On The Back of a Tiger
-
@BioEclectic said in On The Back of a Tiger:
@Mulloch94 said in On The Back of a Tiger:
Ehhh I'm not convinced. There's been far more famous vocal critics of Zionism who are still alive today. If there is something going on this isn't the angle I'd explore.
And with someone like Ray...hell there's several reasons why he might be 86ed (not saying he was, just exploring this hypothetical highway you're going down). Billion dollar pharma industry wants to keep people unhealthy and ignorant so they can never be medically autonomous.
Self autonomy is what people in power fear the most. It's why a guy like Nikola Tesla, who was working on abundant and unlimited electricity for everyone, had much of his work stolen and disappeared after his death. It's obviously not coincidental that JP Morgan pulled his funding too. They might be connected actually, although I think there was an intelligence agency angle to his work disappearing.
Have read that the personal backgrounds on Tesla, L. Ron Hubbard and George Orwell are much different than the stuff that usually gets regurgitated about them. George Orwell in particular was supposedly really bad.
But anyway, i don't have info on the others handy but here's a good weekend read on Tesla:
Part 1: Newton, Rosicrucianism and the Imperial Control of Science
Part 2: Tesla’s Eugenics (and other Black Magick)
Part 3: Tesla and his Nazi Friend… The Strangest Friendship
Part 4: Tesla’s Martians and H.G. Wells
Part 5: Tesla: From Extreme Empiricist to Father of A.I. Gods
Part 6: Why Tesla Flattened Space and Attacked Einstein
Part 7: Tesla Evolves a New Species!
Part 8: Bulwer’s Dream and the Coming Race
Part 9: Thomas Huxley’s War on the Soul and the Rise of Social Imperialism
Part 10: Tesla's Mentor Sir William Crookes: Scientist at the Service of the Occult
Part 11: Harry Houdini vs the Society for Psychical Research
Part 11 has links to the rest of the series.
Thanks I'll give it read. As for Orwell I don't really know if he was "bad" but he was a socialist, so it seems to illustrate he was kinda dumb. The only good socialist is a dead socialist.
-
@Mulloch94 2000 Palantir Plus points have been deposited into your account.
As Westerners, we are accustomed to a certain dryness or abstractness in scientific and academic matters. "Just reporting the plain facts" is taken as a kind of ideal, in the U.S. particularly. If we think about Soviet intellectual life at all, it is often to deplore the "politicizing" of matters that should be mere questions of fact. It is seldom that we can imagine a fact which is intrinsically "ideological." A few western scientists have decried this "hard fact" syndrome in American and European science, but their criticisms are not really heard. In fact, these scientists usually criticize themselves right out of the world of practicing scientists, and into a kind of underworld that is populated mainly by older, individualistic intellectuals--Michael Polanyi and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi are the best known members of this scientific counter-culture which calls for intellectual wholeness, responsibility, and integrity.
For historical and cultural (and political) reasons, however, the Soviet scientist is likely to see everything he does as having social significance and ideological overtones, apart from any urging he might get from the bureaucrats to praise the insights of Lenin and Stalin into his particular field.
Sometimes these paragraphs of praise that are included in occasional scientific papers seem simply bizarre to a westerner, who is used to politicians being politicians, and scientists being scientists. But the fact is that both Lenin and Stalin were remarkable intellectuals who believed it was their political responsibility to be very well informed about cultural and scientific matters. It is this same attitude which makes the Soviet scientist likely to choose problems with social significance, and to interpret his work in terms of a large historical framework. While an American scientist undoubtedly does work within a definite intellectual framework, the framework is mostly tacit, and serves to justify the collection of "mere facts."
The whole analytical and skeptical tradition of British philosophy has not been taken very seriously by the Slavic and Latin* cultures, and Marxism has enabled the Russians further to disregard many of the formulations and proscriptions of Anglo-American thought. The idea of the image is the most important example of this dichotomy in the intellectual world, and is the crucial issue in brain research and all of its ramifications--including language, health, education, adaptation to new conditions, and the planning of work."Hitlerite Peaters" should read Mind and Tissue.
-
@energy-structure good thread. That is fucked up. But aren’t their more critical people of say Zionism. Or the medical establishment? Also what dumbasses for killing everyone they interviewed. You know Nick stumphauzer? He had a video with Danny Roddy and he was talking about after he posted “died suddenly” people where trying to fly him out and offer him money etc etc. or being followed by unmarked vehicles. Honestly would not be mad if peat went mainstream. Or sugar not being bad.
This also reminds me there is so much more knowledge I should extract from peat because I honestly have just heard the surface level.
The more knowers the better -
“died suddenly”
Worlds most legit documentary 100.
people where trying to fly him out and offer him money
Sounds totally comparable.
-
@ThinPicking Me when the guy sitting next to me on the plane says he found a way to make cars run with just water:
Me when: Pfizer offers to fly me out after finding cure to cancer
Me when Thinpicking is the average gadfly /troll
-
@Rah1woot I wouldn't call myself a "Hitlerite" because I don't really like Hitler or any fascist regime for that matter. But sure, if you put my feet to the fire and make me choose I'll take a fascist over a commie any day. Not really comparable in terms of their detrimental force inflicted on society. The latter is significantly worse.
Edit: The one asterisk I would probably put here is that, in America specifically, the left-wing is a bit of a joke. Like they're not taken seriously, and shouldn't be as long as they keep up the woke shit. Whereas the fringes on the right here are actually pretty coherent. Though even they lack the formidable beachhead at the present time to be considered a legitimate threat. Someone more right-winged than Trump would have to take office for that to change.
-
I'll take a fascist over a commie any day.
As predicted.
in America specifically, the left-wing is a bit of a joke. Like they're not taken seriously, and shouldn't be as long as they keep up the woke shit. Whereas the fringes on the right here are actually pretty coherent.
The huge amount of money the CIA had from the Marshall Plan allowed them, starting around 1950, to shape the culture and political movements in the US, providing carrots to complement the FBI’s sticks. Their biggest achievement has probably been to obliterate coherent thinking about the meaning of “left” and “right” in politics. People with policies very much like Mussolini’s call themselves liberals, and promote war. The culture has been shaped to exclude the idea of class from political thinking. Several years ago, when John Edwards’ spoke of social class issues during his campaign for the presidency, the media immediately stopped treating him as a viable candidate. Trump’s focus on class issues helped to enfuriate his opposition, but didn’t stop people from voting. If class becomes a continuing part of political discussion, it might lead toward a restoration of democracy.
“Identity politics” has been a powerful way to distract people from their economic interests. As soon as M.L. King made the issue class, rather than race, he was killed. Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion.
Raymond Peat.
-
I'm sorry gg. I'll study your threads in detail to improve my contributions going forwards.
While I've got you. Can you tell me as a recipient, how did stump's docu go down? Or did ye avoid. Asking for science.
-
@ThinPicking its good bro I appreciate you
-
@Rah1woot You're really beckoning for the thread to be taken drastically off course here lol. What is this even doing, other than validating what I already said? Peat isn't wrong when he said this, or anyone else with half a brain that knows this. If you're even remotely familiar with the left's historical roots and still prescribe to that way of thinking then you would know identity politics is dumb.
But Peat, like most leftists I've read (with the exception of a slim few), have a really bad sociological analysis on power dynamics. The Marxian class theory is junk. Historical materialism, private ownership, and the rise of industrial capital isn't where modern so called, lets say, "Power Elites" originated from.
Rather it's a gradual long-term structural process shaped by geography, various institutions, and culture. The same social networks that enabled Capitalism to rise are the same ones that allow Communism to function. And when those networks fail, you get a breakdown in the system (which we have seen).
-
This post is deleted! -
identity politics is dumb.
Correct, identity politics is objectively rightist.
The Marxian class theory is junk.
Ultraleftism is bad. Xi Jinping called the class struggle of the late Mao period a "leftist mistake". The class structure of a society is a powerful explanatory factor in its functioning, though. India is worse off than China, despite starting in a similar place in the 1980s, because of the caste system's retardation of development. The typical "indian factory" video online consists of almost early-industrial constructions from the 1800s. Similar story for UK vs USA. Or Nazi Germany vs USSR. Less class tension means more coherence, productivity, war-fighting prowess. Which is why the US will lose to China in the next few decades, BTW, unless something incredible happens internally (it won't, though, until the bitter end)
The same social networks that enabled Capitalism to rise are the same ones that allow Communism to function.
Yep.
And when those networks fail, you get a breakdown in the system (which we have seen).
Sure. Requiring the establishment of new networks, and re-definition of the existing ones. This is the revolution and the historical-materialist development, et c.
