Posts made by LetTheRedeemed

@happyhanneke do you hold a smart phone for extended periods of time?

@Lejeboca

Secondly, depending on the ratios of gelatin to other proteins, the amount of carrot salad, aspirin and cynomel doses, these substances may not be benign (!).

Could you expound on this point?

@happyhanneke off the top of my head I remember Ray mentioning that upon thyroid usage, people can get random muscle soreness as incrrased blood flow and temps breaks down scar tissue.

Ray also said that one part of the body can be hypothyroid while another is fine — part of hypothyroidism — do you ever think your hands are cold? You could ask someone to touch a warm part of your body, then touch your hands for comparison. This would all lend to needing to maintain pro-metabolic interventions and possibly increase them.

Ps, Danny has said that the way he and Ray have found aspirin to work is that basically the degree of the problem is the degree to which you can increase aspirin (with vit K) — up to 3+ grams broken up in a day.

@happyhanneke gotcha. hope you find the best path forward.

Now that you mention it's elsewhere in your body, too, I'd say it's definitely hypothyroidism.

How's your temps and pulse? how do they respond after a small dose of t3?

nutrient intake?

whatever diagnosis you get from the doctor, you will still have to fix the fundamentals behind the symptoms imo.

@Rah1woot

Paul Cockshott is one of my favorite Marxist-Materialist thinkers. I will leave a few links.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6ExkJhk7lA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BOxfq2gOm4

Thanks for the links; I think I don't really have much to disagree with, as I'm not pro-capitalism, or anti-social welfare -- I guess I didn't make it very clear in my earlier comment, but that's a modern American right wing phenomenon, and not consistent with historical, or global conservatism today. I didn't see anything disagreeable in the material history of Marx, either. I believe Marx saw the world in a really novel and useful manner.

I think for the discussion to move usefully forward, can we agree on the below quote as a rough summary of Marxism?

"Marx predicted that capitalism would eventually destroy itself as more people become relegated to working-class status, inequality rises, and competition drives corporate profits to zero." via investopedia (that's also what I had remembered from my research like 15 years ago)

surprised cyproheptadine has not been mentioned for it's calcium channel blocker effects of radiation.

also, good on the Peatbot.

Here's the article that convinced me against x-rays for all but immediate life/death events:
https://raypeat.com/articles/aging/bonedensity.shtml

"The remedies for osteoporosis are things that everyone should be doing, anyway[eliminating need for X-ray], so diagnosis makes no difference in what the physician should recommend to the patient."

Try 60 grams of gelatin a day for a week, and a daily carrot, and if inflammation goes down, who cares if it's arthritis or not, the problem is still inflammation, estrogen and cortisol.

Even if it's cancer, the answer is still addressing things that can be fixed via Peaty substances like stopping the Warburg effect with 3-6grams of aspirin a day.

@Mauritio I took approx 40 mg azithromycin plus .5g of cypro daily for about 3 weeks during allergy season, and I seemed to do better than with just cypro.

I've wondered if there would be any negative effects from longterm lowdose usage, like Peat's concern that using too much of one antibiotic causing imbalance in the microbiome.

@Kate21 I’m inspired, tell me more about Chris Hemsworth

Hey @Rah1woot thanks for the videos, checking them out before I comment

@Rah1woot You speak of reality, but it’s literally just an idea different than mine. It sounds like you just have more faith in your idea.

I totally admit I don’t understand a lot of the language in your post; feel free to expound, I did lol.

@Corngold said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:

@LetTheRedeemed said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:

and this produced the greatest art humanity has ever known, the baroque era.

Neat post. But, I think the Romantic or "Late Romantic" era produced better art ;). Bruckner, Wagner, Mahler. The sciences and astronomy were also unhinged in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Imagine where science would be if the Victorian era evolved instead of died in war. I don’t know a whole lot about it but, what I understand is that science got captured and institutionalized lol.

Yeah I don’t think the appeal to beauty really ended until ww1 ️ I’ve been listening to Tannhauser (overture) lately heh

share your fave piece from the romantic era!

Right now this is probably what I’ve been listening to the most from the baroque era lately:

https://youtu.be/8_H0nWN_aUs?si=ITJlCfLQdyU03ksl

@Rah1woot, wow you made me longpost. apologies.

I agree. I think "leftists" that aren't Communists are basically equal to Ben Shapiro. They're not a serious political position and they both end up supporting WEF Fascism.

I think it would help you to understand that fascism is populism.

It should also be clear that every populist movement is propaganda by the subversive forces who want to conquer the current regime. There is no true believer ruler of a populist coup. WEF fascism is where the original communist power brokers went. They never cared about Marx, they needed populism to advance their subversive motives. It's a parasitic class and no I'm not talking about Jews or bankers. This is where I think it would help to read about the French revolution. People who actuate regime change are a political class at odds with the current government.

These quotes describe it well:

“The French revolution therefore was the essentially chaotic and often violent process by which political power passed into the hands of those who already possessed economic power.”- Frederic V. Grunfeld

“The revolution was the culmination of a long social and economic development which… made the bourgeoisie the masters of the world.” - Georges Lefebvre

This is basically how every color revolution works.

The bourgeoisie are one of the first major classes that have wealth completely independent of the hierarchical context of the prevailing social order. These are often the people who are the actual "degenerate aristocracy."

Communists are just leftist populists. It’s two sides of the same populist coin. The revolutionaries (insert color revolution here and yes include the USA) tell the unrepresented masses they need representation, they then conquer the current regime, rinse and repeat. The “revolutionaries” then establish their own aristocracy because you can’t run anything without middle management, and kill off all the useful ideologues who helped them get there but are too radical to run a country.

It is Communist China that banned "effeminate men" on television. Semi-communist Russia which banned "LGBT Propaganda".

Ah, sorry, you missed my intention by that comparison (comments in a forum are terrible for writing treatises). My example above merely points out the nature of the two broad political categories in a deconstructionist world view. Deconstructing the old order never ends when you want to. This is why disaffected leftists keep getting pushed over to the right. eternal cultural deconstruction blew past their dream society in 1920, 1945, 1995, 2010, 2020, etc... Deconstruction of order (revolution) blew past communists who just wanted a loaf of bread and representación.

Today’s version of an aristocrat would’ve been called a whore by a self-respecting aristocrat anytime in the last 5,000 years.

@Rah1woot said:
Aristocracy imho does actually have a history of being degenerate. The French aristocracy of the 1700s is an easy example.

(I'd like to see what percentage of the Noble estate were devout Catholic, and were not)

I readily concede There is a greater ability to degenerate with intelligence. It's almost a single line on a corollary line graph throughout history, haha. But this is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the path to becoming the aristocracy. If you read about any of the revolutions, after the bloodbath of destroying the people who maintained stability in society, the winners packed positions with friends or people who were willing to backstab and murder anyone to get there. These people were less qualified in capability, dogs in comparison, and they were definitely willing to commit any act or sin that the old Regime's aristocracy, and all the peasants, would balk at. The brains behind the revolutions, have always been the upper middle class (bourgeoise), and the boots on the ground have always been the criminal underclass (of course any impressionable populations are recruited when the propaganda works).

Sure. Mao Zedong and George Washington are good examples of this [aristocratic character].

Mao and Washington were effective populist organizers, political opportunists and leftists of their time. The second they succeeded in destabilizing the old order, they established their new order/hierarchy.

They fit perfectly in the early deconstructionist spectrum. Washington is only like geographically removed from a proper hierarchical social order in mainland Europe, but deconstruction of social order in England had been ongoing for several hundred years at that point, due to proximity he looks like a proper aristocrat to us in 2024 (sans trousers and all). Also the monarch of England at the time had about as much power as it does today. Other than washington’s ownership of an actual plantation (which I have no knowledge of), I don’t actually understand what you mean by comparing them to my description of a communal patriarch/aristocrat, other than the fact that they replaced the prior aristocracy with themselves (via anti-aristocracy propaganda in their effective populist campaigns - savage civil wars).

Sure. I'm not the kind of so-called "leftist" that disparages capitalism from start to finish... it will still end. I want the aristocratic "form", if you will, of having free time, having strength and intelligence, having enough money to pursue work and projects beyond immediate survival, to expand to as many people as possible. The only program that works towards this is capital-C Communism, ending the financial domination made possible by overextended property rights for corporations. Ending PUFA ideology.

Ah, of course. I'm a fan of Marxist description, but not prescription. I gotta be honest, he's one man in history, fallible like us all... I encourage considering the philosophy being a product of his time, and that a lot of cool philosophies have existed that he probably didn't read about.

What I believe in, is basically what a peasant anywhere in the world prior to 1780s believed (you could append to that any rural laborer), is maintaining order, recognizing human difference as a real component in human order. If I can acknowledge there are people specialized by knowledge or capability that divides their labor/status (i.e. parents vs children), I can reasonably acknowledge others: surgeon vs auto-mechanic, and management vs worker.* management/worker context is a post-hierarchical social language. The worker is treated like trash compared to a peasant, and the manager got their via his own steal/kill/destroy mindset (yes many times merit), that someone with the divine right of God didn't need to do to accomplish. Sonship vs orphanhood economy.

No one is equal in any capacity, but all are equally deserving of human decency. So, traditionally, survival pressures placed on humanity required cooperation (ignore libertarian retardation that says it required rugged individuality, it required the opposite). Cooperation increased efficiency of human labor. Increased efficiency demands principles like discipline, sacrifice, submission to a smarter person, and the smarter person fighting on behalf of weaker people. Wars were once not necessarily populist, but explicitly royal, and the peasants, including military aged males, were considered labor assets of a realm, not meat grinder pawns (always exceptions of course).

I believe this is a law of nature, we see it down to the cell. We define cell intelligence/health, with it's ability to conformity and segregation. To be transient in skill, compromising in nature, is a rare skill of humans, but is most often a case of weakened people/things' incapability to handle complex/challenging situations.
(*** relevant to below) There is an esoteric argument to be had that the capacity to be a liberal//ideologue, correlates with intelligence/aristocracy, and that those people are best able to explore/pioneer a better world -- this is where religion of a society is paramount -- unfortunately the western aristocracy didn't follow this path with excellence.

Insofar as the universe is expanding and the state of entropy consumes all things, Marx is correct. But insofar as entropy reaches a sweatspot utopia, Marx doesn't understand human behavior, or the war of entropy and order. As the lords of social stability are killed off, smaller microcosms of surviving lords will exist (Amish, Mormons, Hungary, etc), the broader population will continue to degenerate into increased self-survival mode, and lower intelligence.

With no good rationale, in my opinion, Marx says there must be ever degenerating society and war, until it gets better again. I just don't see any such thing as a source for spontaneous rebound from entropy, unless he's cynically predicting innocent desperate people beg for stability (hierarchical order) after their entire family gets killed by some later iteration of "for freedom, fraternity, and equality," and that's the only chance by which Marx could be right. Otherwise, he's ideologically excusing the needless murder of millions of people.

Ironically, he does pine for the time of the feudal era, as a genuinely good era for the good of the proletariat; he just thinks we can't return to it. I think he's thinking too small. No, many won't return to submission to hierarchical order, but fighting for order vs entropy in worlds we can affect (church/school), is something he missed that I think may have been a valid pushback. I wonder if he had contemporary critics who spoke such. Entropy is broader reaching today than he expected.

Your description of some kind of Epic Retvrn of Good Capitalism is a fantasy though. You are probably aware of that. The epistemology of right-ish people is always Gnostic, reaching outside the real. That is why they keep losing. Only an unconditional leap into the abyss that is reality, and the Future, might offer a way through.

I'm sure we'd need to define terms more, because I'm not a fan of capitalism or modern concepts of free markets.

Right wingers keep losing because they aren't as smart as left wingers. Game theory: when one wants to win a power or wealth not his own, he has everything to win by playing a long game. An attack where the castle doesn't know it's under siege is the deadliest attack of all.

PS, inspirational populist, Hitler, considered the Jewish cultural contributors in Germany like Felix Mendelssohn, feminizing to the German Volk. The nazis gained grassroots support in part due to the university book burnings by nazi students, instigated by the first sex change doctor in Berlin publishing a ton of material advocating it, and the prolific works of pro-homosexual and gender deconstructionism that took off in Germany in the last 20 years. The French revolutionaries considered the royal order and church as effeminate, and themselves as bringing vitality. The jacobin school of thought that gave them (and every subsequent revolution) its basic deconstructionist ideology, was the neoclassical glorifying Sparta and early Rome — “all men are equal warrior-kings" This is why the fasces and neoclassical construction is all over post-revolutionary France and USA. Deconstructionism starts with hating being told what to do by someone born into a position of authority, and ends with a rap music video in an American ghetto -- both are the same thing if you look hard enough.

(*** relevant to above) there is an esoteric argument to be made that the revolutionary soul is a disgruntled bourgeoisie -- him being insecure in his identity/insecure, because he stands outside hierarchy of a patriarch (the greatest source of masculine security for a male), and so projects masculinity exteriorly to compensate a lack of masculinity in the heart. This is the other side of the coin for the esoteric liberal arts. A contentedly masculine Noble man, discovers the Muse of femininity, and this produced the greatest art humanity has ever known, the baroque era.

@Corngold

I think we're saying the same thing.

@Rah1wooot seems to think the UK opposed communism but this is false. Much of Europe became socialist and is still socialist. Democracy is a tool of socialism; it exists on a spectrum.

Yeah the intelligentsia of all of the west was entirely pro-communist — up to the top of the Roosevelt administration. All the cool people — from Hollywood to journalists to universities, were pro-communists. Lucile Ball was an example of communism sympathies, exhibited in the popular/cool crowds of the west. Not to mention the US govt funding them thru the Red Cross in Russia proper. The only people opposing them at the time was pre-war US state dept, the US navy, and the old untrendy WASPs of the aristocracy.

@Peatful ️

I definitely have my reasons not to support lifegivingstore and lowtoxinforum but I wish Charlie well so I don’t need to go looking for more things he may or may not be doing wrong

@Rah1woot said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:

…The "aristocratic superiors" of today ARE the political Saturday Night Live class, Jeffrey Epstein, liberalism, the Ivy League, NGOs, Think Tanks.

…if you were actually right wing, you would support the actual aristocrat Jeffrey Epstein. That's what it means to be right-wing: to support the ruling class. If you think it means something else, you are a victim of CIA psyops.

…You are not actually right-wing, because you do not support the actual ruling class: I don't care about any Jew-oriented blabber you generate to justify the dissonance, I've heard all of it on four chan dot org many years ago.

I’m not trying to make arguments for the guy you were arguing, but found these quotes disagreeable to the bigger picture from the right wing perspective.
Most modern right wingers don’t know what they are of. The counterparts of the American right wing in Europe are more honestly titled “social democrats” or “Christian democrats” or whatever.
The 20th century right wing is populistic propaganda dating back to esoteric groups like jacobins and occults of renaissance Europe.

Left wing populism and right wing populism come from the same source. What distinguishes the two is how they answer the question: “how far do we deconstruct social order?”

Left wing: if you don’t support mandatory sex changes for infants and intermarriage with martians who eat humans you’re a Nazi.
Right wing: let’s stop evolving at Edmund Burke.

Directly to your point, nobody alive today knows what an aristocrat looks like. Anytime social order begins to reconstitute, you begin to see its vestiges in business fat cats who pay for a lavish lifestyle, but wealth is merely the popular and recognizable part, hardly the substance. Today’s version of an aristocrat would’ve been called a whore by a self-respecting aristocrat anytime in the last 5,000 years.

Today’s aristocrat competes in an equality/fraternity/liberty context, that rewards the most psychopathic. Prostitution, drug dealing, wallstreet, and politics — are all base capitalism. Machiavelli was inspired to write his book precisely because he was in the inner workings of a democracy. His works were verboten amongst the aristocracy of Europe at the time, yet proudly read by all the jacobins, Freemasons, and revolutionaries, including the in the USA.

A real aristocrat is a paternal/maternal figure, because of their organizational skills, who leads their micro community, and is recognized and co-opted by a more powerful neighboring community willingly or unwillingly. This is necessarily regionalistic in nature, yet simultaneously hierarchical in nature. It’s also authoritarian. This is where you’re getting the idea that the right wing sticks with any and all “aristocracy.” But you can see how that needn’t automatically be the case.

In the post-revolutionary new world order, Indeed, many times the middle class develops symbiosis toward the business class to maintain stability, to the detriment of the bottom poor, and this is where the battle lines are often drawn today. Yes, the right picks up many things once considered leftist in these quirky culture wars of personal advocacy — like classical liberalism. Which communists call right wing, but is of the original hierarchical deconstructions for “fraternity, equality, and liberty.”

…MAGA base is left-wing in real terms: their program (so they hope) asserts their Human needs to eat above that of Capital.

I said it above that the broader right picked up capitalistic arguments for economic stability of their primary demographic, but that was not the right wing cause 200 years ago, and thankfully that’s reverting again.

I guess you’re associating capital with power, not just with capitalism? By the metric of power equals wealth, yeah I think aristocrats having wealth is fine, but how they get it and their corresponding priorities for their people they under no uncertain terms own, makes all the difference between good capitalism and bad capitalism, re me speculating your definition… i.e., Walmart doesn’t offer the elderly any form of decent retirement, but the lord of a feud would call that backwards and primitive whilst all peasants who were too old to work, got to live with their families and eat decently until death in old age, participating in all religious and cultural activities.

Likely more aristocratic than yours. The Bolshevik state killed my ancestors, who had unwisely taken up arms against them.

This reminds me of the smooth reverse uno move by the French revolutionaries who committed regicide and then a few days later when the peasants around the countryside revolted, they were then the traitors to the government who needed to be put down for their insolence LOL.

@Corngold said in Ray Peat name drop during American Communist Party convention speech:

@Rah1woot

This and Operation Paperclip are basically a macro-view of enslavement during tribal warfare. Generals either will obey a new king or be killed. High-ranking Germans that obeyed were tolerated or promoted. Those that didn't suffered Nuremberg, whether guilty or not.

Yeah that infographic was hella gay. Like they won’t show all the former ww2 Wehrmacht in East German uniforms serving a soviet state post Nazi affiliation.

@Peatful ok I get it. I wouldn’t want anything shared that wasn’t already publicly shared. I didn’t know if I missed some big news lol

Dang RIP Jwayne

@Mauritio based

@Ecstatic_Hamster

I never went deep into the literature, when Pro-iodine group produced two results:

1.) it worked after my TSH rode the rollercoaster.

2.) IT DIDN’T WORK AND IM STUCK (I don’t believe this I has to be permanent)

So, Thanks for the counter-counter argument.
I’ve been tempted several times to do the protocol — but I’m contented to stick with food sourced iodine