Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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.

Messages - Olestra

[1] 2
Interzone / Re: The gay police
« on: September 06, 2012, 05:47:00 AM »
Don't hurt the precious snowflake's feelings!

People who define themselves in terms of their sexual preference are most likely the type of socially neurotic ego maniacs who are deeply hurt by any kind of personal slight.

I was a bit fat for a couple of years at high school and took flak for it. Get over it.

Interzone / Re: Sociopaths are fine.
« on: February 29, 2012, 05:39:32 AM »
Is it not said that only those who know fear can be brave?

I have greater respect for someone who can feel empathy and has the power to make difficult decisions for a greater cause than someone who feels no empathy at all.

Interzone / Re: Why deconstruct evil?
« on: January 23, 2012, 03:18:28 PM »
I'm not sure that I see your point.

My first thought is that you're getting stuck on semantics. As free spirits, in order to assess what is good and what is evil we must deconstruct those concepts and then put them back together in a way that makes sense to us. You have already deconstructed evil yourself in your own analysis.

The problem with "good and evil" is that they seek to attribute inherent value to symbols and these symbols can then be used as a passive means of exercising control . Modern morality is full of this kind of stuff - the concept of equality is probably the biggest example of value originating from an interest being superimposed over reality.

Broadly speaking this kind of dualism has two kinds of followers:- those who use the concepts to further their own political ends (they may or may not 'believe' in the value of those concepts but probably most do) and those who follow it because they lack the mental capacity to analyze what they have been told. Obviously there will be some variance in the actual concepts between individuals but, apart from at the fringes, it will be possible to group those variances into broad categories to form a 'prevailing morality'.

That doesn't mean we need to reject good and evil entirely. Not all of the values you were taught at school were worthless. However, the constant barrage of messages everyone is subjected to nowadays by the media means that you have to wade through a lot of shit. This is particularly difficult for the young because they lack the experience and wisdom to filter out this crap and are therefore far more likely to be influenced by it.

So, to get back to your original question, it's not necessarily that we reject evil but that we reject the modern notion of evil. To be honest, I could probably have saved myself the bother of typing this and simply have referred you to 'On the Genealogy of Morals'. Modern morality is the inversion of natural order.

Interzone / Re: How do people enjoy watching sports?
« on: October 27, 2011, 06:16:30 AM »
I've never really taken much interest in American sports but soccer matches in the UK (and the rest of Europe for that matter) used to be great community events. You still do get a decent atmosphere and sense of tribalism at some games but mostly the experience has been diluted by regulations, over policing, over commercialization and political correctness. I slightly regret that I never got to experience the Terraces of the 70s and 80s when there were running battles between supporters.

The top clubs in Europe are now basically just brands who any idiot can support: "Look at me, I'm from Tokyo and I support Manchester United, how awesome am I!?!" Most of the players are moronic cretins (well, in England anyway) who I could never really bring myself to cheer on.

Interzone / Re: Making Money
« on: October 20, 2011, 03:16:14 AM »
The fact is that most jobs are a waste of time, particularly those that pay good money. I worked as an attorney at a commercial law firm for 4 years and although the money was good and the work challenging, I hated it and most of my colleagues by the time I left.

In case Law was something you were considering, here are the reasons that it sucks:-

1. Lawyers are parasites. I remember that there is a passage in William Gibson's Neuromancer where Case states that the purpose of all middle men is to make themselves a necessary evil - this describes lawyers perfectly. No one likes them or wants to have them around - you seek their advice because you know that the cunt on the other side has done the same. They feed off businesses by navigating clients through all the minefields that lawyers themselves have created. You get to settle a big deal for your clients - yay! They probably feel that they could have done it twice as quickly had the lawyers not started poking their fingers into it.

2. It suits people with a wary, risk averse attitude. It's no surprise that women are gradually taking over the profession. We would prepare massive due diligence reports for clients, filling it with stuff they will never read but we have to put in there because it could potentially cause a problem by some infinitesimally small quirk of fate (did I mention that most lawyer's #1 priority is to cover their own ass?). I have literally spent days compiling due diligence reports that the client read maybe 5% of at most.

3. You get to surround yourself with other lawyers which generally means people consumed by ambition, greed, fear and self loathing.

I don't really have much meaningful advice to offer you to be honest but just make sure that whatever you choose to do, it provides you with some meaningful goals and some scope for personal development (and not the B.S. kind HR gets you to write about in your annual review).

Interzone / Re: A theory on women.
« on: October 07, 2011, 05:16:53 AM »

Here's an alternative theory - collectively and individually we (men) need to grow some balls.

In all honesty I haven't met many of these supposed men hating feminists who have proliferated modern society. Perhaps though the lack of purpose and direction of most men has created a vacuum that has been filled by women with more masculine traits?

It's also a mistake to assume that every 'shrew' is a man hating feminist who wants to subvert the traditional male/female societal roles. Take Maggie Thatcher as an example (regardless of hw you feel about her policies, you can't question that this woman had balls) - she is often criticized for having done nothing for feminism (beyond leading by example).

In my experience women don't harass their partner because they want to dominate the relationship - they do so because they want their partner to be MORE of a man, to take greater control and to assume the role of provider. I see this female reaction to feminism all the time - it just doesn't seem like a reaction to feminism because it's aimed not at the feminists but at the men who have passively accepted a subsidiary role.

Interzone / Re: A theory on pedophilia
« on: September 28, 2011, 01:18:17 PM »
what is it about children that sets them apart from adults? answering this might give us a clue as to what turns pedophiles on. it could be that children are physically powerless and that turns some people on. or that they are innocent about worldly matters. it could be the cuteness that fuels the lust. in fact i'd like others to come up with ways in which kids are different from adults because therein must lie the cause of some people's sexual attraction to them and also clues to their underlying psychology.

Is it not fairly self evident?. Children are human beings.who are still developing mentally and physically. They have not yet developed the same mental and physical capabilities as an adult. This is probably a big part of the reason that predatory individuals target children - they're easy prey.

A previous poster highlighted this point - it isn't just about sexual preference. It's about power.

Interzone / Re: A theory on pedophilia
« on: September 28, 2011, 05:42:01 AM »
Joke all you can, but I've stated a simple truth. Marriages were often made with girls as young as eleven and no one gave a damn. The prophet mohammed did this.

As for young boys going to war: Yes, it always happened. And happens even today, we all know about unofficial armies, be of drug dealers, or tribal wars, that use young boys. But I think going out to kill and be killed is a little different and more severe than sex.

Man are always going to be attracted to young girls as young as 9 years old. I did not say sex, I said attracted. It's difficult for most men to acknowledge that, but it's the plain truth. Put a naked 9 year old in front of you and if your sexual organ does not get full of blood, call a doctor: You have erectile disfunction.

You can see the contradiction in fathers who do not take sex seriously, and take a more "modern", liberal view of the subject, as if it is just a bodly function. But such people may be the same who say "I do not favor those sick people who have sex with 13 year old girls - I have a daughter." But if sex is just a bodly function, why care about that? My theory: That father feels secret sexual attraction towards his offpring, from there comes the desire to protect her from other males. In example of this are cultures in which the father initiated the daughter sexually. I think freud would agree. Of course, most fathers would rather die than to admit that for one second some lustful though crossed their minds about their daughters. The reverse is also true, with the boy projecting his feelings of warm love and sexual energy towards the mother, and the girl, towards the father. It has been also proved that children have sexual impulses from a very early age. Do not touch your daughter's private parts.

You know I'm right. If you're all so "pagan", you know even more. To have more evidence, search in pornography video sites for "daddy" or "father and daughter".  Who do you think are the majority of people watching those videos? Sons?

This all seems irrelevant to the issue of the 'stereotypical' modern pedophile. They are generally worthless sexual predators so what is achieved by trying to justify their actions. Whether or not 9/11/15 is 'too young' is irrelevant. Even if the act isn't inherently wrong, these men are cretins.

Then again, the modern fixation with pedophiles is a form of madness. You can't so much as glance at a child without being given suspicious looks.

Interzone / Re: A theory on women.
« on: September 28, 2011, 05:28:16 AM »
Marriage isn't for some people. For someone who is socially withdrawn the level of compromise involved can seem incredibly invasive. I would say that the most important thing is not to carry too many expectations and pre-conceived notions into any relationship. Yes, 'dry-runs' in your younger years teach valuable lessons but every relationship will be different (unless you keep picking the same type of partner).

I have been in a relationship for two and a half years now and I have found it tremendously challenging and rewarding. I was getting a little bored with myself in all honesty. Then I found a woman with a warlike nature tempered with beauty and tenderness. Sometimes I don't like what she has to say - and then I realise that she's right. She isn't perfect - neither of us are. However, both of us have grown in ways that I doubt would have been possible without each other. We don't 'need' each other, but we compliment each other beautifully (so far anyway).

Maybe you still need to work on yourself a bit more before looking for a relationship - the short chapter on marriage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra offers some excellent insights.

Interzone / Re: Riots in London after criminal is killed by police
« on: August 17, 2011, 06:18:52 AM »
Here is Owen Jones' web page on the Guardian webite (the other white guy in the Starkey interview):-


His favourite artists are Coldplay, 0peth and Jay Z.

Interzone / Re: Riots in London after criminal is killed by police
« on: August 17, 2011, 05:44:24 AM »
Two points:

The fact that the riots were focused on the acquisition of none essential goods such as TVs and shoes does indeed show that there is a general lack of direction in society beyond materialism. The fact that this seems to be the sign of success in society has led some people to obtain it by violent means.

Secondly, one of the hidelines on the BBC homepage now has some politicians and commentators arguing that the sentences for rioters are too harsh. You really can't have it both ways.


This jumped out at me from the quotes in that article:-

Andrew Neilson, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: "A four-year sentence would normally be associated with offences such as holding someone up at knife point, grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, and I'm not sure that the offence in question was really related to those types of offences."

Too true - four years for holding someone at knife point, GBH or sexual assault is ridiculously low. If we're going to spend money imprisoning dangerous criminals let's do try to do it effectively!

The problem is that in Europe every sex offender, thief, thug, rapist and murderer is a precious snowflake with an endless list of unalienable human rights. This further increases the cost of imprisoning criminals. Oh wait - we can't afford to imprison people! So that paedophile who fiddled with a 5 year old a few years ago? He's now living next door to you and your family.

Events such as the riots demonstrate how divided a western country such as the UK is with regards to a clear direction forward. Starkey has caused an absolute shit storm with his comments and the hypocritical left wing media establishment is out in force demanding that Starkey be banned from airing his views, hung by black people etc. Despite the shit cake the general public is constantly being fed by the BBC and the rest of the left wing media, my anecdotal experience is that most Brits would have some sympathy with the general point Starkey tried to put across - which is basically that there is a degenerate underclass culture in Britain which is largely influenced by black pop culture.
I'm constantly being sent links to articles written by some wet blanket at the Guardian who is wagging a finger at the rest of us for 'failing' these disaffected youths. The left simply can't accept that we have a largely biological underclass - these people are the pond scum of our nation. We shift them off to ghettos (where they will hopefully commit crimes as far away from our middle class suburbs as possible) and keep them on welfare in the hope that they will be content to live out a relatively quiet life of cheap booze, fags, TV and scratch cards. The left will fail because they don't realise that these people are slaves. The mainstream right have been dragged so far left that they don't have anything meaningful to say - they want longer custodial sentences until they realise the expense of doing so.

Interzone / Re: Riots in London after criminal is killed by police
« on: August 17, 2011, 01:05:24 AM »
Race and culture are an element of these riots but I don't think they were a major catalyst.

The problem is that the UK has a large degenerate underclass that is incapable of/does not want to operate within the 'rules' of liberal democracy. Some of the more capable individuals end up as successful criminals (something for the rest to aspire to) while others are propped up by our welfare system. The best that civilized society has to offer is a life serving Big Macs so in a sense is it any surprise that so many turn to crime?

I think that Starkey has clumsily (if not inaccurately) pointed out that what has historically been considered a black sub culture has now been adopted by the entire underclass. The black underclass sub culture has assimilated the underclass whites, asians etc.

Of course the unrest has been blown out of proportion because we have become so precious and fixate ourselves on every individual tragedy and the police seem to lack control because every rioter has an encyclopedia of human rights to consider. We have all been taught how wonderful our liberal democracy is and therefore such flagrant disregard for law and order seems shocking. In terms of the actual level of threat to the established order they barely register.

Starkey touches on another important point - that the primary motivation of the rioters was consumerism. This can be distinguished from the traditional crime of the poor classes which is aimed at fulfilling basic need of hunger. We have created a generation of consumers but some of them do not have the talent or wits to obtain these products by conventional means so they resort to thievery,

It's just another symptom of a society with no goals.

Does it not therefore follow that this whole discussion is an irrelevance?  We might as well discuss the implications of the piss I just took in the ocean with regards to global sea levels

Pretty much.  The vast majority of what's discussed on these forums is of no real importance.

Well of course - talk alone only takes you so far.

The point I was making was really in reference to your previous post. If we strip back the morality (whether you think this is a great tragedy or a hilarious massacre) a few dozen people were killed by a semi-coherent ideologue. So what?

We'll see the usual fear induced reaction from the authorities and public who will completely fail to understand why this happened and some PR pleasing but completely ineffectual measures will be taken to 'prevent this from happening again'.

The "emotional" people on this thread have forgotten/never learned fundamental premises which we should all have accepted by now (how long have you people been inside the ANUS?).  In no particular order: Life and Death are equally sacred; il messaggero no e importante; everything is relative beyond the objective.  Objectively speaking, one man killed ninety odd people.  Emotionally speaking, this is ("could be construed to be") a horrible event which just serves to place people against those with similar views as this man, because obviously crackpots who latch onto extremist ideas are emblematic of the true members of groups who follow such ideas.

What a load of fucking bullshit.  Give me the objective perspective any day.  My own emotional response to this is FUCK YES, PEOPLE DIED.  DEATH IS GOOD.  I LIKE DEATH (NOT THE BAND, THE TERMINATION OF LIFE). /capslock

I would never have expected people here to get butthurt over that kind of sentiment, just as I would never have expected people here to give two shits about this faggot or his garbled recycling of good ideas.  He killed a fucktonne of people - that's good.  Forget the reasons for which he did it, forget the people who died, forget all of that circumstantial bullshit, and recognise that a miniscule dent was made in the human population of this planet by one man.  To be cliché: that's fucking Metal, man.

Does it not therefore follow that this whole discussion is an irrelevance?  We might as well discuss the implications of the piss I just took in the ocean with regards to global sea levels

Interzone / Re: Eugenics
« on: March 13, 2010, 04:37:10 PM »
This is a good discussion and I have to confess that while I have been eager to deal out hypothetical death and judgement to 'degenerates' in the past I have more recently been pondering how realistic and practical these ideas are in a similar way to that which Octuple had presented. Perhaps we're also overstating the percentage of humanity that is actually a problem?

Everyday I see many repulsive people who seem both mentally and physically deformed (who are usually only capable of surviving on state handouts). I also see a lot of people who engage in idiotic behaviour but are not inherently 'bad' - they are capable of success if given a set of parameters but they need someone 'superior' to set better parameters for them.

I often 'jokingly' suggest to people that we should prevent the former type from breeding and the reaction I get 95% of the time is pretty enthusiatic. It seems that privately even 'normals' can agree that it would be a good idea to stop the lowest humans from dragging us downwards through veracious breeding. They just need someone in a position of authority to validate their gut instinct.

I realise that things would be much better if we could agree that only the top 10% of humans should breed but what sounds like a great idea in theory is unworkable in practice. Why not focus on what's realistic in the short term?

I'm moving away from the idea that some sort of mass movement or 'revolution' is the answer. As many articles on Anus have pointed out the degeneration of society is a slow decay. Perhaps we should stop worrying about the big picture and focus on living decent lives in accordance with our values and creating things of value within our local community, trying as best we can to instill healthy ideas in those around us. Modern society clearly has many problems but I think these problems are far outwith the control of 99.999999% of individuals (to pick an arbitrary figure!). If we head too far in the wrong direction and don't suceed in turning things round ourselves I think that things will likely 'self correct'. We have over six billion humans - 99% of us could die tomorrow and it would pose little threat to the continued exsitence of mankind. When this society we have created can no longer sustain itself nature will determine who is fit and who is unfit to survive. With all of our petty prejudices and judgementalism (regardless of how noble our intentions are) are we really in a position to take on that role ourselves?

Apologies for any lack of coherence or idiocy in this post - probably the result of half a bottle of rather good Scotch whisky.

[1] 2