Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?

[Kilgore]

@Norwegian-Mugabe

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

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

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

[CO3]

@Kilgore pussy

[CO3]

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

[lutte]

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

[VehmicJuryman]

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

[CO3]

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

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

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

[CO3]

@VehmicJuryman
Referring to this, dummy?

Acts 4 32-35

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

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

[Kvirion]

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

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

LOL! What an exponential BS!

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

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

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

[fiester]

@S-Holmes

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

[lutte]

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

[S.Holmes]

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

@S-Holmes

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

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

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

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

[Kvirion]

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

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

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

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

[Norwegian Mugabe]

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

[Mulloch94]

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

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

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

[CO3]

@Mulloch94 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

The fatal misconception in the left's argument is believing private ownership doesn't (or otherwise can't or never has) existed outside the scope of State decree and artificial scarcity.

@Mulloch94 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

Ownership occurs at that precise moment

If there is a productive conversation to be had here, you have to absolutely try to be aware of the position you are trying to represent, and not just write about your impression of it!

[Kvirion]

@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...

[Kvirion]

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

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/

[lutte]

@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

[lutte]

butchered formatting

[Mulloch94]

@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.