Meeting Dr. Peat

[tara]

Ray Peat actually talks about Noam Chomsky:

This is about Chomsky's linguistic theory, which Peat is very critical of.

I would expect them to have a lot more in common in their views in other areas of Chomsky's work.

 

[x-ray peat]

This is about Chomsky's linguistic theory, which Peat is very critical of.

I would expect them to have a lot more in common in their views in other areas of Chomsky's work.

I would think that Ray sees Chomsky for who he is, a gate-keeper/controlled opposition for TPTB. Chomsky is a professor at MIT which is the most richly funded institution of the Military Industrial complex. If Chomsky was a real threat he would not still be at MIT. He has been so bold as to say that it doesn't matter who did 9/11 when his support for the official story-line became less and less tenable. Ray has written many times about how the CIA funds the leaders of both the left and right. I don't think Chomsky is any different. In fact I would even guess that his Linguistic Theory was developed at RAND or some other think tank and given to him to promote to steer education/society in a more authoritarian/racist direction.

 

[tara]

I would think that Ray sees Chomsky for who he is, a gate-keeper/controlled opposition for TPTB. Chomsky is a professor at MIT which is the most richly funded institution of the Military Industrial complex. If Chomsky was a real threat he would not still be at MIT. He has been so bold as to say that it doesn't matter who did 9/11 when his support for the official story-line became less and less tenable. Ray has written many times about how the CIA funds the leaders of both the left and right. I don't think Chomsky is any different. In fact I would even guess that his Linguistic Theory was developed at RAND or some other think tank and given to him to promote to steer education/society in a more authoritarian/racist direction.

I think he might have been hard to dislodge once he was established there, without other negative consequences for TPTB. Have you actually read much of his non-linguistic work? He's a pretty thorough historian, and shows up a great deal of history inconvenient to the rulers. Also shines light on areas where successive US govts, both R and D, have been far from representing public opinion in policy from economics to foreign affairs.

This doesn't look to me like the gate keeper for TPTB:

"the word terrorism has a meaning, it is defined in the US and international law and so on. But that’s not the definition we are allowed to use. We use the word terrorism in a way which means there’s terrorism against us but not our terrorism against them. That’s not terrorism. So for example, if we use the word “terrorism” in its litteral meaning, the most extreme terrorist operation in the world today would be Obama’s global assassination campaign, the drone campaign" Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky Quotes
Noam Chomsky, May 2015 (via resister-au-desert)

"It is striking to see how every element of the neo-liberal package is specifically designed to undercut democracy. It’s rarely discussed and people talk about its economic effects but just think it through. Lets take, say, financial liberalization, core. For Keynes the greatest achievement for the Bretton Woods System - post war system - was to institute financial regulation, and there’s a reason. That provides space for governments to undertake programs that are supported by the population. If you have no constraints on capital flow, then you can attack currencies freely.
That creates what international economists sometimes call a virtual parliament of investors and lenders who can - I’m quoting from technical literature - “carry out a moment by moment referrendum on government policies”. And if they think the policies are irrational, they can vote against them by capital flight or by attacks on the currencies, and so on. Policies that are irrational are, by definition, those that benefit people, but don’t improve profit and market access and so on. And therefore, governments face what’s called a dual constituency - their own population, and the virtual parliament.
And the virtual parliament usually wins, especially in poorer countries. The rich countries, it was modulated, they didn’t accept the neo-liberal package as completely as say, Latin America, but to the extent that they did, the effects are predictable. And the same is true of other elements of neo-liberal programs. Take say, privitization, which became a mantra. Well, by definition, privitization undercuts democracy. It takes something out of the public arena and puts it into the hands of unaccountable private tyrannies that are created and appointed by the state, which is what corporations are."
Noam Chomsky
(Source: youtube.com)

"Coucha Ahmad, Chief Strategy Officer | Entrepreneur | TEDxCairo Co-Founder: I find both of you & Milton Friedman to have some of the most influence in shaping the current world’s different thought schools & streams. Nevertheless, i also find that you both don’t agree on the very basic fundamentals of how the world should be.

What do you think is the one most thing that Milton Friedman got wrong about the world & humanity in general?

Noam Chomsky: I think Milton Friedman’s interpretation of the success of market systems is historically seriously wrong and his faith in market systems to achieve desirable ends I think is grossly mistaken. And I don’t accept his values either. I don’t think that the ability to succeed in a system of competition is much of a value to be admired. …

Take the United States, the richest society and most powerful society in the world. How did it develop economically? Well, through massive state intervention. Huge state intervention.

I mean what economists sometimes talk about is the high level of protectionism, which is true. The United States was a pioneer in protectionism in order to develop first the textile industry, the beginnings of industrial development, and on through steel and other industries. It had to protect itself from superior British technology and production. And meanwhile stealing technology from Britain and others. But that’s the least of it. That’s what economists talk about, but that’s the periphery.

I mean, the U.S. economy was built on vicious and murderous slave labor. The slave labor camps in the south, producing cotton, would have impressed the nazis. And they were quite efficient. Efficiency was in fact increased, productivity was increased rapidly through the technology of a bullwhip and a pistol, just by torturing people much more viciously. And that’s a large part of the source of the modern economy. Cotton of course was the fuel of the early industrial revolution, but it’s not just cotton production. Cotton production which expanded over the world, based very heavily in slave labor camps here, was the basis for the development of a lot of the merchant class, of early industrialization. The biggest industrializations anywhere were the textile mills of Lowell and Lancashire and so on. It developed the financial systems which were used to finance it, and the range of interactions became globalized. That’s an enormous contribution to the developing economy of the United States, of Britain, of other European countries, and so on.

What’s that go to do with markets? I mean that’s just a violent intrusion in market systems. And that’s only part of it. What about clearing the continent of its indigenous inhabitants? That’s a pretty severe interference of the state of course in human interactions and social and economic systems. I mean they had an economy. In fact it was a pretty advanced economy. It was destroyed. They were destroyed. There’s some margins left somewhere in reservations. And that’s just the beginning. I’m not even talking about the effect of imperial aggression on developing the economy.

I mean the idea that economies develop from market systems is so grossly false that you can hardly even talk about it. Of course, I talked about the United States but the same was true of England before it. Basically the same methods. And every other developed economy. Germany, France… France, for example, it’s estimated that about roughly twenty percent of France’s wealth comes from murderous vicious slave labor in one colony: Haiti, which France virtually destroyed and is still contributing to destroying today. They participated in throwing out the elected president a couple years ago. And that generalizes around the world.

You can argue - it may be right or it may be wrong - that markets are useful for things like conveying information. That can be disconnected from giving gain and profit to those who are participating in them.

If you come to the present, let’s take a look at contemporary markets. Forget the history. So on the eve of the last recession, for which the financial institutions were largely responsible, their share of corporate profits in the United States was about forty percent. So they’re a huge part of the economy. Where do they get their profit from? Well actually there was an IMF study about a year or so ago which tried to estimate the source of the profits of the six biggest American banks - JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and so on. It concluded that the profits come almost entirely from a public subsidy, an implicit public subsidy - it’s called “too big to fail,” informally, which is an implicit government guarantee that we’re not going to let you fail. Of course the credit rating agencies know this very well. They get higher credit ratings. They get access to cheap money. They get incentives to carry out risky transactions, which can be quite profitable, because they’re going to be bailed out if they collapse. All of this amounts to a huge subsidy. The business press estimated it at over eighty billion dollars a year. There are various debates among economists as to what it is but it’s huge. That’s the beginning.

What about energy industries? Huge part of the economy. The IMF just came out with another study more recently which estimated that worldwide, of course concentrated in the rich countries, the subsidy from the public - it’s called government subsidy, meaning from the public - amounts to maybe five trillion dollars a year.

This is a market system? "
http://www.parlio.com/qa/noam-chomsky
September 25, 2015

He has a website here: chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website
There are some nice quotes here: Noam Chomsky Quotes

 

[x-ray peat]

I think he might have been hard to dislodge once he was established there, without other negative consequences for TPTB. Have you actually read much of his non-linguistic work? He's a pretty thorough historian, and shows up a great deal of history inconvenient to the rulers. Also shines light on areas where successive US govts, both R and D, have been far from representing public opinion in policy from economics to foreign affairs.

This doesn't look to me like the gate keeper for TPTB:

"the word terrorism has a meaning, it is defined in the US and international law and so on. But that’s not the definition we are allowed to use. We use the word terrorism in a way which means there’s terrorism against us but not our terrorism against them. That’s not terrorism. So for example, if we use the word “terrorism” in its litteral meaning, the most extreme terrorist operation in the world today would be Obama’s global assassination campaign, the drone campaign" Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky Quotes
Noam Chomsky, May 2015 (via resister-au-desert)

"It is striking to see how every element of the neo-liberal package is specifically designed to undercut democracy. It’s rarely discussed and people talk about its economic effects but just think it through. Lets take, say, financial liberalization, core. For Keynes the greatest achievement for the Bretton Woods System - post war system - was to institute financial regulation, and there’s a reason. That provides space for governments to undertake programs that are supported by the population. If you have no constraints on capital flow, then you can attack currencies freely.
That creates what international economists sometimes call a virtual parliament of investors and lenders who can - I’m quoting from technical literature - “carry out a moment by moment referrendum on government policies”. And if they think the policies are irrational, they can vote against them by capital flight or by attacks on the currencies, and so on. Policies that are irrational are, by definition, those that benefit people, but don’t improve profit and market access and so on. And therefore, governments face what’s called a dual constituency - their own population, and the virtual parliament.
And the virtual parliament usually wins, especially in poorer countries. The rich countries, it was modulated, they didn’t accept the neo-liberal package as completely as say, Latin America, but to the extent that they did, the effects are predictable. And the same is true of other elements of neo-liberal programs. Take say, privitization, which became a mantra. Well, by definition, privitization undercuts democracy. It takes something out of the public arena and puts it into the hands of unaccountable private tyrannies that are created and appointed by the state, which is what corporations are."
Noam Chomsky
(Source: youtube.com)

"Coucha Ahmad, Chief Strategy Officer | Entrepreneur | TEDxCairo Co-Founder: I find both of you & Milton Friedman to have some of the most influence in shaping the current world’s different thought schools & streams. Nevertheless, i also find that you both don’t agree on the very basic fundamentals of how the world should be.

What do you think is the one most thing that Milton Friedman got wrong about the world & humanity in general?

Noam Chomsky: I think Milton Friedman’s interpretation of the success of market systems is historically seriously wrong and his faith in market systems to achieve desirable ends I think is grossly mistaken. And I don’t accept his values either. I don’t think that the ability to succeed in a system of competition is much of a value to be admired. …

Take the United States, the richest society and most powerful society in the world. How did it develop economically? Well, through massive state intervention. Huge state intervention.

I mean what economists sometimes talk about is the high level of protectionism, which is true. The United States was a pioneer in protectionism in order to develop first the textile industry, the beginnings of industrial development, and on through steel and other industries. It had to protect itself from superior British technology and production. And meanwhile stealing technology from Britain and others. But that’s the least of it. That’s what economists talk about, but that’s the periphery.

I mean, the U.S. economy was built on vicious and murderous slave labor. The slave labor camps in the south, producing cotton, would have impressed the nazis. And they were quite efficient. Efficiency was in fact increased, productivity was increased rapidly through the technology of a bullwhip and a pistol, just by torturing people much more viciously. And that’s a large part of the source of the modern economy. Cotton of course was the fuel of the early industrial revolution, but it’s not just cotton production. Cotton production which expanded over the world, based very heavily in slave labor camps here, was the basis for the development of a lot of the merchant class, of early industrialization. The biggest industrializations anywhere were the textile mills of Lowell and Lancashire and so on. It developed the financial systems which were used to finance it, and the range of interactions became globalized. That’s an enormous contribution to the developing economy of the United States, of Britain, of other European countries, and so on.

What’s that go to do with markets? I mean that’s just a violent intrusion in market systems. And that’s only part of it. What about clearing the continent of its indigenous inhabitants? That’s a pretty severe interference of the state of course in human interactions and social and economic systems. I mean they had an economy. In fact it was a pretty advanced economy. It was destroyed. They were destroyed. There’s some margins left somewhere in reservations. And that’s just the beginning. I’m not even talking about the effect of imperial aggression on developing the economy.

I mean the idea that economies develop from market systems is so grossly false that you can hardly even talk about it. Of course, I talked about the United States but the same was true of England before it. Basically the same methods. And every other developed economy. Germany, France… France, for example, it’s estimated that about roughly twenty percent of France’s wealth comes from murderous vicious slave labor in one colony: Haiti, which France virtually destroyed and is still contributing to destroying today. They participated in throwing out the elected president a couple years ago. And that generalizes around the world.

You can argue - it may be right or it may be wrong - that markets are useful for things like conveying information. That can be disconnected from giving gain and profit to those who are participating in them.

If you come to the present, let’s take a look at contemporary markets. Forget the history. So on the eve of the last recession, for which the financial institutions were largely responsible, their share of corporate profits in the United States was about forty percent. So they’re a huge part of the economy. Where do they get their profit from? Well actually there was an IMF study about a year or so ago which tried to estimate the source of the profits of the six biggest American banks - JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and so on. It concluded that the profits come almost entirely from a public subsidy, an implicit public subsidy - it’s called “too big to fail,” informally, which is an implicit government guarantee that we’re not going to let you fail. Of course the credit rating agencies know this very well. They get higher credit ratings. They get access to cheap money. They get incentives to carry out risky transactions, which can be quite profitable, because they’re going to be bailed out if they collapse. All of this amounts to a huge subsidy. The business press estimated it at over eighty billion dollars a year. There are various debates among economists as to what it is but it’s huge. That’s the beginning.

What about energy industries? Huge part of the economy. The IMF just came out with another study more recently which estimated that worldwide, of course concentrated in the rich countries, the subsidy from the public - it’s called government subsidy, meaning from the public - amounts to maybe five trillion dollars a year.

This is a market system? "
http://www.parlio.com/qa/noam-chomsky
September 25, 2015

He has a website here: chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website
There are some nice quotes here: Noam Chomsky Quotes

That is exactly how a gate-keeper operates. They will criticize the system over and over but will only address issues that the public is unlikely to do anything about. Moreover he will never give specific steps to take that would actually lead to any real change. His two favorite talking points are that the system favors Capital over Labor (true) and that the US is one of the world’s biggest terrorists (also true). However both of these issues is extremely complicated to fix and is unlikely to serve as a rallying cry to wake the masses into action. In this way he builds up his credibility with his target audience without ever posing the risk that his followers will actually do something besides vote Democratic.

However the gate-keeper’s main value is to be ready to cover up any issue that would cause the public to rally into action. He not only denies that there may be more to the 9/11 story than what the Government is telling us but still maintains that Oswald acted alone in killing JFK. This is in spite of the fact that a Congressional inquiry has concluded that it was a conspiracy that killed Kennedy and not the proverbial lone gunman. He also refuses to look into any of the activities of the Secret Societies, the Freemasons, the Private Foundations, or any of the Think Tanks much less any identifiable individual or group within the oligarchy. In fact he has also stated that the Federal reserve is a necessary part of capitalism and there is no point trying to shut it down unless you shut down capitalism as well. (not true.)

I used to be really into Chomsky and have read a few of his books, listened to every one of his mp3 I could find and even saw him speak once. He is very impressive for a while but eventually you start to see the cracks in his schtick. More importantly you don’t get to become the left’s top intellectual and get the massive left wing media adulation unless you are part of the club. They control both sides after all and always give us our Pied Pipers to follow.

 

[Travis]

He not only denies that there may be more to the 9/11 story than what the Government is telling us but still maintains that Oswald acted alone in killing JFK.

This is telling. I can't see how any serious historian can actually believe that Oswald acted alone. This explanation even violates a physical law. Bertrand Russel wasn't afraid to call shenanigans on the Warren Report.

 

[x-ray peat]

This is telling. I can't see how any serious historian can actually believe that Oswald acted alone. This explanation even violates a physical law. Bertrand Russel wasn't afraid to call shenanigans on the Warren Report.

Good article. I never saw that before.

It's funny that Chomsky says the exact same thing about 9/11 as he does the JFK assassination, "what does it matter who did it?" What an ****.

I've said this before but they design these Psy Ops to be purposely flawed so as to create even more trauma in people. The smart ones who see through it end up getting Gas Lighted as well as traumatized. More importantly the Kennedy Assassination was a warning to anyone in the club who may be thinking of jumping ship. The masonic symbolism of the ritual killing of the king that was employed would be obvious to any insider. Look into King Kill 33 (the book not the song).

 

[tara]

He also refuses to look into any of the activities of the Secret Societies, the Freemasons, the Private Foundations, or any of the Think Tanks much less any identifiable individual or group within the oligarchy.

I don't know if this is true or not. I think it can be really useful for people to do the journalistic work of investigating real conspiracies. But it is not fair to demand that some particular person pursue the specific issues that you think are most important. Personally, I think it is quite useful that he points out that a great deal of the problem is conducted not as conspiracies, but in broad daylight.

 

[x-ray peat]

I don't know if this is true or not. I think it can be really useful for people to do the journalistic work of investigating real conspiracies. But it is not fair to demand that some particular person pursue the specific issues that you think are most important. Personally, I think it is quite useful that he points out that a great deal of the problem is conducted not as conspiracies, but in broad daylight.

I would agree with that. Political commentators don't need to go down every rabbit hole to be helpful. But my issue with Chomsky is not only that he doesn't dig deep enough behind the scenesm but that he purposely tries to mislead those who do. Claiming that there is nothing more to 9/11 and the JFK assassination and saying what does it matter who did it is doing exactly that.

here is pure gate-keeping at its worst. skip to 1:00

and here is the real issue behind both events that Chomsky and most others won't touch.


"Intellectuals are servants of power" Noam Chomsky, Intellectual

 

[Ella]

He drives an early 2000s model Toyota Hilux. One of the most reliable and functional vehicles around.

Toyota Hilux is a workhorse. It implies that Ray may have a bit of land - growing spuds; raising goats for their milk and meat or perhaps an orchard. My kind of man. Never imagined Ray to be a farmer, then again, makes a lot of sense. Now I really need to know why he would drive a Hilux. Maybe he sells his produce at a farmer's market like delicious marmalade along with his beautiful artwork. This has really piqued my fantasy - Ray donning his beautiful sombrero while running his store. Now that would be a sight. He has removed it from his website.

 

[ken]

Maybe you'll have fun with this. UnGodly

 

[moss]

Toyota Hilux is a workhorse. It implies that Ray may have a bit of land - growing spuds; raising goats for their milk and meat or perhaps an orchard. My kind of man. Never imagined Ray to be a farmer, then again, makes a lot of sense. Now I really need to know why he would drive a Hilux. Maybe he sells his produce at a farmer's market like delicious marmalade along with his beautiful artwork. This has really piqued my fantasy - Ray donning his beautiful sombrero while running his store. Now that would be a sight. He has removed it from his website.

 

[Ella]

@moss, you just made me pee my pants. Synchronicity at play. This is precisely the shenigans that go on at my property when no-one is around. I have two steers and after this week's ordeal their days are numbered. They are such naughty boys and know they do wrong when I get a call from the neighbours that they have broken loose. As soon as they see me, they run back into the property - lucky!! I have been on the phone all day, trying to organise a mobile butcher. They ruined the fences, eaten through all the pastures and have stressed me no end this past week. Fortunately, my son did not put a gun to them. This is the second time I saved them from a bullet to the head. So thank you for posting. It made my day and had the best belly ache in seeing the funny side of my ordeal. I will remember to never leave the keys in the Hilux when the boys are around:)

 

[ken]

Sorry about the link in the previous post . Sections of the book about Madelyn O'hair deal with her takeover of Blake College. It's in a chapter called Mexican fiasco but Google books doesn't wish to show it to us. Kind of a sideways look at Ray's early experimental college. The guy she married is a supposed CIA drunk who befriended Ray's parents and hung out at the college. And that's a great commercial by the way.

 

[John Frusciante]

He drives an early 2000s model Toyota Hilux. One of the most reliable and functional vehicles around.

Wasn't the Hilux dismissed in the U.S. after 1995, replaced by the Tacoma?
I think what he drives is actually a 2001 or 2002 Toyota Tacoma. I'm driving that as well these days, but my trunk is not covered like his. I found the seats to be uncomfortable in the single cabin version as they're not reclining, not sure if they are in his version.

Toyota Hilux is a workhorse. It implies that Ray may have a bit of land - growing spuds; raising goats for their milk and meat or perhaps an orchard. My kind of man. Never imagined Ray to be a farmer, then again, makes a lot of sense. Now I really need to know why he would drive a Hilux. Maybe he sells his produce at a farmer's market like delicious marmalade along with his beautiful artwork. This has really piqued my fantasy - Ray donning his beautiful sombrero while running his store. Now that would be a sight. He has removed it from his website.

He told me he owns a fruit orchard in Mexico. I passed by it.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Does Ray Peat live in SoCal?

 

[John Frusciante]

Does Ray Peat live in SoCal?

No, he lives in Eugene, OR. He spends the winter in Coeneo, Michoacan, but as far as I know he isn't going since a few years for some bureocratic problems.

 

[Herbie]

Wasn't the Hilux dismissed in the U.S. after 1995, replaced by the Tacoma?
I think what he drives is actually a 2001 or 2002 Toyota Tacoma.

They would have changed the name for marketing purposes. I am Australian and models were called hilux's here. The cover on the back is called a canopy and are sold separately to the vehicle.

 

[John Frusciante]

They would have changed the name for marketing purposes. I am Australian and models were called hilux's here. The cover on the back is called a canopy and are sold separately to the vehicle.

No. Since years, Hilux and Tacoma are different models and vehicles, although they have some similarities and have used the same engine. Since 1995, Toyota dimsmissed the Hilux in North America and replaced it with the Tacoma. The Hilux is available in all the other countries, but the Tacoma is only produced in the US and sold in very few countries besides the US, and only in the American continent. The one Ray has is a Tacoma, I probably drive the same exact model and I can tell.

 

[Logan-]

Hilux or Tacoma; it’s a diesel engine, right?

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Every night, just before I fall asleep, I rest my eyes at the 70" Ray Peat poster hanging above my bed. Then I wish him a good night, close my eyes and drift off to sleep in the midst of my Ray Peat pillows. Needless to say, I sleep like a little baby.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Your response is priceless! I am gonna chuckle on this one all day ?