jump to navigation

There’s No 6. Or, How Is It Going To End. Be Honest. January 31, 2015

Posted by FCM in logic, meta.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

i remember the moment i realized that global overpopulation and over male population was a self-reinforcing feedback loop.  i was (wherever) doing (whatever) and i was thinking through the problem of men sticking their dicks into women, creating more males who would only grow up to also stick their dicks into more women, and honestly you dont have to go round and round within that particular loop very many times before you realize whats happening.  twice is probably enough.  just like i did just then.  can you see the problem?  of course you can.  because its completely obvious.  isnt it?

lets start by acknowledging that there are NO 100% effective contraceptives anywhere and there never have been.  to act otherwise is only the most misogynistic gaslighting bullshit imaginable — otherwise known as “sex” as in sex-lives, having-sex, sex-uality.  intercourse removed from reproduction.  when intercourse is not now, and has never been, and likely never will be, removed from its reproductive consequences to women.  life finds a way, as jeff goldblum said in jurassic park.  not to mention the fact that many men deliberately impregnate women via mandatory intercourse and rape.  men have done this for a long time, so i really dont know where people are going with this contraceptive stuff.  its not like its going to work when we need it most — during rape, and where men are deliberately trying to create pregnancies such as within coerced/forced marriages.  theres a lot of rape and deliberate forced impregnation happening globally afterall.  a hella lot.  and why wouldnt there be, considering that rape is a self-reinforcing feedback loop (where it creates more males in a rape culture patriarchy where males rape women because males enjoy raping women and they will never stop).

so anyway.  global overpopulation and over male population (and rape) are demonstrable self-reinforcing feedback loops, meaning the “cycle” picks up speed and strength over time just by doing its thang.  and i have yet to see any feminist address this issue specifically.  and this is a rather embarrassing oversight to say the least.  because self-reinforcing feedback loops are game-changers, when feminists including radical feminists fail to acknowledge or address them, it makes it obvious that we havent a clue as to what the “game” even is, so how can anything we say or do be trusted?  “we” are in good company of course, because most people dont acknowledge these feedback loops or any feedback loops which implicate the concept of exponential change.  “humans” in general have been observed to be unable to grok this, but i would tentatively suggest that no, its actually men who cant grok the concept of exponential change.  women understand it in our bones well enough.

consider:

think of exponential change as the absence of 6.  there is no 6 and there will never be a 6 in exponential growth: it goes from 1, to 2, to 4, to EIGHT, to SIXTEEN, to THIRTY TWO.  get it?  there is no 6, as in 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc etc.  no.  without exponential growth, i dont know how long it would take a fertilized egg to become a baby (1, 2 or even 10 cells at a time) but it would be a lot longer than 9 months.  get it?  im just thinking out loud here, i am not an expert in fetal cell division or mitosis.  without even trying, women navigate the context of exponential growth every fucking minute of our lives, where we live in constant dread of being forcibly impregnated by men.  the concept applies to wanted pregnancies too of course.  so yeah, every minute at all times, without exception, women live and breathe a concept that “humanity” is unable to grasp.

so now that we are all on the same page, and are thinking about exponential growth and feedback loops of global overpopulation and over male population (and rape) let me ask you this: how do you see patriarchy or male dominance over females ending?  be specific.  in your answer, make sure to address the issue(s) of global overpopulation and male overpopulation (and rape) within its proper context, which is the context of exponential change.  if you do not believe exponential change is relevant to the discussion of how patriarchy will end, explain why.  if you accept that exponential change is relevant, consider that whatever solution you come up with will likely be obsolete by the time you complete your thought, unless the solution is also built to function on an exponential level — any linear solution will be left in the dust promptly, because it literally does not exist on the same plane as the problem.  the problem is changing and growing way faster than that.

also take into consideration the issues of loss of human habitat (food, water and shelter) and global climate change related to male-caused resource extraction.  which also implicate positive (self reinforcing) feedback loops of course.

let me say at this point that i believe that radical feminists are some of the most intelligent people on earth because they are able (somehow) to sense (in the first place) and make sense of (in the second) the context in which we are all living: the context of patriarchy.  this is not an easy thing to do, and all this despite the profound and enormous erasures and obliterations, the cruel gaslighting and reversals, and mind-altering substances and situations forced upon us by men.  the fact that we have done this at all is frankly stunning.  and i have long believed and still believe that radical feminism is the most rigorous and intellectually honest discourse on the planet because it is the only one that takes into consideration the reality of half the worlds population: women.  some 3.5 billion of us by now.

because any other discourse has yet to accurately acknowledge and assess womens (and mens) reality under patriarchy, literally every other discourse on the planet is a screaming fucking farce, and nothing but sadistic mansplaining horseshit.  which is not to say that radical feminism is perfect; it has some obvious flaws which i have written about before.  and which i am writing about now: its seeming inability to adequately envision and describe *how* — just how in the hell — patriarchy is likely to ultimately end.

so i ask you this — “you” is anyone and everyone reading here.  in your own estimation, *how* is the end of patriarchy most likely to occur, considering the reality of it, meaning without wishful thinking, and building on the evidence we have about men and what they do and what they are, including the very serious problems of self-reinforcing feedback loops of 1) global overpopulation; 1.a) global over male population; 2) male-caused global climate change related to 1 and 1.a; and finally, 3) loss of human habitat related to 1 and 2?

PS.  dont feel bad if you hit a cognitive wall.  i banged my head on that wall for a couple of years before i heard anything that made one fucking bit of sense as far as how this is all going to end.  hint: it wasnt anything i have ever seen, heard or sensed from a feminist.  and i think this failure to fully think the problem of patriarchy through to its logical/likely end, whatever that end may be, just might be radical feminisms, and radical feminists, most striking, and most disappointing, flaw.  seriously, its fucking tragic.

Moron Morons. Or, It’s Opposite Day! January 29, 2015

Posted by FCM in pop culture, radical concepts, rape.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

i have noticed something weird about television commercials lately, and the above seem to exemplify the trend.  specifically, i am noticing an extreme inward-looking theme in advertising which is even more pronounced than the standard inward-looking consumerist/lifestylist fare (isnt it?)  the “honest company” commercial illustrates a nuclear-family-centric circle-the-wagons message, and there is something noteworthy about the way the words “prah-ducks” and “mie famlee” are emphasized — dont ask me to competently dissect and analyze as i am not a professional marketer or media critic, but something bugs me about this every single time.  like…an exaggerated, extreme individualization of consumerism and family, down to the very way the words are pronounced?  or something?  i dont know, but “ryan mcgee” provides an oddly memorable delivery of a timeless message.

meanwhile, the pantene commercial doubles down on the already-extreme social controls on women via the beauty/fuckability mandate where every single hair on our heads has to “pass the needle test” or else negative outcomes.  this needle-test business has been around for years and has been criticized as being racist/exclusionary of women with naturally coarse hair, which of course it is.  but what else is it?  and why is it resurfacing in such an obvious way now?  seeing as how i and others have come to believe that the end of the world is neigh via abrupt climate change and loss of human habitat related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, it just strikes me as weird timing to police women this way ask women to examine and control ourselves down to the very hairs on our heads (each and every individual 150,000 strands or whatever each of us has).  and the extreme-inward looking message of ryan mcgee and her prah-ducks for her famlee tastes a bit tinny where perhaps especially now, we should be paying attention to the world around us.  the world in which things are starting to catch on fire, blow up, slide, wash away and crash into the sea due either to “unknown causes” or due to known causes of male terrorism and/or extreme weather events.

its hardly necessary to comment on quakers take on the “”””energy crisis”””” (thats 4 full sets of sarcastic, its-not-really-a-thing quotation marks!) except to say that its very deliberately dismissive of the big picture in which there is indeed a very real man-made energy crisis happening, consisting of no fewer than 30-something self-reinforcing feedback loops and legitimate dilemmas which cannot be cured with oatmeal or with anything as a matter of fact.

in the face of these oddly-individualistic campaigns, i suppose i would remind women to “do the opposite” which is always sound advice if you can manage it.  in this case, definitely do NOT circle the wagons around your famlee to the point that you fail to notice (or care) what is happening around you, specifically wrt male terrorism and extreme weather events.  notice it!  and definitely do NOT examine and control yourself, your female Self down to the very last hair — instead, do the opposite.  whatever that means.  kindly recall that if females were actually free we wouldnt be in this mess to begin with, and that males controlling females — specifically, our “natural” meaning global and timeless aversion to intercourse and multiple/endless unwanted pregnancies — is literally what caused it.

of course, a policy and practice of “doing the opposite” would also apply to male NTE activists (google it) who think they need to “carpe diem” and “create moments of joy” as the world burns because of them — considering what men find joyful, which without exception seems to be necrophilia/destruction and intercourse/impregnation, including rape, my advice to males who give even the tiniest crap (and there are those who think they do, or claim they do) would be to evaluate what you find pleasurable and positive, and then DO THE OPPOSITE.  this is how fucked up men are of course.  for men, who are driven to ACT constantly, “the opposite” would be to STOP ACTING and STOP DOING shit.  completely.  just stop.  take opposite-day as far as you can, applying the concept to feeding yourselves and performing self care (to the extent you do that).  pumping fuel into, and performing even perfunctory maintenance on, necrophilic killing machines isnt helping.  savvy?

or, if you MUST continue to act, and i know you must, (right?) try this on for size: whatever the activity, if you like it, DONT DO IT.  if you hate it, KEEP DOING IT.  i think this is a fair compromise really (for those who are into compromising with men…its merely a rhetorical device for those who understand that men will never stop ever).  for example, if you love your job, it probably means you are being overcompensated for it, and/because its victimizing other people, especially women, so stop doing it.  if you hate your job, its likely that you arent being coddled/catered to, overvalued due to your membership in the oppressor class (male), and presented with sexual access to as many women as you want, like you sincerely believe you deserve, where catering to/supporting those male beliefs and actions created this ultimately/imminently doomed necrophilic shithole in the first place — so if you must DO anything, keep doing that.  the things you find emasculating, humiliating, boring, and against your natures — its all good.  you know, if you really care about any of this, and yet are still driven to act.  get it?

that males as a class, even the self-identified “good ones who get it” ARE driven to act, of course, is irrefutable evidence of mens natures; and only supports my conclusion that men will never, ever stop.  and that (therefore) this NTE stuff, or loss of human habitat and abrupt climate change related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, whenever it occurs, is a done deal.

Dicks in a Box January 19, 2015

Posted by FCM in logic, meta, pop culture, radical concepts.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

i have about reached my limit with the modding aspect of blogging, where i put something out there for public consumption then am physically and psychically tied to the internets for as long as comments remain open.  it is documented that repeatedly “checking” things like email and comments is an addictive cycle whereupon the checker receives repeated dopamine hits, one every time you “check” something that may or may not have changed since last time you looked, even if that was literally half a second ago.  as many times as you check, and whether or not there is something new in your inbox/queue, has nothing whatever to do with whether there will be something new there in a minute or a second, so you can check as many times as is physically possible and its always a “novel” event so produces a dopamine hit every time.  that cant be good.  its not good for my readers either, because you end up doing the same thing — checking to see if the conversation has progressed since the last time you looked.  we are all junkies now, and this cannot possibly be helping us (can it?)  so, i am no longer accepting comments.

anyway, as you already know, since i have been very vocal about it, i believe that men have effectively done us all in via the self-reinforcing feedback loop of global overpopulation and global over male population, resulting in catastrophic global climate change.  there is evidence that our fate was sealed decades ago by rapacious, resource extracting, resource hoarding males who just wouldnt stop raping women (creating babies) and polluting and pillaging the earth.  there is evidence that this is a done deal and its too late now to stop it; this makes me wonder about the time before it was too late, 50 years ago, 100 years ago and earlier.  did women see what was happening and (try to) intervene?  i figure they probably did — globally and across time, women have despised intercourse and repeated pregnancies, knowing in their bones that various man-ifestations of maleness were not compatible with life, and (thus) not sustainable.

of course, any evidence of womens knowing about this, and responding to it, will have been buried so deep it will be nearly impossible to locate and extract it.  so we have to use the scraps of information we do have, along with our intuition and creative leaps of thought to try to put our herstory (and our female Selves) back together again.  the question of “what would womens resistance have looked like?” is probably a dead end since womens (real, effective) resistance is killed, cremated, and buried quickly lest other women use that information and get ideas.  and, you know, build on the knowledge and work of women who came before.  that, we cannot have.  its probably rule #1 under patriarchy, now that i think about it (isnt it?)

probably a better question would be, if women had resisted, and effectively resisted, what would mens response to it have looked like?  and this line of inquiry bears some fruit.  i think, if women were resisting effectively, anywhere in the world, that mens response to it would be testerical, brutal, and absolutely devastating, not just to the resistors themselves but to all women everywhere.  the resistors would be taken down and out, and an example made of them, the message communicated to all womankind that this behavior will not be tolerated ever, and to resist further will be the absolute worst thing you could ever do, so best not to even think of it.  ever.  again.  the intent would be to give the entire resisting class such debilitating trauma that they would be cognitively impaired (PTSD) and both physically and mentally ineffective for the rest of their lives, and furthermore, that they would pass these traumatized (submissive) beliefs and behaviors down to their own girl children forever, creating a true aversion to real, effective female resistance as surely as if it were genetic (this happens and is known as a a meme, a belief and related behaviors that travel through bloodlines almost as if they are physical and not social traits).

men would have gone absolutely nuclear on effective female resistance, and their response would have been so outrageously oppressive and brutally violent as to prevent it ever happening again.  i think this is a reasonable assumption.  which brings my thoughts to the burning times.

andrea dworkin wrote in “woman hating” about what she understood to be a mass delusion in the times of the witch hunts (approximately 1560-1760 or even later, depending on the source) which was the “dicks in a box” delusion.  apparently, women at the time were accused of telekinetically castrating males and keeping their members in boxes, where the severed dicks would root around eating corn. (!)  i have heard this rather bizarre historical fact explained 2 ways: either folks were delusional about this and were reporting truthfully about what they believed they saw, or they were lying in order to crazy-make and implicate women in practicing witchcraft.  both are plausible, and there is no way to know for sure (although i think men lying about it to justify torturing and murdering women is more likely than the mass-delusion explanation.  interestingly, dworkin herself believed they were delusional and telling the truth).

understanding that we will probably never know for sure, because it is impossible to reliably put our female past back together again because of mens erasure and mens lies, i would propose a third possible explanation.  one that takes into account the rather unprecedented male testeria and the brutality and oppressiveness of the burning times, which could very well have been mens response to effective female resistance at the time (if women had resisted, the quality and quantity of male violence and oppressiveness demonstrated during the burning times would be the likely response).

here, i would tentatively suggest that around the year 1500 or so, women somewhat-collectively came to realize what men were and the likely outcome of mens ruthless and unsustainable regime of necrophilia and rape, which would be the literal end of all (or much of) life on earth.  because there could be no other end to it but that.  knowing that in their bones, and they were right of course, women started killing men.  the dicks in a box thing could have been women keeping souvenirs (a rather male thing to do) or perhaps more likely, was a way to keep track of just how many men they had done away with.  because their intent would not have been to kill all or too many of any life form — women are not men afterall.  if they were doing this, they probably had a specific goal in mind and they planned to stop once they reached their goal (modern researchers seem to believe that a reduction of 90% (i think?) is just the right amount to achieve a level of sustainability and peace — google it).  also, it is possible that some women chickened out and lied to each other about having done in their fair share of men, so a reliable method of keeping tally would have been necessary.  could there be a better method of tallying than collecting and keeping the deadmens dicks in a box?  i cant think of one (although admittedly, i havent really tried.  when you hear pure perfection, and something which could not possibly be improved upon, you just know it).

in short, what if the dick in a box thing was real?  im just asking.  surely everyone is much more comfortable believing that men simply tortured and murdered between 100,000 and several million women because delusion, or because misogyny — nothing too repulsive or wrong with either of those, right?  surely nothing that would keep anyone up at night.  whereas the idea that women might have actually harmed men in self defense, and done something to deserve what they got from men is disturbing and wrong (“deserved” in a patriarchal sense of course — both natural law and hindsight dictate that reducing the number of men at that time in history would have been both prescient and timely.  in other words, the exact right thing to do, at the exact right time, as if women knew what was coming and really, seriously desired and endeavored to stop it).  its too late to do anything now of course.

tl;dr  dick in a box may in fact represent humanitys last best chance of survival: reducing the number of males before the start of mens industrial (necrophilic) revolution mightve actually worked.  there is evidence (although obviously not proof) to support this.  as thinking persons, we like evidence, and hypotheses/theories based on evidencedont we.

Brought To You By the Inventors of Drug Dealing and Rape January 17, 2015

Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, logic, meta, politics, pop culture.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

continuing on the subject of NTE and global climate change related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, i would like to address the issue of anti-civ activism by “people” (mostly men) who believe that NTE is a reality and just around the corner.  indeed it does seem as if DGR (deep green resistance) and NTEs are in bed together, and guy mcpherson cites derrek jensen specifically in his own anti-civ advocacy.  i am not going to link to it here, you can find it yourselves.

let me ask you this.  if you thought near-term human extinction was not only possible but likely, or even more likely than not, what (if anything) would you DO in the face of that knowledge?  assume as NTEs do that it wouldnt matter at all in the big picture, because nothing you can do can stop NTE — our fate was sealed decades ago by rapist, necrophilic men who insisted on selfish hedonism, resource-extraction and resource-hoarding to benefit themselves, regardless of the consequences to women or the planet (or even to themselves as class:male long term).  what would you DO, understanding that the means would never justify the ends because we would not live to see any end (except NTE), and that therefore the means WERE the ends.  in other words, whatever you are going to DO, you are doing it for extremely short-term gains only, or to put an even finer point on it, doing X for its own sake.

welp.  the anti-civ strand of NTE activists/believers have decidered that they are going to do above and below-board “actions” designed to bring down industrial civilization.  while the anti-civs have been doing this for a long time (although they obviously arent very good at it) the rather unholy hybrid NTE/anti-civ activists understand that it will not change anything to “destroy” civilization, it will not reverse the course of catastrophic global climate change related to male-caused global overpopulation and global over male population, and yet NTE/anti-civ males have decidered to engage in anti-civilization destructiveness anyway.  seemingly for the sake of sheer destructiveness alone.  what else would be the point, when it is too late to change the outcome?

but what else could we expect from “people” (men) who invented drug dealing afterall, and all that entails?  get “people” including women hooked (dependent) on civilization for our most basic needs, including food, water and shelter ffs, and then take it all away.  gee, that sounds familiar!  in the case of NTE, where our fates are sealed, we wont be able to come crawling back to males like civilization junkies looking for a fix, so here we get to see it play out rather bare — this is about torture isnt it.  males, torturing and brutalizing women for the sake of doing it.  punishing “dependents” for the crime of being domesticated and enslaved, by men, over millenia, except “punishment” implies we could have done something to avoid domestication and enslavement by men (as if we havent tried).  no, this is just more male necrophilia and torture, and in the case of hybrid NTE/anti-civ males, it is completely without pretense now.  since anti-civ destructiveness on their part wont change the outcome anyway, and anyone with eyes can see how these ideologies interplay (conflict?) it seems as if this group in particular isnt even trying to hide it.

and what else would we expect from the class (men) who brought us rape?  strike a deal among men (the global accords governing the fair use of women) to somewhat-mitigate the damage of men raping women through social (legal) controls on men and social (medical) benefits to women, make women literally beg and plead for these protections for decades and centuries even, and give them a crumb or two — and then decider to destroy it.  knowing the whole time, of course, that as soon as things get sticky, all “controls” against men raping women will literally be the very first thing to go.  as both NTEs and anti-civs must know, the destruction of “civilization” and social controls on men is going to be a rape-fest.

now, i of course agree that civilization — as a euphemism for patriarchy — is pure evil and that none of this has been done for womens benefit; for example, legal protections for women against men raping us is largely gaslighting and laughable.  HOWEVER.  in any discussion of the dual issues of NTE and anti-civ, this bastard hybrid discourse specifically, i think that it should reasonably be WOMEN deciding what parts of civilization (patriarchy) should go and which should (temporarily) stay, and that men should have no say in this at all, being that they are the cause of all of this and the ones women need protection from.

and to the extent that non-human lifeforms have been affected by this the whole time, obviously their “voice” should be heard also — would it be presumptuous to assume that the voice of “nature” would be the same as womens voice here?  asking, nay demanding at this point (in the booming tone of god no less as we face the literal end of the world!) for men to STOP ACTING, and STOP DO-ing shit, jesus.  notably, the collapse of civilization at this point will only cause the global temperature to further rise — the particulates in todays industrial pollution are apparently causing a “global dimming” effect whereby the full heating potential of sunlight doesnt quite reach the earth.  the day industrial civilization collapses, no more particulates.  get it?  at any rate, i highly doubt that its the voice of phytoplankton asking NTE/anti-civ activists to bring industrial civilization to its knees.  so whose voice is it, and to what ends, exactly?

thats what i thought.

Alternate Reading January 12, 2015

Posted by FCM in meta, news you can use, pop culture.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

in light of recent discussions, in particular NTE stuff and the likelihood absolute certainty of the catastrophic loss of human habitat due to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, whenever it occurs, i am reminded that certain of us have described visions of our female future.  in particular, i am re-membering mary daly and sonia johnson, although i am unable to access my books just now to look this up properly (if i am remembering it wrong, i am sure someone will tell me).  as i recall, both women “saw” a female future (and a past) where women were free of the plague of global maleness, where we were/are finally, finally free to simply BE, without much if any do-ing, and without the constant threat of being raped and pillaged by men.  ahhhh, that does sound nice.

specifically, what i am remembering is that these visions were of another dimension, where women were able (somehow?) to live without eating, drinking or performing any maintenance-type stuff at all — sonia johnson envisioned that women were free of any DO-ing whatsoever and that we literally lived on clean air and sunshine, and could fly.  (!)  at the time i first read her vision, i embraced this as a thought exercise where women were encouraged to imagine/experience effortlessness, and the freedom to just BE and in so imagining to realize and feel how much of our female lives and female selves are in fact spent DO-ing under conditions of patriarchy female oppression, torture and slavery, especially doing for and doing because of others, namely, men.  i found the exercise mind-expanding and helpful.

and as i recall, mary daly imagined women coming together in a place far away from men and maleness; maleness was no longer an issue for whatever happy happenstance (happy/stance) and women found each other and lounged about, enjoying each others company and sharing lore about the bizarre past where patriarchy reigned.  daly wrote in the 1990s about this coming-together occurring in what would now — as we are currently in 2015 — be the rather near future.  in this future, as i recall, women subsisted (largely?  completely?) on lemonade and dog-licks.  i dont remember exactly, but that was the gist — another plane of existence, in the not-so-distant future, that is as different from the one we currently inhabit as can be imagined, and then some.  and we have everything we need, and nothing we dont, (because) the problem of men and maleness has been solved.

sonia johnson also imagined that women could change perspective at will to experience BE-ing a bird, or a wolf, or a tree.

so currently, in light of the issue of catastrophic climate change due to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, i am considering dalys and johnsons visions of womens “female future” and i have to wonder just what it was these women were envisioning when they essentially saw women existing without bodies.  get it?  while it is a nice exercise to imagine not having to eat or drink or DO anything, the fact is that natural law applies, it applies now and it will continue to apply in the absence of patriarchy.  and natural law dictates that women — as human animals — cannot, in fact, live on lemonade and dog-licks alone, and we also cannot fly.  temporarily “trading” consciousness with birds and trees does not violate natural law as far as i am aware, so i will leave that one alone.

now, obviously i understand and agree that in general, we are free to en-vision whatever we want, or to describe whatever vision comes to us whatever the source (the source may not be “us” exactly, i say this as a creative person) and that it doesnt have to make sense, or be possible.  in the case of johnson and dalys visions of our female future (and past) i previously understood these metaphysical (metaphysical = literally “beyond physics”) visions as fictional writing, or thought exercises, and i assumed that daly and johnson were imagining/describing a scenario/universe in which we (somehow) experienced these obviously metaphysical things simultaneously with being (BE-ing) very much alive.  i understand and accept that this is the accepted interpretation of this writing, and also that daly and johnson likely intended to be read that way as well.

but i have to tell you.  as of recently, i am really wondering: when they “saw” women in this vastly different state, where women are/were finally free of not only men and patriarchy but of everything, including all DO-ing and the limitations/requirements of physics (and bodies) what were they seeing really?  not to be alarmist or anything, because whats the point…but as has become my inclination in every area*, i am taking note.  specifically, i am taking note and notice of current and past events that could be reasonably associated with global climate change (and resulting near-term human extinction), and i think our best feminist thinkers and visionaries visions of our female future are absolutely relevant to that.  that is all.

* i see that they have found one of the black boxes from the most recently “disappeared” malaysian jet and i am waiting to hear if this catastrophic failure was weather-related.  considering what we already know, that the last communication with the plane involved changing the flight path to avoid the weather, i suspect we already know the answer to that…but far be it from me to try to predict the future uh, past?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 398 other followers