News: You're safer in New Bedford.

Main Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Mangrove

David Foster Wallace
I am a small business....just like George W Bush!
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone / Re: RIP Lou Reed
October 28, 2013, 06:33:57 PM

First Lou Reed I heard was 'Venus In Furs' cranked up loud in my friend's living room circa 1992.

Great stuff.

Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
Quote from: Suu on September 30, 2013, 11:03:21 PM
(for instance, Moses didn't cross the Red Sea, it was the Reed Sea near the Nile Delta, which could have easily flooded on it's own natural power.)

There's historical evidence of Moses? Or do you mean that another translation said "Reed sea"?

Are Red and Reed as easily confusable in Arameic?

thanks suu! always interesting

Don't see why not. People keep talking about a 'camel' going through the eye of an needle, when the original, more likely version is 'rope'. Camel & rope in Hebrew both equate to Gimel.

And for the 666 thing, it's possible that the person who wrote the original may have actually rendered it 616. The problem comes from how Nerun Kaisar is rendered into Hebrew Gematria. There's a possibility that the 'number of the beast' is not 666.

Yet more examples of the 99.9% Bible fail.

So yeah, as far as I am aware, the Jews were probably not enslaved in Egypt, they didn't build the pyramids and it wasn't during the reign of Rameses II.

Did we just fall foul of a sociological experiment? We confirmed his theories and yet he didn't have the decency to explain what they were. 

I feel cheated.
Oh well. Doesn't look like I'll get my questions answered. At least I got some coffee & apple pie for my efforts to 'communicate'.

Seems that his 'I'm completely right wing and yet not a Nazi or Facist' stance appears to come from Julius Evola, who said well, pretty much the same thing....

P.S. Galdrux are two letters from the so called 'Enochian' alphabet of Dr John Dee. Gal is 'd' and Drux is 'n'. What significance does D & N have to these people?  I neither know nor care.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 23, 2013, 01:56:19 AM
You missed abolition. That's in there.

Shit! And its such a doozy too. I was going to ask if he wanted slavery reinstated and, if so, which people does he think are suitable candidates for a life of servitude.

Sorry about that, everyone. Mrs Mang distracted me mid post with coffee and home made apple pie.

I'll bite...


Thank you for providing your handy-dandy glossary. I am hoping it will aid this discussion.

Just to clarify my understanding of your position, I would be grateful if you could answer some questions which I will get to in a minute. Before that though, I would like to begin with this 'Cathedral' notion.

For anyone who didn't click the glossary link, here's the definition:

The Cathedral — The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers have enumerated the platform of Progressivism as women's suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature of Progressivism is that "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.

Ok good. So the 'progessives' who comprise 'the Cathedral' have, apparently a platform that is in favor of 'women's suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization and gay marriage.'

Let's begin with this little list. I understand that you didn't write this list yourself, but you did ask us to look at it because it is, presumably, representative of your world view.

Women's suffrage.

1) Are you personally suggesting that women shouldn't vote? If yes, do you express this opinion to your mother? (or any other significant female person in your life?). If so, with what degree of success have you convinced them to refrain from active participation in the political process?


I'm assuming here (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that this refers to prohibition of drugs? That being the case, do you believe that all drugs should be legal? If this is about some other type of prohibition, please elaborate.

Federal income tax

Have you personally paid for absolutely everything in your life and never once utilized any benefit, privilege or facility that is funded by federal taxes?

Democratic election of senators

I have to admit, I'm a little confused here. Is the issue just about women electing senators or is a broader issue of anyone electing senators?

Labor Laws

I don't know what you do for work. I'll tell you what I do. I'm self-employed and work in the health care field. I split my time between my own business as a bodyworker and I do administrative work for a local chiropractor. Because of labor laws, both myself and the doctor have to have licenses under the department of health. It shows that we've received training to execute our respective jobs safely on the public. Is that problematic for you? Similarly, labor laws stop kids being exploited in sweat shops, people being harassed, unfairly dismissed etc. Let's pretend that in a post-Cathedral world, your new boss has decided that on the basis of your gender/skin/color/belief system etc that you are entirely unfit for promotion, even though you are clearly good at your job. But wait, there's an exception! If you agree to fuck your new boss in the supply cupboard, you might be in for a shot at a pay rise. Is it fair for me to assume that you'd be completely cool and ok with this scenario?


Are you proposing that America returns to segregation? If so, am I correct in assuming that your idea of segregation entails white people get all the good stuff and all non-whites getting all the crappy stuff? In times to come, being of white, Western European extraction will be a minority feature. Where would you like the new Latino & Asian majorities to put you exactly? Back of the bus? A reservation somewhere? Or will you secretly hope they don't notice you?

Destruction of traditional sexual norms

Please explain what you think constitute 'traditional sexual norms.'

Ethnic study courses in colleges

Well, last I looked, taking such classes are optional and not mandatory. Simple answer. Don't take that class.


I was born in a commonwealth country (Canada) and then spent much of my life in the United Kingdom which, back in the day, was at the center of a sizeable empire that included When a bunch of angry 21st century red coats show up, are you going to welcome them?

Gay marriage

Odd thing to be worried about. If you're not gay, then you can't get gay married. If you are gay, you  don't have to get married.

Over to you, sir if you care to indulge me. Please note, that I've written in what I believe to be fairly clear, jargon-free English. If you want people to listen to you, take you seriously and engage in some sort of discussion, then may I politely recommend that you do likewise? Otherwise it just looks like this:

Due to the ultra-magnetic retromingent solar-phallic industrial complex, the concomitant nexus of qlipphotic forces have placed us at a peculiar juncture within the current socio-histrionic milieu. Subsequently, the crypto-facist substratum is de-equilibriated in favor of a greater hegemony.

My years at have taught me that the posters here have large vocabularies. It's neither big nor clever when used as a substitute for substance.

Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 06:37:44 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 04:48:29 PM
I think that Pergamos is essentially saying that he doesn't think that secondary harm that results from regular and frequent heroin use should be considered harm from heroin. I disagree, because by that logic we can also say that HIV is harmless because nobody gets sick from HIV, they get sick from secondary infections made possible by their HIV-compromised immune systems. Secondary physical harm is still physical harm, particularly when you're looking at an addiction rate of about 23% of all users.

No, I am saying that the graph is not well made because it is putting the harm due to addiction on a different axis and then putting that on the same graph.  It's like making a graph that ranks cars on fuel consumption and exhaust produced.  Harm from addiction is going to eclipse physical harm from the drug itself unless the drug itself is insanely physically harmful (like, say, krokodil)

Perhaps. I think the Wiki article with Nutt's research has a graph in which 'harm to user' and 'harm to others' is graphed differently rather than the polka dot one which seems to be the contentious one.  Don't know if that helps or not.

When I was responding earlier, I had written a longer post, but deleted much of it and had the leave the office to get home for my dog. Anyways...

Here's my thoughts about 'clean heroin'. It was synthesized back in the 1930s (Bayer?) and it's how we ended up with Oxycontin & Oxycodone and their ilk. The idea was to make a more stable, controllable substance than heroin. The original target audience however, were the terminally ill, so worrying about addiction wasn't the issue. The issue was not spending your last days on earth in screeching agony. All is well & good.

What we've seen over the last few years is that physicians are increasingly willing to prescribe powerful opiates for conditions that don't especially require it. Back in the day your doctor would've said "Take advil" or "get an ice pack". More recently, we've seen a great expansion in the kinds of things that people get strong pain meds for. My wife had a tooth pulled a few years ago. The dentist was very insistent that she take a script for Vicodin which she really didn't want or need. She managed just fine with OTC stuff.

A friend of one of the kids went to the emergency room with rib pain that turned out to be pulled muscles. He walked away with a script for Percocet! That's a long way off from dying of bone cancer, but what the hey. Have some opiates!

Another friend of my wife's got hooked on Oxy following a surgery. He went to his doctor and said "You know...I think I like these things too much and I'm worried that I'm dependent on them". His doctor said "'re fine" and ignored him. Fortunately, our friend had the foresight to ignore his doctor in turn and get into a Suboxone program and get cleaned up which, thankfully he's done. Less fortunately are the two alcoholics we know who, despite being clean for 20+ relapsed (and epically so) because they received legal, prescription, opiates from Doctors.

I work at an acupuncture clinic and at a chiropractic office. As such, I get to see the medications people take and sometimes, my eyes sproing out of my head in disbelief that (a) people are on so much medication and (b) how they are able to so much as walk, let along have any kind of life at all. Crazy stuff.

So here's the thing. Legal, clean, controlled dosage 'heroin' already exists. It's Oxycontin (or similar). And lots and lots of doctors are merrily giving this to people for ailments that in the past, they never would have. As it turns out, I've seen first hand that in spite of the apparent 'cleanliness' and 'legality', it produces great amounts of harm and suffering.

[My son starting using heroin after using pills. He didn't have them legally, but his story is typical. You take a few pills every now and then and end up feeling far better than anyone should under normal circumstances. Trouble is, it's not cheap because you're paying a dollar per milligram on the street. 20mg of Oxy is $20. However, some enterprising entrepreneur will point out that $20 is 4-5 bags of heroin. Ahh, the freemarket at work!]

Thing is, even people who get legal opiates from real doctors may find themselves wanting a lot more than they're supposed to have. Then what? If their doctor is slack, they get to be doped out zombies for the rest of their days. If their doctor says 'nuh uh' and cuts them off, what are they going to do? They will do/say/think of ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY anything and everything they can to avoid getting junk sick. Our medical system doesn't want to clean up the messes it creates (cf anti-biotics). Unless the doctors are as interested in addiction treatment as they are in prescribing opiates, all we're doing is churning out junkies on an industrial scale.


I've heard the argument before that 'if you had totally clean heroin, in controlled doses, administered correctly then it's not that dangerous'. There was one pharmacology professor (whose name escapes me) who raised a bunch of eyebrows by making the above case and telling his students that under those conditions, your worst problems as a heroin user would be impotence and constipation(!).

And all this may be true, and it may also be true that heroin isn't as damaging to the organs as, say alcohol. Still, to me it's a kind of pointless argument only because the 'clean, controlled, safe heroin' is to be found practically NOWHERE. [It's like when people start geeking out on too many popular science tv shows about physics. Yes, ok so we get that time travel is theoretically possible if you can do XYZ. Trouble is, XYZ is so phenomenally difficult to achieve, that at this stage of history it's not exactly a pressing conCERN.]

So 'clean heroin' might not be as problematic. But the real actual heroin that real actual people buy and use most totally is.

I get what Pergamos is saying. However, as I've suggested, being pedantic about the qualities of a particular molecule doesn't explain much about or help the daily reality of being an addict or being in the orbit of addicts as Nigel and myself have (and probably a whole bunch of other people here on PD.)

If you go back to Nutt's research that was linked a few posts ago, he most certainly included 'secondary harm' in his work. Harm is harm. Anyone who doesn't believe me, should invite an opiate addict to live in their home for a few months.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 13, 2013, 05:19:54 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
QuotePolice are working to retrieve that video from Shellie Zimmerman's smashed iPad in hopes that it will give them a better idea of what went on before they were summoned by a 911 call from Shellie on Monday. If this video can be retrieved it will fill in a lot of gaps. The household surveillance video is video only. While it shows a lot, for example it clearly shows Zimmerman throwing the iPad to the ground and smashing it into several pieces, the video from the iPad, which Shellie says was operating throughout the incident until George grabbed it out of her hands and threw it to the ground, will have an audio track as well.

Interesting behaviour. 

QuoteUpdate 3:06 p.m.: The Associated Press says that Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, who is seeking a divorce, was the one who called the police. Police say that she alleges that George Zimmerman threatened her and her father.

And this seems to be the reason.
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, called 911 on Monday afternoon to report that her husband was threatening her and her father with a gun. In a recording of that frantic call, Shellie can be heard telling the dispatcher that George had "his hand on his gun and he keeps saying step closer." "Step closer and what?" the dispatcher responds. "And he's going to shoot us," Shellie Zimmerman replies. Later in the call, Shellie can be heard warning her father to stay away from her husband: "Dad, get inside the house; George might start shooting at us."

This is the woman who got a slap on the wrist for perjury, so we've got an unreliable witness here. How much is trying to get him in deep shit? Probably at least some, Divorce is rarely fun.

Layers and layers of bullshit here. There's so much guilt between these two I doubt the system will let up until one of them does some time.

You got to wonder if her perjury was out of fear and an abusive dynamic or he's recently become MOAR of an asshole.

If you listen to the 911 call, she sounds clearly out of her head with fear.

Makes sense. She knows with certainty that her husband is actually capable of shooting someone.
Holy time machines Batman! It's still 2008!
Well lookee here...a 'weren' word:

You : Suu   :wink:

More seriously though I miss stuff like this. Ok, so the design was absolutely retina tearingly awful. But still, at least there was some variety. Now we have Facebook and that has turned online life into ONE GIANT BORING FUCKING STRIP MALL.

The 'everywhere you go, it's exactly the same' culture migrated from the real world and ended up online.

"This Best Buy sucks! Let's go to the one in the next town over."
"Which one? You mean next to Dress Barn & Staples?"
"Yeah! And we can grab lunch at Olive Garden!"

Microreligion #162: Wiccan Reconstructionism. We are reviving traditional witchcraft as it was depicted in 1996 documentary "The Craft".

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: