/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan


New Reply on thread #33383
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Reply]

[Index] [Catalog] [Banners] [Logs]
Posting mode: Reply [Return]


 >>/49297/
I did a brief search on Wikipedia. It seems the only possible use of it for such purposes comes from Siberia and America and maybe India, but all the evidence comes form hearsay and much of it is based on the publications of one guy in the 60s(Wasson)
There is no history of use in Europe but as it is possible to wash the toxins out there is some culinary use of it but not much.

It's apparently possibly lethal in some cases too.

Drinking Shaman urine comes from Wasson as well. I am suspicious of this, tribal people can have weird customs so nothing is impossible but people generally don't like drinking urine and it's also questionable as to how much of the toxin would be left in the urine anyway, just how much shaman urine would one have to drink if it would be even possible at all? Has anybody actually tested this?
 >>/49279/
I saw something like that but about the top website each country used, they removed the biggest sites like Facebook to get better results, it's possible that something like this was done there as well.

I don't find blacks attractive either, but people's tastes can be weird and also a reflection of underlying factors. Like for example, people that are attracted to blacks could simply be black or they could be racists that have fantasy about dominating what they see as inferior people, it could be people in the south with some kind of slave fantasy or it could be people with a fantasy linked to exploring savage lands or something. People can be weird.
thumbnail of amanita-pantherina.jpg
thumbnail of amanita-pantherina.jpg
amanita-pantherina jpg
(89.95 KB, 893x670)
 >>/49301/
Slov used recent research too. Also some of the pdfs he shared gave context in the history of the research itself. It agrees what you wrote, most of the stuff is dated, and only a very few legit sources exists. Since I browse fungi identification sites, and books, I can confirm they are all very terse about fly agaric, just noting it's poisonous. Some of them adds it to the articles of the Amanita Pantherina that it is edible after careful parboiling, the fun thing, that Pantherina has higher concentration of ibutonic acid than Muscaria...
On the first occasion Slov harvested fly agaric for culinary purposes as well, and he did fry 'em up and eat them. He extracted the components with parboiling and later tried drinking it.
We could ask maybe he would repost what he put together.
thumbnail of 3f45e89a24f531a22cffc5c7cdc0445a.jpg
thumbnail of 3f45e89a24f531a22cffc5c7cdc0445a.jpg
3f45e89a24f531a22cffc... jpg
(128.1 KB, 897x690)
 >>/49297/
> Fly agaric needs some temperature to grow, not hot, but "Arctic" communities, nah, perhaps on taiga. 
I looked into where Amanita muscaria grows, and it's fairly diverse. There's speculation of it originating in colder areas, such as the Siberian and Beringian area, which is where the indigenous people doing the mushroom-reindeer ritual resided.

https://www.gbif.org/species/113534033
"A recent molecular study proposes that it had an ancestral origin in the Siberian–Beringian region in the Tertiary period, before radiating outwards across Asia, Europe and North America."

https://web.archive.org/web/20110716142858/http://www.lter.uaf.edu/pdf/1190_Geml_Laursen_2006.pdf
"The ancestral population of A. muscaria likely evolved in the Siberian–Beringian region and underwent fragmentation as inferred from NCA and the coalescent analyses. The data suggest that these populations later evolved into species, expanded their range in North America and Eurasia. In addition to range expansions, populations of all three species remained in Beringia and adapted to the cooling climate. 

I'm unsure when they grow in these specific areas, perhaps they are able to adapt to grow during colder months (such as December), but I did not find much to support this, maybe it's something I will look into more later. All I found were mentions of the mushrooms being piled under snow, in which reindeer would find and eat. However, there's likely more solid evidence either in favor (or not) of this.

https://www.reed.edu/biology/courses/BIO342/2014_syllabus_old/2014_WEBSITES/james_fisher-smith_jesse_duham_drugs&behavior/ReindeerFlyAgaric.html
"(Amanita muscaria) has a religious significance in Siberian culture, specifically the Tungusic, a reindeer herding indigenous people. It is assumed that herders observed their reindeer’s habit of seeking out these hallucinogenic mushroom and decided to try it out themselves. According to Samorini, though these reindeer typically march in a straight line, they will break form to chase after and dig up (even under snow cover) these mushrooms. it is unclear if the reindeer have come to recognize these mushrooms as sources of nutrition, or they seek the psychedelic effects that accompany them. To this day the Tungusic consume the Amanita muscaria mushroom entheogenically, either raw or distilled in the urine of their reindeer."

I found more information about the indigenous people in these cold climates using Amanita muscaria for both spiritual and intoxicating purposes, so while they may have drank reindeer urine to get the effects of the mushroom, it's possible it was not during the winter solstice depending on if the mushrooms grow during that time. I saw that these mushrooms grow in summer-autumn in the North America and autumn-winter in the pacific coast, but not sure specifically to the Siberian area. There must be evidence one way or another to clarify when these mushrooms grow in this specific area.
"A local variety of the mushroom was used as an intoxicant and entheogen by the indigenous peoples of Siberia and by the Sámi, and has a religious significance in these cultures."
https://www.gbif.org/species/113534033
 >>/49297/
 >>/49309/
Cont.
"For most peoples inhabiting the taiga area and forest tundra and not involved in dairy cattle breeding, fly-agarics — hallucinogenic mushrooms — were a peculiar replacement of alcohol."
“Northern reindeer, very avid for mushrooms in general, sometimes eat fly-agarics and, as a result, fall down and for some time behave wildly, as if they are drunk, after which they fall into a profound sleep. If the Koryaks find a reindeer in such a state, they tie its legs until it has had enough sleep and the mushroom juice has ceased to have any effect, and stab the reindeer only after that: If they had killed the reindeer while it was asleep and intoxicated, everybody who ate its meat would have become as frantic as if they had eaten fly-agarics.”
https://scfh.ru/en/papers/alcohol-and-hallucinogens-in-the-life-of-siberian-aborigines9124/

I would say with the above in mind, there does seem to be a link between Amanita muscaria's use in the cold "wintry" areas growing under "wintry" trees such as pine, using the mushrooms for spiritual purposes during the winter solstice (very close to Christmas), the Christmas theme centering around the North Pole, specifically reindeer getting "high", and while they may drink reindeer urine, it may not be during the winter solstice depending on when these mushrooms grow in that area. These themes seem to tie together greatly, but the timeline of the reindeer and winter solstice may not.

 >>/49298/
The link 404's because I forgot to add a space at the closing parenthesis. Let's try this again https://www.ffungi.org/blog/the-influence-of-hallucinogenic-mushrooms-on-christmas
A quick note on Santa and Chrismas: here Little Jesus brings the presents (these are fairly new development)  >>/33489/ , Saint Nick has his own feast on Dec 5-6th or so. But as Santy Close, with his red coat and big white bear, he is a relatively new phenomenon. 
To be honest maybe should scroll through the thread from the start to see what has been said.
I wrote about regölés here:  >>/33446/
For Orthodogs New Year is more important as a public holiday. They probably keep Christmas closer to the original church celebration as it was. Here Kotolicks has their midnight mass and such too. But in parallel we have this thing with the tree and presents. I blame protestants.

 >>/49310/
> The link [...] Let's try this again
Thanks work.
Short addition to women and their preferences in men.
From what I've seen (so personal xp, anecdotal evidence) all kinds of men can into relationships, even fucking weird looking ones manage reproducing as well. Even pretty women pick less well looking dudes. Ofc they react well to handsome man some women are rude to them - for various reasons I guess - while I've never seen a man treating badly a pretty girl just after they met, but they see differences between types, and some will prefer one type, some other types. While I assume most women wouldn't pick the real uggos, their topmost priority isn't that they should look like some male models from an underwear ad.
Ok. This is a bit too wide but that's it.
An art professor said:
> women should be beautiful, for men it's enough to look one degree better than the devil
Moar about women and relationships, because it's very xmassy.
There is this wisdom:
At the start of the relationship the woman hopes that the man will change. He will not. The man hopes the woman won't change. She will.

Some truth in it ofc. We know very little about the other when we meet. Our minds fill out the blank parts, which is quite a lot. We start out with many preconceptions and as we learn more about the other the "new" facts will confront with these fantasies, and oftentimes we'll rationalize that the other lied to us and/or changed.
Ofc there are pretense. Many fear they'd be judged harshly if the outside world knew the truth about them. They do to make themselves more acceptable. But men do too. I can't say if as frequently as women, less or more.
Heh, some people's only authentic characteristic is that they pretend.
thumbnail of gud-advis-about-women.mp4
thumbnail of gud-advis-about-women.mp4
gud-advis-about-women mp4
(3.95 MB, 720x400 h264)
It's time for me to write something long, so noone reads it. Even tho it's pure gold, Bernd. Here comes the redpill about women.

The first warm up part I already wrote on this board in some other thread not sure which.
So the fateful paradox of women is that they want a man who is strong, independent, capable of decision making... and whom they can control.
This dream inevitably fails. If he really is a strong, independent, decisive man, he cannot be controlled, he doesn't need a woman to make his decisions for him. But if she manages to control him, he wasn't a strong, independent decisionmaker.
The second part what I have not written here yet, is how the events pan out, after the reality hits. Every dance needs two, but since we're writing about women here, I'll write about them chiefly. So things will play out for her depending on if she can cope or not.
I. She can cope.
These women can make compromises, they met with reality, and can work with the hand they were dealt with.
I/A. She met with a strong, independent, decisive man.
1. She will be fine with her subordinate role, fulfilling the orders of her man. Depeding on the man they can live happily ever after, but quite some men like that think they deserve more than one pussy, so they'll screw around. If she is found to be too boring, maybe got ditched. If she is found to be dependable, she'll be still treasured in some way. Some of these women can't bear it and leave the relationship.
2. She will go with the flood and do what's told. Strong, independent, decisive men however know that insignificant questions don't worth their time and attention, and will relegate certain decisions to to the woman, liek what to have for dinner, or what brand of detergent to use. So they do get to decide stuff, this makes them think they have power. Some will be fine reigning in their own corner of queendom, but some will overestimate it, and will challenge the man constantly leading to endless arguments, sometimes till the grave, sometimes until one breaks up the relationship.
I/B. She met with someone whom she can control.
1. With lies and constant pep talks, with whispers into his ears, she builds a man from the material available, whom she can present as The Man to the outside world, someone whom she can be proud of. Someone whose reputation can boost her own social standing too as "First Lady". If the man gets the idea that he built something his misconceptions will be crushed, he will be put back to his place. Some man might ditch her at that point. Some of them really only needed someone else to put his life onto tracks, but others can't exists without a woman propping them up, so they'll seek someone else. In this case the woman will bitch about how she made the man who he is today and that whore took him away, or some shit like that. Some man will look for a "weak" woman, with whom they can fail life together.
1a. Since most people isn't cut ouf for making decisions, men and women, many relationships will fall into the subcategory or a variation of this. Neither of the pair is particularly strong or weak, but it doesn't feel I should introduce an inbetween category, or a I/C. The women will do whisper, she still has the dream of control, and has to go with the instinct, the man sometimes hushes her down, sometimes out of Pride. Sometimes he will take long hours from home, in the pub perhaps drinking after work till late, or digs himself into his work, both to escape from the nagging harpy, even tho she's just a mediocre on that role, and if he could hold the reign stronger, he could step up to the I/A category. But he can't. They'll blunder through life well or worse. They could end up breaking up, but could go till the end.
2. She is okay to be in the leading role to the outside world too. She'll try to submit her man. Some man are just happy to give up the burden of making decisions. But some won't suffer the bossing around and will just leave the relationship.
thumbnail of 10 - Raining Blood.mp3
thumbnail of 10 - Raining Blood.mp3
10 -... mp3
(5.87 MB, 0x0)
II. She can't cope.
These women can't handle the fact that their expectations were not just unreasonable, but impossible. They will believe all their problems are caused by men. From now on for them the men of the world will be grouped into:
- selfish assholes, and
- spineless wimps.
And she will swing like a pendulum between the too, bitching about the last one, and generally about all the men of the world, whom she will hate wholeheartedly.
Luckily these women seem to be the minority. They might write a feminist column in some trash tier online newspaper, giving dating tips to women (who are actually know better than her...).

Since I added no file to the previous post, let's roll with a love song here.
Addition to this  >>/49380/
Sometimes when other people form an opinion about us, some people find it easier to conform to what they feel is an expectation, instead of confronting. Thus the mask will be given by another.
This happens in many situations, not just in relationships. There are particular people who are too quick to judge (average people are like that), or they have an agenda and a role they want to push on others (these are more rare, controlling type of people, often just egotist, sometimes malicious, I guess narcissists, psychopaths etc.).
Interesting, I look at women as if they are minefields, but certain things I don't see completely relegating to a gendered issue. Women may lean toward certain unhealthy relationship habits more than men, and vice versa. Regarding control specifically, I haven't experienced many women craving control over the relationship. If I encounter that, she likely has other personality issues that lead for the desire to control the man/relationship. I have met many men who crave too much control over the woman, and these men end up unsuccessful because their desire of control is stemmed from intense jealousy and lack of confidence in himself and the relationship. Control is balanced between both partners, and there are limits. I think if the control comes from a place of well intent and genuine love, it will be balanced between two partners and manifest in different ways for the partners. It's not so much "control", but rather, boundaries. Your partner should know and respect reasonable boundaries, there should be no need to control them if the boundaries are reasonable and both partners are respectful. Now the key word here is "reasonable" boundaries.

Many women will test men to see where their boundaries are, to test if he is weak. Women do not find weak pushovers attractive, and if a woman enjoys controlling a man, the man has issues to not stick up for himself. Some women do enjoy complete control over a man, but in my experience a weak man doesn't go far and doesn't produce a happy relationship. I wouldn't say it's commonplace for a woman to desire control over a man in a relationship, but it does happen - for both genders. It is likely more of a personal issue rather than a gendered issue. This is how people end up in emotionally or physically abusive relationships; the person seems normal at first. Slowly the abuser gets comfortable, knows the other is a weak target, and takes abusive actions. Typically, nobody voluntarily goes into an abusive relationship, it takes over slowly.
 >>/49468/
I do not disagree on many points, even tend to agree, maybe I should just clear a couple of things.

I think I should start with the Theory of Power. It's something I put into words. Maybe some philosopher or political theorist wrote about this somewhere, I have not read that. I dunno if you are one of our regular with different flag, or lurker, or one time visitor, I wrote about this stuff on this board already.
So.
Power is the ability to make decisions. If I can decide what I do, I have power over myself. If I can decide what others do, I have power over them. If others can decide what I do, they have power over me. Power isn't weapons, money, or authority itself, but the ability to decide others' fate. There are three main ways to make others do stuff:
1. buy their actions (money);
2. force them to do it (weapons/strength, however you like to call it);
3. influence.
The last one is hard to express in a word, because it gathers many things. It could be the aforementioned authority, could be faith, belief, can be love, respect, or can be conning people to do things, changing their motivations, emotions, "implanting" a thought, etc. etc. This is potentially the strongest, and the highest level of the three.

Examples:
Let's say the mob want something from you. First they'll try to bribe you (can be directly with money, or trading favors). If you reject, they'll intimidate you (beat you up, break your windows, put a severed horse head into your bed). But the highest level would be on their behalf is initiating you into their organization, to follow the boss.
State works the same. The sovereignty comes from the people, they give up - by their own volition - some of their rights and give it to the state, so the state can manage the common affairs, can mediate between the members of the people. The power of the state doesn't come from the soldiers or the bankers, but the people who decide to obey so the state can do its job.
cont.  >>/49472/

It is axiomatic for the individuals of some of the higher tier animals - among them the humans - to seek power, to seek the ability to decide. There is always someone who makes the decisions. Every individuals basic instinct is to seek power over his own fate there are people who are very dependent on getting told what to do, due to "training", but this is a societal effect. 
If it's alone it is kinda obvious that it will make the decisions for itself. But if there is two, things start to get complicated. There will be their own, separate stuff, which they might or might not do however they like, but there always be common affairs where they have to decide who decides that who and how will handle them. Relationships are the same in this question.
But first let's look at an example. Dogs. For dogs belonging in a hierarchical structure, a hierarchical family is instinctual, "natural". That is the norm to them. For humans too, but we feed ourselves bs not to notice it, we pull the wool over our own eyes. There is the pack and there are always a pack leader. If none wants the job, he will take the position. The owners of dogs frequently do not realize this. Surprisingly often. When they take their dogs to dog schools they don't know the trainers there not just helping them make their dogs learn basic commands a dog can't obey to a command until he learns what the fuck they want from him to do, but those trainers are there to show them how to be the pack leader. Then they go home and they forget to enforce their own power. A masterless dog is the master of himself. If he is part of a family because when you own a dog, you actually make it part of the family in his eyes, if there is no master, he will be the master of the family. This happens all the time. The dogs will decide what to eat, when to eat, where to lay down, or sleep, how and where to go when taken for a walk, he will go out the door first, he won't allow basic care from the owner or anyone, he will jump on the members of the family, take the sandwich out of ones hand, chew their shoes and their kids.
cont.  >>/49473/

But back to relationships.
There are these couples, they say:
> we make decisions together
The woman decides. You can take poison to that.
Oh they might talk over their life how to do it, but there will be one who'll wait the other to nod the decision, and only then the action can take place. There is always a command structure.
But here comes the fun part. Not necessarily the one who nods in the end is the one who decides. That person mind can be made up by the other, and the nod, is simply just giving in to the will of the other. There was this Hungarian king, Czech in origin, nicknamed as "Dobre" Ladislaus, because he was so impotent king he could only nod and say dobre, dobre - "okay, okay" - on every whim of the whole court and pressure groups.
Women like to get their way, but they often practice soft power, influence their men, rather than direct, open control and ordering around. When they in power they are women, not imitating men, they do it their own way, how evolution made them capable of it. It's the feminist pipe dream: women who are in place of men, acting like men; this isn't the reality, it's rare. Still as individuals of higher tier animals, they do go after control.

Here  >>/49261/ and here  >>/49263/ books are came up, what women prefer. While I have not read any of such books I think the stories aren't about The Man use the heroin the female hero not the drug, and discard her for the next hole, but are about The Man dominating the heroin, then the woman (gradually) win him over and make him have her as the center of his obsession, domesticating, taming him, to stay monogamous with her. Or some such.
 >>/50094/
Yes. We have Easter ham. It's smoked, then at home everyone cooks it, sometimes with other ingredients (other meatstuff), sometimes whole eggs in shells, sometimes the cooking water is used for other soups such as bean.
In Hungarian Easter = Húsvét, literally means The Take of Meat, since it was the end of the 40 days great fast (Lent, Quadragesima), when they had to suspend the consumption of meat.
Happy New Year, Bernd!
It will be the year of the Dragon! Does this foreshadows something? Rise of the Chinese Dragon? Or a different Dragon? Wales perhaps...?
That's Libra in Western zodiac, with her scale (dragon scale). Will we be measured? Judged? Are our hearts light as a feather?
Ought to be an interesting year.
thumbnail of Munkácsi_Mihály_Golgota_1884.jpg
thumbnail of Munkácsi_Mihály_Golgota_1884.jpg
Munkácsi_Mihály_Gol... jpg
(166.65 KB, 1200x630)
Easter is here, Good Friday today.
Looked up a bit of folk believes, and traditions related to this particular day within the greater holiday of Easter, which actually starts 40 days before, with the Great Fast.
One group of customs is a type of health conjuration, all related to water, more specifically to fresh stream/brook water. Most often is bathing in it, washing oneself, just face or fully submerging in it. Sometimes done at early dawn. It could help with various ailments, give beauty, or just health in general. It should help with animals too, either the through should be filled, or the animals has to be led into the water. I like the one where girls seek out places where willow trees grow next to the water for bathing in it results in long, thick, healthy hair (on their scalp).
Christianized explanation of this power of brooks: when the soldiers led Jesus, they pushed him into the Cebron/Kidron river.
Another group is the so called "Pilate burning". A literal act is when they burn a figurine made of straw, which they name either Pilate of Judas Iscariot. This has some derivatives. Sometimes they beat the strawman before burning. At places a child was chased around the courtyard and if he got caught, he got beaten. At one place the priest hit the step leading to the altar with the Bible, and the congregation beat the benches with sticks. The custom of Pilate burning should be known in other ex-parts of the Habsburg monarchy - Austria, Czechia, Poland, Croatia, etc.
Banishing pests - such as rats or cockroaches - can be done on Good Friday. There are taboos, such as butchering chicken or plowing must not be done on this day. There are places where they light fires, sometimes young men jump over it, in some regions they hold vigils at these fires. It was also customary to treat the day as if someone from the family died, and act accordingly (like dress in black/dark clothing, cover mirrors, etc.)
 >>/51916/
> site that lists all Easter traditions around the world?
This does not exists. Wikipedia has lots of things but missing even more. And they have biased editing too, they just skip what it doesn't fit in the picture they paint.
What I wrote above for example is specifically for Good Friday, and I found in a Hungarian Catholic lexicon.

Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:


New Reply on thread #33383
Max 20 files0 B total