New "Mission" of RPF
-
@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.
-
@Peatly Ray was 86 years old. Charlie is under the delusion that everyone should live to 120. That being said poast physeek @Charlie
-
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 -
It's interesting, because to me it just seems like Charlie has submitted to this orthodoxy normie approach of taking the "kitchen sink" full of vitamins. He was talking about taking niacin, selenium, zinc, potassium, even fucking molybdenum (lol, I've never EVER heard of a molybdenum deficiency before....ever). The "toxic Peat diet" would literally give you all of those nutrients. He was also talking about copper toxicity as if he struck some sort of revelation shared to him by the arch angel Michael. Like, dude, that's not a new concept, literally google the word "overmethylation" and I guarantee you something about copper dominance and/or low histamine will be towards the top of the page. I want to let the record stand I don't have any problem with Garrett. I don't agree with him, but unless he's LITERALLY crazy like Charlie then I don't see how Garrett will approve of his tactics either. Besides, in a year or two from now, once this new fad proves to not work for Charlie either, he'll turn his back on Garrett too. I'm starting to think he's just an insane hypochondriac.
-
@AltarandThrone said in New "Mission" of RPF:
@TheSir @CO3 I come from steep fundie roots, and have been ingrained in the charismatic community for my entire adult life -- while the latter has a lot of former fundies, they are diametrically apposed. I'll say, Charlie comes across as a basic fundie/evangelical who's deranged and isolated. I found his invocation of God in the vitamin A matters, to have been disrespectful, and trying to rebuke Georgi's Vitamin A beliefs, in Jesus' name sacrilegious!!!
Since the Protestant reformation (especially in America), Protestants have had a propensity for looking for divine justification of their revolutionary validity. Martin Luther claimed the Islamic siege on Vienna was God's judgement for the Catholic church. The Munster rebellion is a great tale of Protestant insanity following prophecies of the Return of Jesus. America has had several fundie Quakers/Freemasons that fall under this "saw an angel/went to heaven/esoteric download" charismaticism they use to create a whole denomination. While it could be called charismatic, it should not be confused with the modern charismatic / Pentecostal / New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement.
The Modern Charismatic community / NAR, would be best described as reactionary. They believe in reconciling the Protestant and Catholic communities (and consider their differences little more than a Hegelian dialectic), and desire to return to the Church practices found in the book of Acts -- essentially believing that decadence and decay saw the Church's stagnation and loss of miraculous and divine power and authority in culture (trading it for governmental papacies). They believe in practicing the gifts that Paul described -- which almost all fundies, even the charismatic ones, don't like in practice.
Note that fundies and charismatics hold to all the same "essential doctrines."
Very observant. You capture it succinctly.
I would also add that charismatics are oriented towards the God from within in the Holy Spirit while the Fundies are oriented towards the God from without. But I think that distinction matters little in practical terms.
Totally believing in the God from within, absent Jesus Christ as our Messiah is important to have practical relevance in enabling God to improve humanity and make it turn away from fear and act out of true love. With Christianity almost wholly tied to the concept of praying thru Jesus as an intermediary, getting inspiration and courage from the Holy Spirit becomes merely a fallback and does not get the top billing in our minds and hearts.
Asking for Jesus all the time, and petitioning saints and those departed and those who live to pray through Jesus (for Catholics and perhaps and Orthodox Christians and some Protestant sects), or going directly to Jesus (Evangelicals) very well means we all tolerate the injustices to persist in the world while praying Jesus will deal with the wicked transgessors eventually in the afterlife, or when Jesus finally comes back as the Messiah, as promised by the Virgin Mary in Fatima, or as putatively foretold in the Bible in the Rapure, as Evanelicals believe.
Mankind is thus disempowered of any meaningful action at reform in making the world a better place- to be born into a lesser earth and to leave the world better when he leaves, because Christianity and its followers are an impregnable wall to overcome.
-
The hoopla surrounding this sure provides a convenient distraction and source of division for the very online community who might be questioning whether Peat's or maybe the their loved one's death might have been a result of something our government might have done or some secret research that is ongoing, or some government policy that he was critical of that puts us all at risk. We know that the alphabet agencies have been interested in Peat since his Blake College days. So much easier to blame Peat himself for his own death and discredit his work all at the same time. Why would Charlie insist on keeping Peat's name for his forum if he's totally abandoned every principle? If he was worried about losing his base he wouldn't be calling Dr. Peat's work 'toxic', knowing he would alienate many potential customers. Why insist on the obvious untruth that he's pushing an extension of Dr. Peat's work? I'm just following my current train of thought in line with current events and revelations...
