New "Mission" of RPF
-
@DonkeyDude said in New "Mission" of RPF:
@Light said in New "Mission" of RPF:
What Christian denomination(s) do Charlie, Garret, ICA, and Blossom belong to? Anyone know for sure?
I'm interested too. Charlie is especially very extreme even for a fundamentalist American Protestant - he advocates polygyny, for one. Also, I would like to know what's the nexus between that and the Vitamin A stuff. I've read some of Grant Genereux's forum and it seems secular, Smith's twitter and website also aren't overtly religiously themed.
Hi, is polygyny communly perceived as extreme?
Thrive for the highest degree of energy
-
@Truth said in New "Mission" of RPF:
Hi, is polygyny communly perceived as extreme?
I'd think so, at least within Christianity. No mainstream church anywhere advocates or practices it. Even the Mormons had to give it up.
-
@ilovethesea said in New "Mission" of RPF:
It’s like a dogwhistle for people like Charlie and Christalone lady. He knows exactly what’s he’s doing to attract these “trad” types.
Sure. I just don't get why these beliefs are related at all and how the synthesis has emerged.
-
@Light I'm not a Garrettian, but but are these ideas really opposed? From a Peaty perspective the world looks kind of toxic too: most food is a combination of high-PUFA oils, high-PUFA meat and starch. Common food additives disrupt your hormones and destroy your gut. Stress hormone boosting medication is given out like candy. And if you perceive EMF as a serious problem, there's no place on Earth left unpolluted save for maybe polar regions and high seas. Does that mean a true Peater should remain sterile?
-
This post is deleted! -
@DonkeyDude I feel like he could’ve come up with any theory and they’d buy it tbh. He’s been playing up the “satanic overlords are trying to kill us” angle since covid. Charlie himself said no proof was required just the other day.
-
@Light said in New "Mission" of RPF:
It's more that #2 does not logically follow from #1.
If you believe you're in possession of an esoteric truth that also gives you a competitive advantage and should be spread as widely as possible (which Garrett's people do believe) then it does logically follow. Firstly, passing on your ideology (whatever it is) to your children is the best way to preserve it and hopefully enable it to spread further or at least to create a like-minded community. If you believe in something, you want it to spread. Secondly, if Smith is right and most people are held back by "poison A" and other toxins, then this knowledge will give his followers' children a massive advantage over others and thus let them secure power and wealth. TBH I do feel in a similar way.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Light You can have relatively better health, can you? And while I haven't studied low-A mythology extensively, I assume they do have some theory that their diet will make one more resilient to external stresses.
Besides, do you in general believe that one should not have children if the external conditions appear unfavorable? Is there no point in living because forever chemicals and radiation exist? What is, indeed, point of biohacking if there's no point to existence? You might be right, but it's not exactly a view that could inspire any action (whether joining a cult or buying anything), so no wonder Smith doesn't promote it.
-
@DonkeyDude That's not what I'm saying. Let's just move on.
-
@Not_James_Bond lol it reduces the calcification? I doubt that. Charlie just described hypothyroidism as a VA toxicity
-
@AltarandThrone interesting, thanks for the lesson.
-
@Peatful I don't think anything said has been classified as slander or libel. The forum went in another direction. It's been around for a decade and it's not defaming his work. They're using specific language that his work is being expanded upon. Seems like a tough case
-
@Not_James_Bond also it must be a coincidence that risingfire and divingwater seem like antonyms
-
@risingfire I see what you are saying.
Anyone who loved or respected Peat- would hopefully do the right thing- and take his name off the domain.
Especially when posting antagonistic “confusion” regarding said works. -
@risingfire said in New "Mission" of RPF:
@Peatful I don't think anything said has been classified as slander or libel. The forum went in another direction. It's been around for a decade and it's not defaming his work. They're using specific language that his work is being expanded upon. Seems like a tough case
He said the ray peat diet is toxic (his words) – that it feminizes men – and that Ray was doing bad science. He also said Ray died by his own sword.
-
-
It's heinous to me. For a man who claims to be faithful to think his time here belongs to him to this extent. He might very well live to be 120 on a diet of domino's pizza, if he wasn't such a selfish, vacuous cretin.
-
IDK about libel or slander but they should stop using his name. Nothing over there remotely resembles his work -- quite the opposite. Dr. Peat had a framework of theory, based on research, experience and other evidence, and that's being thrown out for this or that theory to explain this or that phenomenon. It reminds me of the kind of 'research' I used to do on google before I found Dr. Peat's work.
Ultimately I'm not sure if Katherine is the type to seek legal action on this, or wait for this to die on it's own, which it surely will, but the damage will be done. It doesn't feel organic to me in the least and while there might just be some useful idiots the goal seems to be a discrediting of Dr. Peat's work which would be awfully convenient for the powers that be.
Dr Peat's death at 86 being used as some sort of justification feels off, and incredibly disrespectful to a man who gave so much so freely. Maybe he would've lived longer if he retired to Mexico and spent his days in the mountain sun instead of answering everybody's e-mails and continuing his life's work. And let's not forget that he died sometime after what was arguably a virus developed as a US bioweapon was released or escaped from a lab, and which had a propensity for the elderly and may have been engineered to have genetic predispositions, the consequences of which we still don't and may never completely know.
-
For clarification
I never said there should be a suit suggesting
libel, defamation or slander.
Most states don’t allow that once deceasedHow convenient
It’s around his work
His life’s work
Which his books and articles are protected by copyright lawUsing his name on a domain
Then stating his work isn’t complete
That his work is wrong
That his ideas are toxic
EtcMaybe not a legal issue?
Maybe is?But it certainly is a moral problem
What an absolute piece of shtt
Save the world with your new theories
Great
Honestly
Great
Hope it helps manyBut
Using a dead man’s name and legacy
The profoundness of his work
To say
Nah- no goodIm appalled by the many who support this injustice
Absolutely morally corrupt
