Posts made by Rah1woot

@Corngold

Which, I think, to me, often means that effective communication is isolating and counter-intuitive.

Ray Peat in some quote I don't remember (where he described why it is that he stopped working on "flowery" art and prioritized biological work) worked with the definition of communication as being the transmission of information that makes a difference. I like that one. Nothing changes? Communication was not achieved. Even if an idea was transmitted.

@PunkinEater I do like RFK's propaganda against seed oils. But his articulation of the solution will be something like boutique seed-oil-free restaurants, and not a mass upheaval of the economic system (and subsidies) that make these oils the most cost-effective ingredients to use.

The United States hasn't had to be genuinely effective in the space of Combat since WW2 or so.

Only realizing the necessity to do a good job with the population, or lose everything, could change something here. Until that point there is no reason for the financial class to do anything meaningfully differently.

For this reason there is an argument that only international politics, and not domestic politics, "matter".

@gg12

In a personal capacity, I am mildly more pleased with a Trump victory than a Harris one.

Lesser chance of a civil war. I can continue to use interstate highways.
The "new left" has suffered a defeat. Perhaps it can bolster the "old left" i consider myself a part of.
Trump is mildly less hawkish w.r.t. Ukraine for instance. As you point out, still very hawkish w.r.t Israel, Iran, and China.
RFK Jr's health stances are a bit drastic (I do think /smallpox/ vaccination was a good thing, and that Raw Milk is too expensive to be practical for most) but definitely push the dialogue in the right direction w.r.t. the largely indefensible vaccines like Gardasil for HPV.

But it is obvious that it doesn't really matter. Nothing will be done to challenge the real causes of mass cancer and pain.

Trump the president means little. It is his MAGA movement which has set the dialogue for the next few decades. A split in the MAGA faction might be on the way as more realize this.

Trump's proposal to drop 2 trillion from federal expenditures, if realized, would be a form of economic shock therapy that might well break everything. From an "accelerationist" angle, this is positive. From a personal one, it will set the stage for a violent market crisis that will make life worse for many. Even before it sentences any seniors and such dependent on the state to survive to a kind of death.

@Corngold

My issue is this: is language the only thing of importance? Our speech is willed into "is" too. If we say "nothing," then we have willed nonsense into existence.

This is an excellent orientation towards the problem. It reminds me directly of the first chapters of "The Communist Postscript" by Boris Groys, and so I will link a clearnet audiobook starting at the right time in full.

https://youtu.be/ObQC0KCJba4?t=536

My belief is the sham religion America is supposed to believe is a gnostic individualism (Harold Bloom), and, at the same time, a "sacred democracy" formed by the active "will of the people" who demand, and are entitled to "representation," like @LetTheRedeemed mentioned with the French Revolution and American Revolution.

Yeah, that's a fair assessment. Formal legal representation, of course, is a dead horse ever since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. The beating of this dead horse characterizes the "hyper-liberal" position, with its "intersectionality". I think beginning to challenge questions of debt and property is a much more sane approach: it was the case in many territorial governing documents in the United States (such as in Kentucky) that property was limited to actual human families and less so sprawling enterprises. "Gnosticism" and "solipsism" are my favored words for dealing with both this legalistic way of thinking, and the ahistorical way of thinking of the rightoids.

We can see lately the many lunacies which have been given "a right to exist" because of the absurdly liberal interpretations of the 1st amendment. So, again, "freedom of speech" can be the freedom for the proliferation of nonsense.

Mao Zedong basically said the same thing: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm

I think "No Investigation, No Right To Speak" is a better concept for dealing with issues like scientific fraud (which was a much less relevant concept in the time of the founding fathers) than the 1st amendment.

@LetTheRedeemed

The recognition of material reality as such is obviously a kind of idea. But it is very much a unique idea. Even the central idea one can have. Perhaps this is what the old monotheistic christians were aesopically referring to when they talk of "faith". In pure linguistic formalism it is not justifiable to speak of Reality as such. There is a ready reference to be made here with the concept of "knowing in the biblical sense". Sex as an experience is not formally communicable, and so it demonstrates the supremacy of real experience over language. Thus it acts as a kind of knowledge.

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

Keywords for understanding the "letter of the law' of what I say: "historical materialism", "dialectical materialism". Engels gives a good description in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific".

The "spirit of the law" is something found probably elsewhere. I think part of it for me was my engineering background and just how wonderfully the practice of engineering maps onto dialectics.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/fundamentals-marxism-leninism.pdf

@LetTheRedeemed

I will make an exercise of replying to your longpost in the most succint way I think appropriate.

As accused: your epistemology is Gnostic. You reference classical thermodynamics, and describe the historical process we both recognize, in order to make an argument that reality is inherently evil, and your ideas about it are better. The straightforward declaration you make is that the past was better than the present, and simultaneously any possible future. This is not what I think. Moreover, even if I thought otherwise, I would have no say in the matter of the vast differential equations, of what we might call the "Treason Cycle", that govern the process. All sentimentality is ultimately to be completely and utterly discarded in the face of Carl Schmitt's theory of the political. And this is exactly why rightoids always lose. They have sentimentality and not reality at their core, and this straightforwardly jeopardizes their war plans. The failed Austrian Painter, with his whiney, mopey, Mein Kampf. Luddites crushed beneath the heel of mass production.

But this is all the esoteric, even "cosmic" side of Communist thought. In the here-and-now, I straightforwardly advocate for the long-overdue obsolescence of the bourgeoisie in kind of their then-progressive revolution. Only what is Real has a right to exist. If your prized social hierarchy and differentiation of a sort is a necessary part of it all, as the Marxist-Leninists differentiate themselves from the Anarchists by, it will be shown out as well. Am I a deconstructionist? Sure. I want to be as radical as reality itself is, but not more, in the particular historical moment I'm in.

Now, some quotations and references.

https://www.e-flux.com/journal/88/174178/contingency-and-necessity-in-evald-ilyenkov-s-communist-cosmology/

https://info.publicintelligence.net/MCIA-ChinaPLA.pdf

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” Karl Marx

The basic question about the state is where its
legitimacy comes from. The monarch used to
speak for god, and his clergy backed him up.
Republics kept the basic idea of the state, and
invented a new story about its legitimacy. But the
new government is always founded by traitors to
the old government. Treason is the essence of the
state. Treason is legitimacy. Ray Peat, PhD

@LetTheRedeemed

Yeah the intelligentsia of all of the west was entirely pro-communist — up to the top of the Roosevelt administration.

True, FDR was definitely sympathetic to Communism. His postwar counterparts much less so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot . Eventually those factions you mention did take back control in the US.

@Corngold

My thought is "Communism" and "Fascism" and "Liberal Democracy" can't really describe the sorts of power structures and governance the west or anywhere else is operating within.

You are in some sense correct. The battle now, as far as I see it, is waged between the descendants of these strains of thought.

Perhaps the most important geopolitical division is that between the Gnosticism of the West and, let's call it the, "Nomianism" of the East. One side (West Europe, America) upholds abstract personal freedom. Islam, Russia, China, all uphold a constant universally applicable truth, in their own ways.

It is my opinion that only a very severe international conflict can give success to new radical domestic perspectives.

Ok that's fine, but seriously, to think the Peatarian diet is not benefitting from the same exploitative third world labor it supposedly wants to replace is short-sighted.

Orange juice, coffee, fruit, coconut oil, chocolate, etc., is almost all coming from equatorial and poor countries.

This is true. Hence the application of Lysenkoism in the USSR, especially its preoccupation with frost-hardening of plants: https://archive.is/IC4Je

@Corngold

I've not heard that China is anti-Zionist.

https://archive.is/8D7u9

The USSR gave support to Yasser Arafat and his PLO.

The vast majority of the weapons used, from Katyusha rocket systems to AK-47 type rifles, are of Soviet or Chinese design/manufacture.

If anything I understand the opposite, that because of their central importance in the western and global economy, they rely on strong bankers.

One of the reasons behind China's material success is that their banks (and therefore credit creation etc) today are relatively sovereign, whereas the rest of the world is stuck being financed by the US. i would again recommend "Superimperialism" by Michael Hudson for a discussion of this monetary theory.

Ok, and who's going to build the blast furnaces? Who's going to pay for the materials?

I think you're missing the point. Ideologically the blast furnaces are constructed in the backyard in a way to be extremely cheap. Hence "Great Leap Forward". The same is exactly the Peatarian method for brain improvement, as none of its interventions are ludicrously expensive.

Who's going to pay for the materials? Please speak to Mao's Four Pests Campaign. It is reckoned to have caused famine as it disturbed the ecology of plant and animal communities. Is this just anti-Chinese propaganda?

The Four Pests campaign was a mistake.

Why do all communist utopias inevitably fail and cause more pain and suffering than they relieve?

The actual Marxist movement distinguished itself from other Communist/socialist movements of its time (e.g., Fourier) in that it was exactly not utopian. Read "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Friedrich Engels (not a Jew...) to learn more.

All governments are corrupt at some level.

Sure. It is impossible to be "completely pure". And yet it is the Communist countries today which effectively deal with the corruption problem, in the US it is called "lobbying" and completely legal.

Belief in regime change is the same whether it be in Russia or the US; an election gives a false hope of change just as "reform" or other measures or direct promises from the dictator inspire hope in dictatorial countries.

Yes, exactly. This is why a human-centric dual-power approach is necessary. The dual-power aspect is key. People simply need to obsolete the government by doing a better job than it. This process is already happening today.

MAGA is basically socialism.

Sounds about right. I touch on this early in the thread. But they will fail exactly insofar as they are not Communists. They have no appetite for challenging property rights and the banks.

Repudiation of debt at the Russian Revolution

@wester130

I did like this post. At a certain point the libertarian-Peatarian deviation runs up against the wall of their system itself being broken and anti-human.

every attempt at entrepreneurship or novelty is stamped into the ground via regulation and bureaucracy.

Yes. I have learned that electroncis entrepreneurship is much pricier than initially thought due to FCC certification fees.

@LetTheRedeemed

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?”

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.

if you don’t support mandatory sex changes for infants and intermarriage with martians who eat humans you’re a Nazi.

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

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

Aristocracy imho does actually have a history of being degenerate. The French aristocracy of the 1700s is an easy example. As are the Bound Feet of pre-Communist China.

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.

Sure. Mao Zedong and George Washington are good examples of this.

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.

Sure. I'm not the kind of so-called "leftist" that disparages capitalism from start to finish, without some form of capitalism this forum conversation would be technologically impossible. Capitalism still ended, and 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.

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 guess you’re associating capital with power, not just with capitalism?

I don't really care about the SNL aristocracy of today on the face of it: they are just robots for a much larger leviathan. Even if they have a decent amount of money and maybe even three nice houses. Pales in comparison to BlackRock at owning something like 25% of all houses.

My wording of Humanity versus Capital was deliberately chosen. This is how I see the world. There are those things which are pro-human and those which are anti-human. Extortionate lending is anti-human, as is militant gender ideology, and degrowth.

@VehmicJuryman

nothing it could do would ever make it so that IQs between ethnic Germans and Russians and Tatars were par with each other.

There is no reason to think this completely immutable. Something you have not addressed in any comments of mine for obvious reasons: your presence here on the diet-improves-brain forum proves that intelligence is not fixed by genes. I have no reason to hope for the fixed nature of IQ: I want as many people as possible to be intelligent. And history does not seem to show a fixed intelligence over time within some ethnic group (usually for the worse these days with the effects of Covid)

Maybe this is why leftists like mass migration so much?

I don't like mass migration, or as I call it, "irrational migration", where it is harder to import intelligent foreigners legally than less intelligent ones illegally. As @Corngold points out it is largely Capitalist interest that requires mass migration for cheap labor: in the Communist countries it is not there. It was East Germany that built the Berlin Wall.

That communism retards economic growth is pretty well established.

China is the world's fastest growing economy. And it's likely underestimated because they still use the Leninist MPS system to compute GDP, instead of Western systems that include things like illegal drug dealing, in the case of Britain.

I will agree with you that in the long run, undeveloped Leninism (killed off in its development by Khruschev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev) wasn't scalable to going beyond providing what we would call basic needs such as electricity (at a historically unprecedented pace). Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping, provide the latest synthesis. The current condition of liberalism by contrast is economically disastrous, but you would call this the fault of "leftism", probably, where it is exactly the result of not questioning the right to debts, private property (in the sense of telecommunications as privately owned, not your house), and vulgar individualism buttressed by non-optional socialized scams. In some sense you are right: the tendency of people to be safe and snuggly "leftists", instead of capital-C Communists, helps to perpetuate the problem for a few years more.

@Corngold

The Holodomor claimed several million in Ukraine via famine, intentional starvation, etc.

This is suppressed

The Holodomor is not "suppressed". It is name-dropped in a completely ahistorical way in HBO's Chernobyl TV-series, for example. Cartoons and such depicting Holodomor from that time people are readily available.

You are right that the Holocaust is relatively more propagandized... in part because it is an important part of the mythology of Israel.

The Confederates were holding onto slave labor to finance their meager existence which was being robbed of them due to the Jewish bankers in New York and Jewish bankers in London.

Lincoln wrote to Marx; Marx admired Lincoln.

Indeed, the CPUSA venerated Lincoln in the 1940s. Images of this are readily google-able.

You are aware that the USSR supported and made possible in its current form the anti-Zionist movement, right? And today, it is China that hosts the foremost anti-Zionist factions? Does this consist of "Judaic governance" in your view?

Stalin had killed perhaps the second-most prominent Bolshevik Jew, Trotsky, with an ice axe. The USSR's universities, like American ones, had Jewish Quotas.

Perhaps there are ways you explain away such things in terms of "fall guys" and such. A Hierarchy of Jews. But the story seems inconsistent to me.

UK got friendly with Russia via Churchill and the Jewish bankers/oligarchs,

What are you talking about? As I show above, Churchill was an avowed anti-communist. Honestly part of the reason why Britain today is irrelevant.

Whatever he was, or what he believed, I don't think his scientific or biological views can be reduced to politics.

Ray Peat said:

US people don't realize how ridiculously degraded their standard of living has become. Nutrition is political economical. The governments tell people to eat beans and bread for a reason.

You said:

Oligarchs make bank, the government gets enriched, and everyone else pretty much works for the state.

China (and Vietnam) execute billionaires. We don't go there.

What is "communism" at this stage, really?

The latest synthesis of Communism is Xi Jinping Thought of China + Deng Xiaoping. "Housing is for living in, not for speculation", and so on. The objective material development of China seems to me hard to argue with for those that have paid attention: with its sanctions etc. the US seems to be quite literally stuck in the 20th century in a lot of ways, and not the cute and quaint ones. Where it has failed to actually develop itself for fear of inevitably creating socialism, making the position of the current ruling class irrelevant, it has compensated by jacking up the price of all of the various non-optional scams, like housing, education, food, childcare. Certainly you can work to avoid these, usually using family connections, and so just as in the late USSR, a vast "shadow economy" forms alongside the official economy, which stifles the real thing nearly to death. Home ownership rates in China (and Russia) are something like 90%+, in the US it is 65%.

I can't see how his lefty views could somehow influence all of his opinions and statements about nutrition, health, energy, etc.

It's very Maoist. "Make blast furnaces in your backyard" maps onto "Consume Fruit to Grow Your Brain' pretty well. All the more so because right-racialists lean toward the brain's trajectory already being fixed. Have you read Peat's "Mind and Tissue"? He himself lays it out pretty well in that book.

arguably implementing global "democratic" communist governance across the world

You are correct that the US is already by necessity in a pseudo-socialist condition. Many of the current "left" types today miss this, not understanding that factory shifts in Marx's time were 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, there was no public schooling, it was still legal in many places (Russia, USA) to own people, and only the minority knew how to read. Capitalism honestly ended in 1929. Maybe even in 1917 when the US became obsessed with war debt, initiated income taxes, the Federal Reserve, broke its century-long policy of isolation in order to make sure that Britain would not default. Capitalism today is a "superstructural" phenomenon, less so a "base" one, especially with the 1971 end of the gold standard. (Read "Superimperialism" by Michael Hudson for more on the effects of this internationally).

I do defend Stalin, and I disparage especially unproductive creditor-type financial capitalism of the US. In spite of its Eurasian-type vulgarity (which is overemphasized, but is present), Marxism-Leninism has changed the world like quite literally nothing else. And so I consider myself a part of this tradition. Which is something the right side misses: that this is an entire family of thought and less so a dogmatic thing that started and ended with the USSR. The late USSR and late rule of Mao Zedong I personally am not keen on defending.

You do seem like one of the more intelligent right-ish people here. Nice job. In spite of this, your touting the lie of 500 trillion victims of Communism shows that it was not sublated into the liberal-fascist project. It is the true opposition to it, which is why it seems, from the other side of the aisle, like the actual "Spectre" of pure evil, as Marx himself described already in 1848.

@VehmicJuryman

The USSR was very ignorant about the role of these things and ascribed almost all racial differences to 'material conditions'.

This is not such an inappropriate perspective to have when the USSR sent the male literacy rate from 30% to near 100%, literally inventing a number of languages and writing systems along the way that are still used today (e.g., Azerbaijaini). Modifying the population by the exploitation of materialist perspectives.

The USSR has been described as the world's first "affirmative action empire". It had double standards nationalism for its petty peripheral minorities while denigrating and discriminating against Russians, for example, up until Stalin was forced to make a limited embrace of Russian nationalism in the face of WW2.

I wonder what you think the "correct" perspective is here. Should Stalin have been more Racist in favor of Russians at the expense of a colonized periphery (which in turn fueled the Nazi-collaborating OUN of Ukraine)? Or do you believe in a philistinism of many scattered, narrow, ultra-racist fiefdoms, like pre-unification Germany or Italy? Taken in either direction, the "nationalist" perspective is Gnostic and unserious.

Even after that it spent the entire Cold War supporting Third World anti-colonial revolutions based on the idea that "exploitation" and "imperialism" explained the clear racial differences at play.

This move irreversibly changed the face of the world, sending the age of widespread vulgar imperialism to an end, and was largely successful. To this day the definitive weapon of insurgency is the cheap AK-47 and variants. And it was exactly the distribution of this weapon and others that fueled the success of anti-colonial fighting, where the so-called "racial characteristics" had not changed. The same is shown true by your example of Rhodesia in an opposite way. Racism was not enough to win the support of the White world.

Vietnamese are actually one of the highest IQ populations in the world

Do you honestly believe that this was the case during the era of colonialism and guerilla warfare? I would sooner say that Communism and its focus on self-development and rigorous study for the entire population explains the difference, if any, observed today.

Economic conditions in these places were severely retarded by communism,

That is just counterfactual. In fact Communism was probably the single greatest political force for the improvement of living standards for the global majority in the entire 20th century.

(Interesting and related read: https://sci-hub.ru/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/347925/)

(Here you have Russia: note the dip caused by the Capitalist reforms of the 1990s, with restoration under the Putin regime)

@VehmicJuryman

You are being very selective with figures to craft your narrative - 10% of aircraft. No mention of the percentage of trucks, munitions, raw materials, etc provided by the liberal US to the communists. Even pointing out that Lend Lease provided only 10% of aircraft doesn't actually refute the point, since that 10% could be what made the difference.

I am referring to aircraft in particular because, if you read the source of the quote that I linked, this is what Stalin was referring to.

Since it's impossible to definitively prove a counterfactual (i.e. that Germany would have defeated the communists if the liberals hadn't bailed them out),

I will remind you that 85% of Lend-Lease supplies arrived in 1943 and later, well after the battle of Stalingrad in which the USSR had already turned the tide of the Nazi invasion. If Lend-lease had any effect, it was making the remainder of the war mildly less painful. But it is very unlikely that it would have changed the final outcome. It even makes complete sense from a political perspective: why would you give loans to a system that will fail and default?

If racial and national differences aren't real

I don't think racial and national differences aren't real. I just don't think they're immutable (as the Romans correctly identified Germanics, Britons, and Franks as being irrelevant barbarians in that time, for example). To a large extent, such differences are the product of the material-social-political-technological environment. Which is once again, the entire point of the bioenergetic worldview: that the environment you are in, or create for yourself, changes your mind and your being. Your being here (as well as the inheritance of acquired characteristics) refutes the perspective that everything has already been decided by your genes.

The massive increases in life expectancy found in Communist regimes are a great example of this. As are the fact that average heights are actually increasing in China decade after decade.

Lysenko represents the truly materialist scientific methodology. Western genetics represents the rationalist reductionist view of reality. This is why they had to remove him.

Ray Peat, PhD.

Why did Vietnam win the Vietnam war? Why did the US fail to defeat Korea? Why did Rhodesia lose to ZImbabwe? Nazi Race Science would have gotten you nowhere with explaining these things that Actually Happened.

Also, lol @ the double standard of saying that the USSR was justified in reclaiming the Russian Empire's territories in Poland but Germany wasn't justified in reclaiming the German Empire's territories in Poland.

I don't think it was "justified". I do not believe in any justice other than being correct, being in harmony with actual material reality, in optimizing the function of the mitochondrion worker-units and the Central Government of the brain. I am saying it was more politically acceptable to Britain and France.

I'm inclined to agree with the others here that a more meaningful life could be intensely therapeutic for such issues, when modifying intake parameters is not that helpful. At a glance, are you underemployed? Outside of a Job, do you have Work that you do? Do you have an occupation? Do you live with bad people? Good work can be one of the best things. Bad work one of the worst as well, of course.

It was ultimately a frenetic season of academic work (publishing) which decisively turned the tide for me personally for similar issues. Everything else in my case after that was just followthrough effects. A sense of real success attached to my Government Name to roll into everything else.

@temple-of-salt A light dose of melatonin just to get the job done won't kill you in my experience. Then again I am not too familiar with Peat's critique of melatonin, beyond it being somewhat antimetabolic.

Part of the variable here is that doses given in pills are about 10x too high. Effects occur in good effect at 1/10 the normal dose of 3mg, i.e., 0.3mg. Using a liquid formula of melatonin, you can use these smaller amounts. A decent one is available at whole foods, which I occasionally use.

Weight train 4 times a week

Maybe try reducing the amount or intensity of training, even walking? Exercise used to bring on a kind of cortisol-induced mania in me, with symptoms not unlike what you describe.

@VehmicJuryman

Note that this reply does not refute the substance of the claim by Stalin.

It does, because the content of the quote has completely changed. It in fact changes the substance completely from discussing something that supposedly happened, to instead a petition for something to happen, which did not in substance. Total aircraft given to the USSR under lend-lease was something like 15k units, while the USSR produced 140k during wartime, around ~10%. In the frame of Stalin's production figures, this would be around 1.5 months of US military production.

Nikita Khrushchev

Ah, Khrushchev. His entire political career was built off of throwing Stalin and his accomplishments under the bus. I'm not entirely sure you know this history, so I would recommend Losurdo if you care to learn.

Goebbels' 1941 diaries paint a completely different picture of the wartime situation:

July 24: We cannot doubt the fact that the Bolshevik regime, which has existed
for almost a quarter century, has left deep scars on the peoples of the Soviet
Union [...]. We should therefore clearly emphasize the hardness of the battle
being waged in the east to the German people. The nation should be told that
this operation is very difficult, but we can overcome it and get through.41
August 1: The headquarters of the Führer [...] is also openly admitting that it
has erred a little in the assessment of Soviet military strength. The Bolsheviks
are displaying more resistance than we had assumed; in particular, they have
more material means at their disposal than we believed.42
August 19: Privately, the Führer is very irritated with himself for having been
deceived so much about the potential of the Bolsheviks by reports from [Ger-
man agents in] the Soviet Union. In particular, his underestimation of the
enemy’s armored infantry and air force has created many problems. He has suf-
fered a lot. This is a serious crisis [...]. The campaigns we had carried out until
now were almost walks [...]. The Führer had no reason to be concerned about
the west [...]. In our German rigor and objectivity we have always overestimated
the enemy, with the exception in this case of the Bolsheviks.43
September 16: We calculated the potential of the Bolsheviks in a completely
erroneous way.44
November 29, 1941: “How can such a primitive people manage such technical
achievements in such a short time?”61
August 26, 1942: “With regard to Russia, it is incontestable that Stalin has
raised living standards. The Russian people were not being starved [at the time
of the start of Operation Barbarossa]. Overall, we must recognize that: work-
shops of the scale of the Hermann Goering Werke have been built where two years
ago there were only unknown villages. We are discovering railway lines that are
not on the maps.”

In reality, the UK and France declared war on Germany in September 1939, after Germany invaded Poland.

Yes. And then they didn't do anything for nine months in a period known as the Phoney War.

The communists did not enter the war with Germany until 1941.

This is a weird framing of it. You are aware that Germany invaded the USSR, right? Stalin was trying to buy as much time as possible to prepare for this inevitable invasion, hence the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this difference in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed" Stalin, 1931

Difference is that Poland was part of the historical territory of the Russian Empire, lost in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk: for them it was more like reclaiming territory. For Germany, Britain's old continental rival, it was a more aggressive act. It is clear though that just as they let Hitler annex Austria for free, that even this declaration of war brought no military action. Truly they were trying to sit it out, crossing their fingers for a military defeat of the USSR.

Especially WInston Churchill, who was a rabid anti-communist. In 1919 he led a military invasion of the USSR by Britain, which would have proceeded and expanded was it not for the discontent of the domestic British labor movement.

“I think the day will come when it will be recognized without doubt, not only on one side of the House, but throughout the civilized world, that the strangling of Bolshevism at its birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race.”

Mr. Seymour Cocks (Lab.) interrupted: “If that had happened we should have lost the 1939–45 war.”

Churchill replied: “No, it would have prevented the last war.”

After the war, he had drafted up a plan to invade the USSR himself using nuclear weapons deployed on Moscow: "Operation Unthinkable".

@VehmicJuryman Stalin said this at a dinner with the Western Allies in 1943, where he was trying to curry their favor for an expansion of Lend-Lease.

Your quote is actually misleading, because it's formatted in the past-tense, certainly for ideological reasons. The real quote is:

"The United States, therefore, is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines, through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war." - Joseph Stalin

From

FDR did the same to him in kind, proposing that India be reformed "largely along the Soviet line". Of course part of the motivation was to undermine the British Empire, which had become a war-debtor to the United States at that point.

@Prometheus88

You do realize the only reason the soviets survived the war is because the US was constantly supplying them with weaponry right?

You are referring to the Lend-Lease program, which nominally started in 1941.
Lend-Lease ultimately made up about 4% of Soviet war production, a relatively small amount. 85% of Lend-Lease supplies arrived after 1943, when the USSR had already turned the tide against the Fascist invasion.

Did you know that the Nazi State continued to pay their WW1 debts to England during the war? Why did the Western allies not open a second front until 1944, despite Stalin constantly petitioning them? Why did Hitler not invade Britain by land, when he had the means? Did you know that Hitler took power by martial law after a false-flag attack as a result of the Reichstag Fires, and the Gleiwitz Incident, not by popular means, as often thought? Did you know that Himmler tried to petition the Western powers for a separate peace, going behind Hitler's back, knowing that he would get a better deal with them if successful? Why was there a Phoney War on the onset of the conflict?

Germanic brothers, blinded by Jewish propaganda smashed them with far greater numbers and their own weaponry made via Germanic ingenuity.

... Are you trying to refer to Britain and the USA? The USSR killed 86% of Wehrmacht during the war, and they did it in effect all by themselves. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf decades prior that he wanted to conquer the USSR. This was basically his entire real political program from start to finish, and he failed at it.

The premise of your second paragraph has been refuted, so I will not address it. You know what nation actually represents the Aryan caste-system ideology today? India. Do you want to be like India?

I will inject the following: Did you know that after the October Revolution that founded the USSR, both England and America immediately invaded? This is actually how Winston Churchill (an alcoholic) got his career started, as an avowed anti-Bolshevist. Did you know that unlike Hitler, Lenin immediately cancelled all foreign debts upon taking power?

Meanwhile, Hitler took power in the mid 1930s, and the allies did not open a front against him until 1944. Famously, he was on the cover of Time magazine, and the British royal family famously gave a Hitler salute in a photograph. Mussolini was sworn into office by the King of Italy himself, and not by a popular act.

To act as though the "Germanic" world order was decidedly against Hitler is ahistorical jibber put forward to justify the existence of those regimes: the reality is that they waited on the sidelines of the real USSR-Nazi conflict until the last possible moment to prevent the USSR from conquering all of Europe. As I have already shown, a number of ex-Nazis were afterwards recruited into NATO, an anti-communist organization.