose them directly on those terms.
Uniting over being poor is so pathetic.
I agree. That's the Trotskyist error: fetishizing poverty and the poor instead of ending them as categories.
That is why Soviet soldiers had to be forced at the threat of death to fight and why Germans fought for the sake of fighting.
Nazi Germany had penal battalions. Look it up.
Communist ethos is so fucking gay. I hate geeky commies like you that can’t understand why your ideas only appeal to dysgenic queers.
Yes, only this brand of communism was allowed to exist in the USA after McCarthyism. Russia and China represent the true opposition.
-
Imagine not looking up the early life of every subversive companies ownership and C suite positions.
If any of them share my blood, they are race traitors. Choosing the Jew and money over their own blood.
What are your views on race? Are you in favour of multi-racialism? Or do you want to racially cleanse the west as badly as I do?
-
What are your views on race? Are you in favour of multi-racialism? Or do you want to racially cleanse the west as badly as I do?
If you had consistently bet on the "racially superior" category, you would have made the wrong choice for pretty much every conflict of the 20th and 21st century. Materialism and modes of production, cheap Soviet stamped-steel machine guns, decided the failure of those imperialist wars, and not race. Just as they decided the imperialist wars of the 19th century, when European armies armed with modern firearms fought people who often just had spears and shields.
Naturally you will protest and call this pattern of history dysgenic, which would make your epistemology Gnostic. But my philosophy is more simple. Principles that win are better than those that lose. Mao Zedong was probably the best Clausewitzian war theorist of the 20th century.
I don't like irrational migration as put forward by capitalist interests, FWIW. Criminal people of any race should be treated accordingly, including the lumpenproletariat elements of the homeless. But do recall that it was Communist East Germany that built the Berlin Wall.
-
You do realize the only reason the soviets survived the war is because the US was constantly supplying them with weaponry right? Little Germany took on the entire Jewish World order on all fronts and nearly won, the only reason they didn’t is because their Germanic brothers, blinded by Jewish propaganda smashed them with far greater numbers and their own weaponry made via Germanic ingenuity.
To pretend that Whites smashing other Whites, which is the only reason the planet is not of purely White ancestry currently, is an issue of one being racially superior is silly. We took over the entire planet because we are superior and we will do it again.
-
@Prometheus88
You do realize the only reason the soviets survived the war is because the US was constantly supplying them with weaponry right?
You are referring to the Lend-Lease program, which nominally started in 1941.
Lend-Lease ultimately made up about 4% of Soviet war production, a relatively small amount. 85% of Lend-Lease supplies arrived after 1943, when the USSR had already turned the tide against the Fascist invasion.Did you know that the Nazi State continued to pay their WW1 debts to England during the war? Why did the Western allies not open a second front until 1944, despite Stalin constantly petitioning them? Why did Hitler not invade Britain by land, when he had the means? Did you know that Hitler took power by martial law after a false-flag attack as a result of the Reichstag Fires, and the Gleiwitz Incident, not by popular means, as often thought? Did you know that Himmler tried to petition the Western powers for a separate peace, going behind Hitler's back, knowing that he would get a better deal with them if successful? Why was there a Phoney War on the onset of the conflict?
Germanic brothers, blinded by Jewish propaganda smashed them with far greater numbers and their own weaponry made via Germanic ingenuity.
... Are you trying to refer to Britain and the USA? The USSR killed 86% of Wehrmacht during the war, and they did it in effect all by themselves. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf decades prior that he wanted to conquer the USSR. This was basically his entire real political program from start to finish, and he failed at it.
The premise of your second paragraph has been refuted, so I will not address it. You know what nation actually represents the Aryan caste-system ideology today? India. Do you want to be like India?
I will inject the following: Did you know that after the October Revolution that founded the USSR, both England and America immediately invaded? This is actually how Winston Churchill (an alcoholic) got his career started, as an avowed anti-Bolshevist. Did you know that unlike Hitler, Lenin immediately cancelled all foreign debts upon taking power?
Meanwhile, Hitler took power in the mid 1930s, and the allies did not open a front against him until 1944. Famously, he was on the cover of Time magazine, and the British royal family famously gave a Hitler salute in a photograph. Mussolini was sworn into office by the King of Italy himself, and not by a popular act.
To act as though the "Germanic" world order was decidedly against Hitler is ahistorical jibber put forward to justify the existence of those regimes: the reality is that they waited on the sidelines of the real USSR-Nazi conflict until the last possible moment to prevent the USSR from conquering all of Europe. As I have already shown, a number of ex-Nazis were afterwards recruited into NATO, an anti-communist organization.
-
"Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." -Stalin
-
@VehmicJuryman Stalin said this at a dinner with the Western Allies in 1943, where he was trying to curry their favor for an expansion of Lend-Lease.
Your quote is actually misleading, because it's formatted in the past-tense, certainly for ideological reasons. The real quote is:
"The United States, therefore, is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines, through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war." - Joseph Stalin
FDR did the same to him in kind, proposing that India be reformed "largely along the Soviet line". Of course part of the motivation was to undermine the British Empire, which had become a war-debtor to the United States at that point.
-
@Rah1woot Note that this reply does not refute the substance of the claim by Stalin.
"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." - Nikita Khrushchev
-
@Rah1woot said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:
the reality is that they waited on the sidelines of the real USSR-Nazi conflict until the last possible moment to prevent the USSR from conquering all of Europe.
In reality, the UK and France declared war on Germany in September 1939, after Germany invaded Poland. The USSR also invaded Poland on September 17, but the Allies gave the communists a pass for what was apparently cause enough for a war with Germany. The communists did not enter the war with Germany until 1941.
-
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.
