Random Questions Box

I kid

Oh, oh, oh I see you thought it to be a compliment to your mixed past. Thought it to be insincere, and thus defensive numbing through projecting self as male. 

Its all good, I myself am 3% neanderthal.

Erik wrote:

Satyr, what are your thoughts on cannibalism?

I'll let you know when I experience it.

In Harrison's Trilogy, with the Hannibal Lecter character, cannibalism is a metaphor.
On an energy level, a temporal level, we all consume one another, or we exchange energies (flesh, in genetic contexts, words, in mimetic ones).

We cannibalize each other, consuming, digesting, assimilating and then getting rid of the unusable.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 

Sister tried monkey brain once in China, must be pretty close. Its.... Overrated. But has somekind of health benefit I believe.

Yeah, prion infections.

European women are the best looking. Complete bitches and cunts in all other regards.

An unfortunate drawback.

Cannibalism?

The Maori seemed to believe that when you ingest your enemy's flesh that you steal their life force [Mana] and add it to your own.

phoneutria wrote:

Brazilian mongrel.
One grandfather was dutch, one grandmother is native american, other grandfather was portuguese , other grandmother very mixed...half portuguese, half  mulato (which is itself a mix of some impossible-to-tell-where-from-black, and some kind of white).

How's the rioting and looting going on down there in Brazil?

Is it contained?

There Will Be Blood wrote:

Quote :

Personally, I find Mestizo women to be the most aesthetically pleasing.

Wouldn't that be really, really cheap down the border?


Look: 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Chinese mestizos are good looking, the males too.

Yes, it is very, very cheap, but the price you pay is very high in other regards, if you catch my drift. Tijuana is a nice place to start.

Is that a Chinese mestizo in the pic?

What does freedom mean to an animal? Is there something else than a species-appropriate environment when it comes to 'freedom' for animals?

Anfang wrote:

What does freedom mean to an animal? Is there something else than a species-appropriate environment when it comes to 'freedom' for animals?

What is a conceptual ideal to an animal? Nothing at all.

An animal doesn't think. An animal only acts upon pure impulse.

Anfang wrote:

What does freedom mean to an animal? Is there something else than a species-appropriate environment when it comes to 'freedom' for animals?

I would think that freedom to an animal is the ability to act on their impulses/instincts without any restrictions.

Question for all:

What are your thoughts on arranged marriages?

phoneutria wrote:

Anfang wrote:

What does freedom mean to an animal? Is there something else than a species-appropriate environment when it comes to 'freedom' for animals?

I would think that freedom to an animal is the ability to act on their impulses/instincts without any restrictions.

As in no restriction from the environment? Like having lower gravity as to not restrict them as much in their freedom of movement? Or do you mean no direct or indirect interactions with humans and civilization?

phoneutria wrote:

Question for all:

What are your thoughts on arranged marriages?

Yes and No. The female should have a say in this - like when she feels physically repulsed by the male but there should be other influences on it as well. Who and how I haven't thought about yet.

Anfang wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Question for all:

What are your thoughts on arranged marriages?

Yes and No. The female should have a say in this - like when she feels physically repulsed by the male but there should be other influences on it as well. Who and how I haven't thought about yet.

Good point. I think such marriages are geared towards success only in the upper classes. It is a package deal: uniting families, consolidating assets, consolidating status and hierarchy... although this in itself can create Jane Austen's etc

When you have little to offer, particularly with males, then the marriage becomes increasingly oppressive and even detrimental for the female. In modern times, females have a surplus of sexual capital and a place in the workforce/economy, which makes such arrangements even more of an imposition.

I will arrange the marriage of most, if not all, of my children.

The idea behind what I said is guidance of the feminine aspect by the masculine. And guidance needs to have the best interests of the guided at heart or better, in mind. That idea, just applied on the marriage technology and how the selection process is supposed to work.

As for that being a realistic solution - I don't think it would work in modern western societies at the moment. I think that wave must run its course.

Anfang wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Question for all:

What are your thoughts on arranged marriages?

Yes and No. The female should have a say in this - like when she feels physically repulsed by the male but there should be other influences on it as well. Who and how I haven't thought about yet.

funny thing....arranged amrriaged tend to last longer than "love" based noes.
Lust being the operative force in the "love" part.

Arranged are stronger because they are masculinity directed and controlled.
The arrangement has family ties, alliances, being involved.

It isn't some dumb jock and some stupid cunt, getting horny and finding in each other the ideal fuck-partner...later to find another, or to settle for various reasons, one of which being "few better options".

The arranged ones were based on male agreements, with long-term considerations factoring in.
The couple also enjoyed support from two families, reducing stress.
Children have a better life, not only because of the much-generational, family network, but because they could depend on this support for life.

I'm against any kind of marriage.

Only idiot males sign themselves up willingly into that kind of financial bondage.

One thing the Muslims I think have spot on is how they stone bitches to death when they get out of line.

We need that kind of fear and intimidation back into Western culture.

Satyr wrote:

Anfang wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Question for all:

What are your thoughts on arranged marriages?

Yes and No. The female should have a say in this - like when she feels physically repulsed by the male but there should be other influences on it as well. Who and how I haven't thought about yet.

funny thing....arranged amrriaged tend to last longer than "love" based noes.
Lust being the operative force in the "love" part.

Arranged are stronger because they are masculinity directed and controlled.
The arrangement has family ties, alliances, being involved.

It isn't some dumb jock and some stupid cunt, getting horny and finding in each other the ideal fuck-partner...later to find another, or to settle for various reasons, one of which being "few better options".

The arranged ones were based on male agreements, with long-term considerations factoring in.
The couple also enjoyed support from two families, reducing stress.
Children have a better life, not only because of the much-generational, family network, but because they could depend on this support for life.    

Most women do have their heart tied to their own families and their own biological children - at least, that used to be the case quite often. An arranged marriage which adds that family support from both sides stabilizes the marriage by integrating both, man and woman more into their significant others' family. The bond becomes stronger because there is more at stake. Phono would say, the woman is less free to follow her instincts.

Woman and man both, dear.

phoneutria wrote:

Woman and man both, dear.

*Translation*

Men should provide everything. Women are entitled to it and are special.

A female's inclination is to sample as much superior genetic variety as possible.

Her promiscuity, if we are to use a musical metaphor, is of a slower tempo...Long deeper tones.
When this is restricted, as with paternalism and arranged marriages, she goes for the secretive sampling.
She can pretend to give birth to the husbands child.

A male's promiscuity is faster in tempo...Fast shallow tones.
When restricted, as with paternalism and arranged marriages, he goes for the secretive sampling.
He cannot pretend shit, mainly because impregnation is out of his hands.

The erotic.
In agape the depth increases due to the absence of sex as the main factor.
It is rare, but it happens, that erotic love can become agape...but sex always fucks it up.
It is why later in life, and after decades of marriage (forced monogamy) do couples become more like brother/sister, or buddies.
Of course, the "forced" part does, most often, result in a shared rsentiment for one another, coming across as bickering.
But after so much invested time and effort, habituation settles them.

Agape is a masculine form of connectivity, based on trust, loyalty and common goals and experiences, shared risks, and blood lost.
Without sex love becomes the eidos, the Platonic type.
The masculine is always a breaking away from the earthly, and so here love is sanctified by becoming increasingly pure noetic - intellectual.


In arranged marriages the female becomes part of the male's clan.
We find in maternal, feminizing, cultures, the opposite is true.
Look at bonobos....interactions become orgies, swapping genetic material. Who is the parent to whom is lost.
Most marriage I know the man spends more time with the woman's side of the family, or at least their children do.
The majority of children born in modern systems are really part of the female's family.

This is useful to modern systems because in heterogeneous environments the male's culture may come into conflict with the institution's interests - the male's values contradicting the institution's values.

Women are always easier to integrate, and to assimilate.
From being the biological male's means to an end, carrying on his traditions and culture and values, she now becomes the institution's means to an end.

She is "liberated" as they call it.
In fact no, she simply surrenders to an abstracted masculinity, where the biological male either becomes its representation or is gone. .


The female is always the heart of the family.
The male was the head.

In modernity the biological male has no role, other than being a backup, surrogate female.
A second heart - second mother.
He must be soft, sensitive, kind, nurturing...and so on.
Or he is gone.

The head becomes the institution, the state, or some replacement (gang, nation, team, ideal, god, etc.)
It explains why Satyr attracts so many young men, not to mention a particular type of woman.

Females become part of the Institution's noetic harem.
The biological male is only there to do the deed the abstraction cannot, and then help or step aside.

Feminism destroyed family because of this.
Feminism is the confirmation of the marriage between female and institution.

With the elimination of the male, there is no continuity of blood...no genes leading to memes.
Now it's memes producing genes, by mixing them up.

Markets love new product, original packaging, if the inside is uniform, predictable.

This goes back to pagan worship of deities. Originally the family prayed to their own ancestors.
Their holy symbols and support network, spiritual and material, were all part of their bloodlines, their becoming continuity.
They were born as part of that.
Individuals had less stress, but more obligations, within this system.

Today the reverse, individuals have more stress and fewer obligations.
Heritage, family, becomes nuclear, a monad, with no ties beyond the immediate.
It goes further...family, as a concept, is being reinvented, repackaged.
Now two women and a dog, are a family.

Grandparents, uncles, cousins...and so on...gone.
They participate as supportive participants but separate...on the periphery, if at all.

As feminization increases this slowly deteriorates to pure individualism.
Man/Woman, both, are part of the alpha-male's harem.
They are inseminated by the institution's ideals and gestate its values.

The male continuity line is severed to allow for this to happen in heterogeneous social unities...as in multicultural, globalized societies.

Arranged marriages work because the parts are united by a vote of honor to their families, regardless of whether or not mutual fondness exists.
Under this vote, the couple may or may not develop a real relationship. It doesn't matter so long as the appearance of a relationship is maintained.
Lastly, the roles are typically well defined and expectations are realistic. So long as each part fills its role adequately, the relationship lives.

phoneutria wrote:

Woman and man both, dear.

Following my instincts doesn't work for me very well in this environment. I need my rational aspects to dominate my instincts. You probably have a different kind of experience.

Anfang wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Woman and man both, dear.

Following my instincts doesn't work for me very well in this environment. I need my rational aspects to dominate my instincts. You probably have a different kind of experience.

What I meant to say is that a man in a monogamic state of any kind is one who is less free to act on instinct. In this case, even more so, as he is not bound by his commitment to the woman alone, he is bound to both families. Any breach of his commitment voids the arrangement and reflects negatively on his whole family. This man has to walk a fine line.

lyssa, what are your thoughts on the Unabomber?

rhetoricals...

When did 'cooperation' become synonymous with 'compliance' and 'submission'?

When did 'freedom' become preferable to 'self-possession'?

When did 'proxy' give way to 'governor'?

When did 'one' get re-defined to mean 'part of many'?

When did 'meaningless' difference become elevated and 'meaningful' difference become forbidden?

When did apprehending the world become translated into apprehension about the world?

Not sure where to put this (and, this 'is' the random questions box, so...)

Was there a problem with KTS a couple of hours ago?

The rest of the net was quickly accessible, but this site loaded like a snail.

Now, it loads quick and easy.

I'm on a different machine, so the problem may have been with me, but it's also possible the problem was with KTS and was corrected while I was on the road.

Just curious.