Posts made by zawisza

@ilovethesea said in New "Mission" of RPF:

Looks like @zawisza may be on their payroll.

Of all the addresses in the world for ZoomInfo to get wrong, it somehow links Ray Peat Forum supposedly founded by a guy in Florida to Cambridge University Pharmacology, Wellcome Trust and the World Health Organization?

Sure Jan.

@C-Mex said in New "Mission" of RPF:

They scanned some data that linked it to that address in Cambridge, UK. The complaint is about getting one address wrong, 400 miles away.

If you had some desire to actually understand what's going on instead of jumping on the bandwagon and piling as much shit as possible on a guy you hate, you would maybe have easier time understanding this. ICANN has redacted organization's address for privacy since they used cloudflare for hosting so there's no way of actually knowing the true addrss. Zoominfo can only "guess" their address by maliciously scanning users' emails and scraping the web. It's enough for the address to be mentioned on the website; it doesn't have to be associated actually with the website (just like in the article I sent). If you had read the article I posted you would know how wrong they can be, how they refuse to change, and that it's not just one address as you try to imply.

Knowing how zoominfo works, we should expected the Cambridge address to be present somewhere in the forum. And it is:
IP3 Receptors: Toward Understanding Their Activation
Colin W. Taylor and Stephen C. Tovey
Department of Pharmacology, University of Cambridge, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge, CB2 1PD, United Kingdom
Correspondence:Email: ku.ca.mac@0001twc
2010

Zoominfo found this address and assigned it to the website even though it's completely unrelated. Other "services" showing website info probably copied this from zoominfo since most of them scrape each other.

@ilovethesea said in New "Mission" of RPF:

Not to get too paranoid but it also occurred to me that this forum itself may be yet another project.

You're already too paranoid. Please stop.

@ilovethesea

Someone should start thread about peaty cures for schizophrenia because you all are mentally sick.

This took to seconds to find:

https://www.powerhomebiz.com/blog/2019/05/29/how-zoominfo-got-our-business-information-wrong/

Where from do you think they got the address? The Icann lookup shows address as redacted so how would a scammy data company get the actual info? Zoominfo has been sued many times and has dozens and dozens complaints for having fake info.

@Peatly You're saying this as if incels didn't exist before random researchers, founded by glowies, decided to write papers about them.

Some things happen naturally; not everything is a CIA psyop.

@questforhealth said in New "Mission" of RPF:

Scary times, wondering if we should print out the Ray Peat website and have it on paper. Or even have someone make a book or something...

Book about what? What's the point of it? If you want Peat's articles just download them and print them out. Use POD service like Lulu if you want it nicely printed. If you want Peat's biography read T3's substack.

@Jakeandpace said in New "Mission" of RPF:

I was actually going to make a thread on this requesting someone do this. Perhaps also add in some of their own knowledge on Peat himself like his philosophy etc.

Peat would recommend some people to read entire biology textbooks and there's plenty literature on "peaty" physiology already available. Peat's philosophy would be to get good and smart by reading actual research/textbooks and trying out things yourself instead of relying 3rd party renditions.

@yerrag said in New "Mission" of RPF:

You also know that Google Play Services is not open source, right?

https://opengapps.org/

@yerrag said in New "Mission" of RPF:

We are seeing technology being tilted towards state control and losing its ability to enable us, China's Harmony OS may look like an alternative

You know that Android is open source, right? Giving away your personal data to China is not necessary.

@cris search on YT "Eric Bugenhagen"

@Wily Catholic Church

@buckminster Right-left dichotomy is used purely polemically. On its own the distinction is meaningless. It can only be understood by the group that is being excluded from the category "left" or "right" by the speaker.

I'm right wing so: I exclude sin and hideous; and embrace beauty, strength and war against all that is evil. I exclude absolute equality and tabula rasa; and embrace hierarchy, blood and soil. I exclude tolerance of weakness and sickness; and embrace charity, virtue and selfless sacrifice.

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

The west is right wing. The crisis of the west is the crisis of capitalism. The overtone window has gone so far right that folks think someone is left wing if they drink Starbucks and don't hate gay people.

(The overtone window was not shifted by the right, but by the left (mostly around 2016) by calling everyone not drinking starbuck soy a nazi.)

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

Capitalism is the dictatorship of the rich and fascism is capitalism with the gloves off.

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

The right wing won in the west.

All those are wrong. Have you even read Evola? Trying to delineate right from left based on socialism or capitalism is a futile undertaking.

"Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subverisve as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the center of which is constituted of technology, science, production, 'productivity', and 'consumption'. And as long as we only talk about economics classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence - then we are not even close to what is essential..." - Evola

Socialistic ideas (though not limited to socialism) of charity and limited inclusivity (Catholicism) or social welfare and worker unions (Hitler) is not necessarily not right wing. Neither dictatorship (Franco) nor freedom from dictatorship (have you even read Junger?).

To be honest trying to objectively demarcate where leftism starts or ends is murky, so I tend to base it on intuition (everyone I don't like is a leftie). It usually comes down to objective moral standard (God/religion) and preference for ones own people - blood and soil, tradition. These are of course anti-capitalistic and not compatible with modern establishment so its silly IMO to say that the West is currently right wing.

Peatism, thought left leaning in principle, is founded on acknowledgement of natural order (not gay/trans-humanism compatible) and requires a degree of will to power, so with some modifications it is potent for right wing thought.

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

Speaking of health stereotypes it wasn't long ago when fash was associated with fat, ugly, dysgenic folks - and they still are to an extent, just watch videos of klan rallies.

Maybe it was the case in US, but not in Europe. You seem to have very US-centric view with historical perspective ending at 20th century.

@Runenight201 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

My characterization of left/right is based on empirical fact of the percentage of obese and diabetic people in the United States, so I don’t believe it to be speculation.

No, it is not. You said that you "disagree that healthy people veer to the right" which is a claim about the healthy people group. Your point about the percentage of obese and diabetic people in the United States is about an average right or left winger:

@Runenight201 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

If we take a look at the average person who ascribes to either side of the political isle, we are probably going to see an obese diabetic, given the typical profile of your average American.

Your claim is about an average person, mine about the distribution of the groups. The former does not imply the latter. My claim is that only considering healthy people of either political side, on average, more of them are right wing. And vice versa, considering just unhealthy people, on average, more of them are left wing. Still, both groups can be distributed with mean at the average american diabetic.

So, according to your terms both our claims are just "speculation", although mine is better because its logical and validated by your observations of vegans being leftist and rightist being more individualistic.

@Runenight201 Ok, if so then, what you said before:

@Runenight201 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

I disagree that healthy people veer to the right. The meme of a liberal being weak, beta, and a snowflake while the conservative is this strong macho character is a fantasy that lives in peoples heads.

is also a pure speculation.

I think that it is stupid to expected unbiased statistically-representative double blind peer reviewed studies for everything and it's clear to anyone caring to look that left wingers, nowadays, tend to be effeminate and women tend to be fat, ugly and drinking too much soy which definitely does not fit under the umbrella of "healthy" however you would like to define it.

@Runenight201 I agree with the first paragraph.

@Runenight201 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

If we take a look at the average person who ascribes to either side of the political isle, we are probably going to see an obese diabetic, given the typical profile of your average American.

Yes, but this is an answer to the wrong question. The right question is "are healthy people predominantly right-wing?" and not "are unhealthy people on both sides?". To this we can suggest that healthy people tend to be right wing as testosterone therapy cause red shift in liberal men; and weightlifting and self-improvement, nowadays, is usually associated with right wing. So, it is pretty safe to say that healthy people are generally not left wing (either right or center).

The meme about beta males being left wing has a lot of truth in it, and your example of diabetic on either side of political spectrum does not contradict that.

@Runenight201 said in Why is the Ray Peat community so far right?:

Anti-establishment can be either a left or right wing trait, right?

Technically, yes, that is why "the old" left had a lot of strong anti-establishment views, but the general movement is now more occupied with gender, equality, etc. which is inherently pro-establishment. So, the answer is: mainstream left, no; niche left, yes.

One could say that the old left has waned from public view because it fulfilled its purpose of rebellion against racism, etc. and now moved to rebel against new topics like gender, as Uncle Ted has talked about. And so, the change is a natural progression rather than a political hijacking or neutering, as the leftist continue to "rebel".

If we consider left wing as anti-hierarchical and right wing as pro-hierarchical then Peatism can be appealing to both although inherently anti-hierarchical and thus left wing.

@Sugar It's also true that muscles are pro-metabolic and so is being big. Workout stress can be offset with sugar and proper volume+rest.

What Sam does is not optimal and he's understanding of physiology is poor (just like the guy's in video), but who cares if he's redefining human limits regardless while guys like you are seething and coping for being smaller and weaker.

You cannot get jacked without "stress" and with "optimoool" "lifestyle". That's the price for greatness.

@Sugar said in Is Sam Sulek ugly gymcel cope being passed off as "based and sigma"?:

https://youtu.be/HcvhhyOawBE

"muh everything I don't like is a propaganda pushed to me by rockefeller and the js"

"Gym reduces your lifespan."

"He looks like a freak. No women will ever find him attractive."

"Training legs is the most useless thing you could possible do. The muscle you train would never be used in nature."

"People 100 years ago would believe he has some kind of mental illness."

People 100 years ago would believe he is a monster, he would go from town to town and challenge other strongmen, or perform tricks in a circus. Lindy lifestyle. Of course he had to make the "no woman will like him" argument because he's weak and lives in a longhouse. "Aesthetic this", "beauty that", but if you truly cared you would have recognized the Faustian strife of the White Man - to conquer land, space, and even one's own flesh.

Sure it's not "optimooool" but who would want to be like that and at the end of days still die nameless? In the end the only slave is you for as long as you keep obsessing over Sam.

Overall, longhoused weak loser with un-peaty diet advice. Why would you link something like that?

@Martiño said in Regional nationalisms:

How would humanity evolve if we were loyal to the real distribution of the land, based of culture differences even inside what we know as countries nowadays?

Hasn't it already done so? I know as a Galician it may not seems so, but the division is inherently arbitrary as you have pointed out by mentioning the uniqueness of each person - should Galicia be an independent nation, or should they be united with Basques and Catalans against Liberals. Liberals, on the other hand, believed in Spanish nationalism, and Russians in unified Slavs, and similarly to a degree Hitler or Napoleon. But which division is right or wrong?

IMO, while not perfect, current division seems quite stable and reasonable.

@Martiño said in Regional nationalisms:

I believe French revolution marked the way to stablish systems and nations as we have to day, "all of this is France" or "all of this is Spain"

Dr. Dutton believes that unification and falling apart of people is related to environmental factors: that in difficult times power lies in groups, nations; while in easy and comfortable ones, the people's differences make them torn asunder. Clearly, man never have lived in more comfortable times and so it makes sense that, safe from dangers of World Wars and Cold War, now seek further and further division.

Ideally, local patriotism should be promoted and cherished, but it should not overshadow the national unity as it will be crucial when difficult times comes; and neither should nationalism stamp out local cultures.

@jwayne You seem to care more about theologians than that of which they speak. Religion ought not be judged only on humans following it but more importantly on its principles as its more objective standard. I do not doubt that if one were to prove anything, theologians and "thinkers" would skilfully show that it proves their worldview and once again claim superiority over the others, but it bears little weight on veracity of fundamental tenants of a religion.

Below, I will refer to the Catholic dogma but Bible alone should suffice to prove all of the following arguments.

It is Catholic dogma that (1) the only intelligent creatures are angles and Man and that (2) all Man come from Adam and Eve. From this alone it is obvious that existence of intelligent aliens would be detrimental to Christianity and by consequence, since the West has taken its conclusions for granted for the last two thousand years, to science and philosophy. Only exceptions would be if these "aliens" were in fact humans who in the past travelled to starts with forgotten technology but that is clearly not scientific or historically accurate.

For a Christian, by definition, any UFO phenomenon that can not be explained by human or natural event must be of demonic nature.

Moreover, in Christian worldview, the world is fallen - imperfect. Thus, came the Saviour to save the Man from his sins. Note, God became Man; not alien or intelligent being, but the Man, i.e., the son of Adam. Any intelligent creature, through natural reason has ability to discern that God exists and has moral imperative to follow his will (i.e., not sin). If intelligent ETs exist one of the following must be true:

• ETs had their fall like Man: and had their own Saviour - God-made-ET (can not be since Jesus was "the only begotten Son" of God); or Jesus's sacrifice saved them too (illogical and doesn't follow from the Bible); or they never been saved and are condemned forever (denies God's good and loving nature and at whole is not compatible with Genesis).
• ETs are not fallen but live in the fallen world (unjust).
• ETs are not fallen and only part of the universe is actually fallen (ridiculous as this would imply that one can travel between fallen and unfallen parts or communicate between them).

All of these are denied by Dogma and are not compatible with Bible as can be reasoned by anyone with mediocre knowledge of it. In no place does the Bible speak of many worlds or kinds of Man or gives any possibility of life outside of Earth in general. No Christian in good faith can believe in intelligent ETs.

Hopefully, it is clear now why ET existence can be denied "without scientific" evidence from philosophical arguments alone and that it is a question with potentially huge metaphysical consequences.

(If ETs were proven to not exist, then buddhism and islam (AFAIK) would be in trouble, but since they are already greatly inconsistent it probably would not be of a great importance.)

@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:

That does not mean that what religion says is absolutely true but rather that the domain of the absolutely true is the inquiry of religion

And so, the True Religion must have the key to the the immutable, absolute Truth. You can deny, as you seem you do, existence of the True Religion, but then it seems difficult to defend the point of religion as study of the immutable as there can be no immutable things since there is nothing that is absolutely True and if there is then it can not be known.

@jwayne Man though live on many continents has come from the same place and same parents: Adam and Eve.

If "aliens" would be sons of Adam who long in the past have traversed the heavens to other planets, then such position would not be heretical (for a Christian) but "only" historically and scientifically wrong.

@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:

In brief, "aliens" - in spite of whatever faculties and technology they possess - still belong to the phenomenal world. Hence they have no bearing on, to give a salient example, angels or demons which are not defined by corporeality.

Demons and angels, though pure spirits, in Christian doctrine, have ability to take on physical forms, thus UFO phenomenons can be explained, from Christian point of view, as demonic.

@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:

if they possess all of the qualities 'man' possesses

Not exactly. The only relevant quality is intelligence. And since no one would care about aliens if they were bacteria, I take it as presupposition that aliens in question are intelligent. This point is further validated by their supposed presence on Earth and super-advanced technology needed to comes here like "production of gravity".

@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:

Perhaps Buddhism will say they are 'man' and Judaism will call them aberrated man-like demons or something.

I'm not well versed in buddhism or islam, but from what I've read so far both speak of ETs in their (at least in case of islam, divinely revealed) texts. If the truth were to the contrary, it would contradict the infallibility of the texts and put into question entire religion -- similarly, for Christianity, presence of intelligent ET is contradictory. Thus, question of ETs is of fundamental consequences for many religions and is not merely a topic for future theological debates.

@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:

The rest of religious doctrine is similarly unaffected when we begin strictly from metaphysics.

@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:

To consider if "aliens" are 'man' or in some infra- or supra- relation to him has only a moral significance

Again, I disagree. While it is not directly dogmatically established, it is not complicated to see that from Christian point of view intelligent ETs are contradictory and such belief heretical. Lack of ETs, on the other hand, would show uniqueness of Earth and Man and point towards Christian faith, which, for many "scientists", is unbearable as is indicate by their fervour when searching for life and poetry when speaking of vastness of universe and all possible life in it.