jump to navigation

On Radical Self-Publishing February 3, 2015

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

in my last post, i more or less asked the question “how can radfems be so smart and so stupid at the same time?”  i wrote it pointedly at first, but then deleted and said it more nicely.  i have been told the message got through regardless.  writing, afterall, is a logical and even mathematical process whereby other people can follow your thoughts in both directions (if they are so inclined).  if they want to, readers can surmise where the writer must have been coming from to say what they said, and they can also figure out where they are going, or likely to end up if they continue down that road.  the good news is that “editors” cant really change that — the intent, including the conclusions and premises of the author remain, for anyone interested in doing the work.

radical feminist writing, in particular, has been subject to the limitations of the patriarchal press leaving *us* to do the work of figuring out what the authors really meant.  discussing it with other people helps, as does reading the original material for yourself instead of relying on other peoples potentially biased interpretations of it.  for example, i and others understand that andrea dworkin would not, in fact, have advocated for endless reformist activating or holding out hope for men.  i think anyone who reads dworkins entire body of work, and who deliberately reads between the lines (and the lines) can easily see what she was “really saying” when she said to an audience of men,

We do not want to do the work of helping you to believe in your humanity. We cannot do it anymore. We have always tried. We have been repaid with systematic exploitation and systematic abuse. You are going to have to do this yourselves from now on and you know it.

she said we cannot do it anymore.  its a direct quote and its right fucking there, people.  thats from dworkins infamous “24-hour truce” speech which disingenuous (or lazy, or confused, or something) radical feminists often cite as proof that dworkin said and meant the exact opposite — that we can and should keep doing it forever.  fail.  dworkin also seems to have given up on men in her 1999 article for the new statesman, in which she wrote that she had been drugged and raped by men, and that she was ready to die.  so it seems as if, while radical feminist work is in fact censored and edited and erased by the press and other patriarchal forces (and it is) its also subject to being grossly distorted and misused by other feminists to the point that the very meaning is reversed, obliterated and destroyed.  not only is that a really nasty thing to do, it also puts the women who come after in the unfortunate position of not having all the facts on which to make their own decisions, and specifically lacking the very feminist history and context that would help them to come to rational/radical conclusions faster, without always having to reinvent the damn wheel.  a shortcut, in other words.  women are destroying other womens shortcuts.  men are doing it to us too, but we cant stop them (since they will never, ever stop).  there may, on the other hand, still be hope for us.

and while there is no reason that pro-female, anti-male reasons for abandoning what is known as “feminism” would ever make it to/through the patriarchal press, even feminist publications would never publish a woman who had the gall (plus cooties) to leave, particularly if she had cogent reasons for doing so.  get it?  before self-publishing (including blogging) was a thing, leaving the movement also meant leaving access to the feminist press.  silencing complete.

the reason i am talking about this now is that i am in the position to write if i want to, and to publish on this blog, and my work is unedited by others and not limited by the rules of the patriarchal press (but still subject to the general rules of patriarchy of course).  and the position in which i currently find myself — completely disillusioned by radical feminist activating and radical feminists themselves, insofar as radical feminists consistently fail to go to the ends of their thoughts about patriarchy, including how its likely to end — is not one that is familiar to me.  i have only ever read about one woman (sonia johnson) experiencing something similar to what i am experiencing now (similar but not exact, as i do not recall her mentioning NTE stuff).  she self-published her account of course.

so, since i am in the position to self-publish at the moment, i have done so.  i suspect that women silencing other women is the (secondary, after males silencing us) reason there are not dozens or hundreds of accounts of “nutty” radical feminists leaving or being thrown out of the movement.  similarly, i suspect that other women silencing and quashing these accounts specifically is the reason i have never read about other radical feminists who believe that men have already done us all in, and that this cannot be changed, and that abrupt global climate change and loss of human habitat related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population is a done deal.  call me crazy (plus cooties) but i dont think i am the only radical feminist ever to intuit/conclude that this thing we call “patriarchy” is really a self-reinforcing feedback loop which over time has picked up speed and strength (as self reinforcing feedback loops do) and that at this point, it cannot be stopped.  it is physically impossible to reverse or stop it now.  it will continue to get worse of course, by definition, as this is what self-reinforcing feedback loops do.

i do not think it is unreasonable to conclude that, because patriarchy is not compatible with life, it will only end in death; and probably in proportion to its own size and strength, which is global, (literally) all-consuming, and with the power/energy of 108 billion humans behind it (54 billion necrophilic males over time, and the females they sucked the life out of) and all the power/energy of every bit of fossil fuel and renewable resources weve used to boot.  all that energy* has been pumped into the patriarchal death machine (feedback loop) and its some powerful shit indeed.  its some deadly shit, from which we can rightly predict powerfully deadly outcomes.  i really dont know why this isnt talked about more, perhaps especially by radical feminists.  oh wait!  yes i do.

*while the “energy” imagery i used here may (or may not!) be theoretical/metaphysical, the concept of “exponential growth” implicated in positive feedback loops, including the positive feedback loops global overpopulation and over male population is very real.  i know women understand the concept of exponential growth in our bones — its exactly what we have desperately, historically avoided growing inside us when we have tried to get men to stop fucking us, and impregnating us.  cell division is exponential, get it?  every time an addition is made, its a DOUBLING/multiplying, not merely an adding/counting.  thats what i meant when i said in exponential growth “there is no 6.”  watch a video or a gif of exponential growth for exactly 3 cycles and see what happens.  anytime you go from 1, to 2, to 4, then directly to 8 without a 6…well youre fucked arent you.  this is the exponential concept we “humans” are allegedly unable to grok (an ignorance which therefore alleviates “us” of responsibility for causing it?  i guess?)

Déjà Vu January 7, 2015

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

i commented earlier that it feels very familiar to be where i am now, that is, having taken my thoughts to their logical conclusion, i find previous “networks” and even somewhat friendly working relationships have become…strained.  due to the sudden onset of my obvious insanity i mean democratic politics, man-hating, transphobia, defeatism, i am not simply no longer on the same page as my former colleagues, but as of 5 minutes ago or whatever i am no longer able to evaluate evidence/reason, to make connections, or to correctly intuit or interpret the world around me and am in fact completely unrecognizable and also a big jerk, a mean drunk and retarded on top of it.  stop hurting my feelings guyz!!!!!! i mean did i miss anything?  happens every 5-6 years or so, looking back on my history (i came out as a democrat in high school).  nothing new under the sun.

so anyway!  i wanted to document, since that is what weve been doing here this whole time, and since there may or may not be some questions about it, exactly what brought me to the place im in now — having given up all hope for social or political reform, because i have given up on men, because i see what they are and what they do and that they will never stop, because they never have, i see pretty clearly that men have already successfully destroyed the world.  its a done deal.

to be clear, i now believe that abrupt global climate change, up to and including that which will cause human extinction in our lifetimes is a real possibility, not only because there is evidence to support this (there is) and not just because i can feel it (i can) but because there could be no other outcome but this.  this is in fact the only logical outcome to the problem of men and maleness that has infected the world cross culturally and across time (and which therefore transcends socialization…but i digress).

as many of you know, because you were there, about a year and a half ago, i really started to see men for what they are, which is ruthless brutal necrophiles and creative destroyers, and i reasoned that they like being this way and want to continue — if they didnt, they would not have created all their social institutions to support it.  (tell me they hate themselves and what they do!  i dare you.)

and not only do males like what they are and want to continue (the quality of maleness), they want to increase it (the quantity of maleness) — men want MOAR men and MOAR maleness.  if they didnt want that, and if they themselves did not understand that what we know as “maleness” is inherent to themselves/bone deep, they would never have started the global practice of female-specific infanticide to create relatively more males than females; nor would they have rather ingeniously come up with pro-male and anti-female technologies including medicine, where males are known to be the more feeble and sickly sex.  get it?  now we have MOAR males, in both relative (more males than females) and absolute (increasing numbers of men) terms.

indeed, it is obvious that men have created more men and maleness than nature would have ever allowed in the absence of brutal pro-male, anti-female social engineering envisioned, built and enforced by males for millenia.  and here is where we get into the thick of it, and why, i believe, our fate has been long sealed: men have created a self-reinforcing feedack loop whereupon males exist in unnatural numbers globally, where males are violent necrophiles and creative destroyers, thus males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively, creating more males.  get it?

and it is not just a problem of global overpopulation at this point, although that is a very serious problem as well, but a problem of too many (violent, necrophilic) males, specifically.  this is what will destroy the world, or at least will make it uninhabitable for humans, or much anything else, and probably sooner rather than later.  to wit:

males exist in unnatural numbers globally >  those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more people > men’s social engineering unnaturally skews population in favor of males > those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more people > men’s social engineering unnaturally skews population in favor of males > those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more people > men’s social engineering unnaturally skews population in favor of males > those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more people > men’s social engineering unnaturally skews population in favor of males > those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more men.

get it?  men continuously make more of themselves, thats what they do.  the problem of global overpopulation generally is also a feedback loop and as a whole exists due to male-enforced mandatory intercourse and rape — in terms of sheer destructiveness including resource extraction and global climate change this in itself would be bad enough, but then necrophilic males further skew the balance to favor themselves via female-specific infanticide and “saving” males via medicine and technologies when no male should be saved.  because of what they do and what they are.

and self-reinforcing feedback loops are game changers, they really are.

so, once i realized that men will NEVER stop making more of themselves — via the above feedback loop — and they will NEVER stop raping, torturing and murdering women based on our sex — because they dont want to stop — well, it made it very easy, actually, to see that they are NEVER going to stop destroying and pillaging the world.  men will NEVER EVER stop ever.

and once one realizes that men will NEVER stop destroying and pillaging the world, well, it becomes self-evident that none of this will be saved.  doesnt it?  it actually becomes very easy to imagine that it was likely too late decades ago, and they didnt stop then either, just like they wont stop now.  because thats what men are and thats what men do.  and even if the threshhold/point of no return in terms of global climate change due to male-caused overpopulation has not been crossed as of today, it is still too late, because the tipping point will occur sometime — this is a 100% (mathematical) certainty — and men wont stop then either.  they will never, ever stop.

this all seems very logical, and obvious to me, and i am not the only one.  if anyone can SHOW me how and why the terminal destruction of the natural world (including human habitat) is not the logical, reasonable outcome to mens global, timeless destructiveness and necrophilia, please do so in the comments below (or somewhere!  anywhere!  go ahead).  please dont forget to show your work, including (importantly!) how human habitat is likely to be extended beyond 20-50 years, or indefinitely, considering feedback loops including male-caused global overpopulation and if you have time, global climate change.  thank you.