As far as I can see, DGR is the only credible position on the environment that exists today, and the environmentalist movement is a complete bust. That is, not surprising, a position shared by DGR UK.
If we think of Rachel Carson’s book, “Silent Spring” as the birth of the modern environmental movement, then we have had ‘environmentalism’ in existence for approximately 50 years and yet every biotic indicator shows that the planet is in decline, not improving, not even stable but in decline. Countless species went extinct today. The planet is being destroyed, and no amount of recycling or renewable energy is going to stop that destruction. As Derrick Jensen illustrates in his essay Forget Shorter Showers, the majority of water and energy is used by industry, agriculture and the military, not individuals. Personal lifestyle choices, whilst commendable, will not make any significant difference. If we continue to focus on marginal personal contributions instead of working together against the larger machine as a whole, there is little chance of success. It is going to take organised political resistance to stop the trajectory we are on.
DGR proposes taking a new approach. The key difference between DGR and other environmental and social justice groups is that we have a long term strategy, named Decisive Ecological Warfare (DEW). DEW has two main goals.
The first is to disrupt systems of power and to dismantle those systems. In other words, we wish to remove the ability of the rich and powerful to exploit the marginalised and destroy the planet. See here for examples of what DGR is advocating for in the UK.
The second goal is to defend and to rebuild, just, sustainable, autonomous human communities, and to assist in the recovery of the land.
The fact that you’re ignorant of the risk doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means you’re ignorant.
For example, let’s talk choking.
The reason it feels “fucking great” is because your brain enters hypoxia. What happens when an individual feels hypoxic, and you can see this in deep-water scuba and free divers, and high-altitude mountain climbers, is that as your brain begins to suffer from oxygen depletion, the cells begin to frantically fire in an attempt to jolt the body into action. The neural pathways flood with endorphins because your body expects to have to fight it’s way to air.
Your body experiences the “tingles” because the body is withdrawing the oxygenated blood out of the limbs and into the core and brain in an attempt to prolong vital organ function.
Your body “feels good” because it’s preparing you to die, which is, lamentably, a common side effect of breath play.
It’s obvious you’re ignorant, so I’ll explain in as basic terms as I can. The primary risk of choking or breath play isn’t actually suffocation. It’s cardiac arrest.
People of any age are vulnerable for silent onset cardiac arrest for up to an hour subsequent to choking, of ANY duration. The compression of the carotid and jugular veins (you know, the ones in your neck?) put pressure on the aorta, which in the absence of oxygen begins to pump harder. This can cause a skip or arrhythmia, which can (and does) lead to cardiac arrest.
Another major risk is the collapse of the superior and inferior vena cava as a result of cessation of blood flow. Now, since it’s obvious you don’t know shit about fuckall, allow me to explain: the venae cavae carry deoxygenated blood and is one of the most critical blood vessels in your body. Collapsing it is a medical emergency, and because the blood is deoxygenated, your “blue fingernail” check frequently doesn’t catch it.
And THEN, lastly, you can easily fracture or crush the hyoid bone, located under your jaw and providing support for the trachea and esophagus which, incidentally, can ALSO be collapsed by minimal pressure.
If you knew even the basics of the science behind choking, you’d know all of this. There’s a reason Jay Wiseman, a trained medical professional and a long-time BDSM educator, has called breath play one of the single most dangerous acts possible, and doesn’t recommend it regardless of your level of training.
Quoted on Anti-Porn Feminists.
The Wishwashington Post has a good satirical post on the whole leaked celebrity nudes incidents: Male Liberal Feminist Respects Women, Except When He Doesn’t.
Porn is not about sex, it’s about sexualized power. Porn, a few outliers notwithstanding, is about men fucking women into submission, often violently. If it weren’t, there’d be no choking, no puking, no bukkake, no gang bangs, no double (or quadruple) penetration, no ATM, no slapping, no name-calling, no images of multiple men high-fiving each other while they use and abuse one woman’s body, no porn copy containing phrases like “until she cries” or “watch this little whore get ____” or “Interchangeable Female Body vs. Fearsome Violent Penis.” The porn industry, if it were just all about sex rather than about sexualized hate, wouldn’t be in a race to the bottom with itself to create ever more absurd configurations of bodies, the sole aim of which seems to be to subject women to the most heinous abuse possible.
Don’t bother telling me that the porn you watch isn’t quite that gnarly. Check out the behavior of the men in comparison to that of the women, look at the positions of the bodies, think about the camera angle, listen to what is being said, think about whose pleasure seems paramount, then come back and tell me the porn you watch isn’t just as much (if not more) about dominance and submission as it is about sex.
From Rage Against the Man-chine.
A study was made on men’s self-report of the qualities they seek in their wives and daughters. The result was striking to many people in that it showed that what men professed to look for in wives and in daughters was very different. In both cases, intelligence ranked first. But in the case of wives, attractive and sweet followed; for daughters, independent and strong follower.
The writer proposes, as one of the possible interpretations, that men want their daughters to be successful even if it makes them less attractive to other men. This is a natural response: we live in capitalist societies where it is commonly believed that success is strongly linked to intelligence, independence and inner strength (even though this is little more than a myth), and we believe that children must be raised in order to become successful. Therefore men want their daughters (and sons too, one presumes) to have these qualities.
The overwhelming question being asked in the wake of this survey is, how do men expect to raise independent and strong daughters when their wives do not have these qualities and cannot lead by example?
After all, aren’t most daughters supposed to become wives and have children? The vast majority of women do. And we already know that, despite what they say, being intellectually competent and holding your end of a conversation is not that attracts most men. Being smart and independent usually gets a woman called a “bitch.”
But you can look at this from other points of view. For example, it really shows the way in which modern women are being crushed under the weight of expectations: we expect women to both be independent and strong in order to be successful, and we expect them to conform to their gender role by being attractive and sweet. This is an impossible set of standards: no matter what, you lose.
Apparently this is from 1998 (!!!).
From Christian Nightmares.