In my experience, Ope, there is nothing as satisfying or as rare as a man saying he was wrong. I've had men write multiple articles on why I was wrong, write entire parody hit pieces ridiculing me, but I have never EVER had a man devote an entire essay on why I was right.
I had to close my eyes and savor the moment several times. I had to do a little happy dance with the hummingbird in the garden. I may need to mark this day on my calendar and celebrate it annually. Thank you!
And in particular that it came from someone whose writing is as widely knowledgable, perceptive and insightful as you. To be honest, those things had to go together. They always have, in my his-story. It's the quality of noticing patterns that I 'get' in you and you in me.
And now, to continue the conversation. Yes, the whole picture gets sharper and darker--but it's not because the patriarchs are winning. It's because they're losing and increasingly desperate.
First, hierarchy and patriarchy are the same. The hiero brought hierarchy, hieroglyphs, hero. The word hiero was pronounced heir/ Air. It meant Lord Air, who inherited the right to rule over the archons (the archy in hierarchy). These are the Aryans--not a race but a VERY exclusive inbred royalty. And cunning as hell. They brought the Sky Father Dyeus Pitr, from which we get Zeus and Jupitr (the illusion of choice), along with the 'patr' in patriarchy.
Here's the thing when women control their own bodies and sex is a sacred and public act--there's not a lot of it. Especially with nubile young women. They're going to choose to mate when they want to get pregnant, and possibly not again until they want another child. I suspect the priestesses were post-menopausal and 'initiated' young men so they'd be trained and ready in pleasing a woman. And it's possible the high priestess was a crone--a word I'll be claiming for my upcoming 69th birthday!
This would have resulted in fringe and semi-feral men who resented this. Here's how I imagine the recruiting pitch of the Aryans: "So boys, you getting as much sex as you want? Nooooo? Well we should do something about that, don't you think?" Obedience to the [Aryan archon] hierarchy was the ancient contract in exchange for women as sex slaves and domestic servants. They never needed to be chosen by the women. The women were the spoils of war to be given in exchange for their violence and ruthlessness. They were awarded by the hierarchy.
But it gets even darker. The woman was your breeding stock for your own slave colony--not to you but to be sold to others. This couldn't be done outright. What you'd do is accept a loan and your child would go to serve in the lender's house as surety. The word interest in Greek means offspring. At the end of the year, a 'debt jubillee' would be declared, so you can keep the money, which was really just an advance payment. The word amargi means freedom and return to the mother. It was a fucking game played by men to traffic their own kids.
So that's the origin of 'father rights.' And I'll explain why the patriarchs made a fatal mistake and why looksmaxxing is men pimping themselves out, in another comment if interested.
Tereza, glad the essay landed. Honestly, I've never understood the impulse to defend being wrong when someone shows you better evidence. Why wrestle with reality? I am always open to correction. I learned a long time ago that admitting I was wrong is how I actually learn and that turning around on public record is strength, not weakness. Most people can't do it, I have seen this, especially online. So when you showed me the Wendat model and the mechanism I missed, I took it happily!
Now let's go deeper because what you're laying out here connects everything I've been documenting in ways I haven't fully seen.
Hierarchy = patriarchy. The etymology (hiero = heir/Air, Aryan archon royalty, Dyeus Pitr = Zeus/Jupiter) makes the mechanism explicit. Not just "men rule women" but hereditary divine right requiring controlled reproduction. That's the through-line I was circling without naming clearly enough.
The incel recruitment mechanism. "You boys getting as much sex as you want? We should do something about that." That's the exact pitch, 3000 BCE and 2025 CE. Obedience to hierarchy in exchange for women as spoils. They don't need to be chosen, they're awarded. That's not just historical. That's still the operating system when you look at how elite men distribute access (Epstein network, modeling agencies, the whole apparatus).
Interest = offspring. Children as loan collateral, debt jubilee as trafficking mechanism, amargi (freedom/return to mother) as the game being played. If that's the origin of "father rights," then looksmaxxing as endgame makes perfect sense. The system's collapsing so men are now pimping themselves instead of being awarded women by hierarchy.
I need you to help me break that down. How are looksmaxxing men pimping themselves out? What's the fatal mistake the patriarchs made? And if they're losing and desperate (which tracks with everything I'm seeing: Thiel, surveillance infrastructure, the acceleration), what does the endgame look like?
This is the sharpest analysis I've encountered on how deep this goes. PLS keep going...
I think there's a difference between the heir-archy, or divine right to rule, and the hire-archy. We're all in the latter. Our status depends on how close to the archons we can get hired. At this point, the system is self-regulating because you need to secure the job to get the woman. The archon marriages are arranged, not for their pleasure.
The archons have a problem. In my book I call it the crisis of overaccumulation. Money is a means of organizing labor in the interests of whoever creates it. What the archons want is more money, so labor is organized to concentrate wealth and ownership of real assets. But labor has to be rewarded with money that goes out, equal to the money coming in. If there's not enough money in circulation, people stop working and the system grinds to a halt.
Mortgage-generated money creates the principal but not the interest. Since that's 93% of all US dollars, if the interest is equal to the principal (at 5.3%), all the money put in circulation has been siphoned out in 15 yrs.
In my generation (but not my mother's) this was solved by encouraging women to compete in a man's world. Over that time, two incomes became the basis on which mortgage loans were issued. Voila! Twice the debt-money put into circulation to be siphoned out. At the same time, interest rates went from 20% (as they were when I bought my house) to almost zero. Since we're bidding against each other, each point drop meant that the same repayment could fund a larger loan, as I show in a table in my book. So it doubled, tripled, quadrupled the house price while putting more money in circulation (at no cost to the archons), each time upping the bidding war.
My plan solves this, btw, by preemptively generating and distributing the same amount of local money--carets--as is needed for the collective mortgages monthly. I lower the bidding war by making outsiders (non-natives or long-term residents) pay twice as much in imperial currency. And I reduce the amount that leaves by taxing carets at 50% if turned into imperial currencies.
But under the current situation, what women are looking for--what's termed the holy grail in Southern states--is a man who makes enough money so they can raise their own kids. Something my mother's generation took for granted! But now a man has to make twice as much to equal a dual-income family. And women are often both the primary wage-earners and the primary care-givers, making men more burden than they're worth--hence the custody conspiracy to threaten women with losing their kids if they jettison the deadbeat dad.
While the looksmaxxing boys are serving a male dominance hierarchy, it's not a hire-archy. They're not positioning themselves to get those jobs that would enable them to raise a family on one income. Although I'm not saying they're thinking this through, the best they're aiming for is a woman who will support them. They want to be the arm-candy for some alpha woman. They're selling their looks, not their brains.
I can't write looksmaxxing without hearing look-smacking. And ain't that the truth.
Heir-archy vs hire-archy. That distinction is sharp. Divine right archons at top, everyone else competing through employment to get close enough to secure resources for mating. The system became self-regulating: need job to get woman, so men police themselves. Archon marriages arranged for alliance, not pleasure. Working class thinks they're participating in same game but they're just fuel.
The mortgage mechanism. You just explained it aptly. Mortgage money creates principal but not interest. 93% of dollars, 5.3% interest = all circulated money siphoned out in 15 years. Women entering the workforce doubled available mortgage money, which drove bidding wars and inflated housing prices. Interest rate drops meant same payment funded larger loans, quadrupling prices while putting more debt-money in circulation at no cost to archons.
That's not women's fault. That's engineered solution to overaccumulation crisis that made single-earner provision impossible while appearing to give women freedom. Both sexes got played.
Now makes me think of how an overaccumulation crisis (surplus elites) leads to systemic “fixes” (financialization/fictitious capital), spatial fixing (real estate/infrastructure/globalization), opening/creating new markets and finally, cultural-political superstructure: elite legitimation narratives and status signaling (where looksmaxxing probably sits)
Looksmaxxing as role reversal is one I definately missed. They're not positioning for jobs that would support families, those don't exist. They're aiming to be arm candy for alpha women. Selling looks, not labor. Wanting to be supported, not supporters.
That's men pimping themselves out. Not because they chose it, but because the hire-archy collapsed for working-class men and this is what's left. The award system (obey hierarchy, get women as spoils) ended. The provider system (get job, support family) ended. So now: optimize appearance, hope to be chosen by woman who can support you.
"Look-smacking." is brilliant. That's exactly what it is but here's what I'm still trying to map: If archons are desperate and losing, what's the endgame? They engineered two-income trap to solve circulation crisis temporarily. That's collapsing now (housing unaffordable even on two incomes, family formation cratering). Looksmaxxing keeps men destroying themselves instead of organizing. What's the next move when even this stops working? What am I missing? Or maybe this is implosion itself?
Thanks for that lovely summary of my thoughts, Ope. They sound more coherent reflected back from you.
One aside, I think the term surplus always confuses the issue. It's not really a surplus when those producing don't have enough. And if producers did create a surplus, that would be a lovely thing. The operative word I use is usurped, which has many of the same letters as surplus skewed around. Usury means usurping ownership of the homes in order to extend the credit against them. I was also thinking this morning how similar usury is to surety, when I was writing about children as debt pawns, being surety for the loan.
In keeping with my book, OMGdess, I entertain the possibility that the archons aren't in ultimate control. There's meaning in the world, and as soon as we know what we want to replace the current system, Goddess will provide the opportunity. Before then, it would be wasted. So I don't take the things they're doing as the real endgame.
What they're trying to do is 'You will own nothing and be happy.' Trump's 50-yr mortgage. Variable rates. CBDC. Crypto Ponzi schemes. Stock market Ponzi schemes. All the same--force people to gamble to survive, then blame them for not being good enough gamblers.
When I wrote rates, I first wrote rats. And that's how I think of them. I used to have chickens and anyone who has chickens long enough will have rats. I got ratproof chicken feeders. If the rats would cooperate, they could take turns weighing down the treadle while one of them feasts. But they don't do that. They're rats.
If the kidfucker Sethians (not Satanists) would put some of their trillions back into circulation, they could keep this game going indefinitely. But I don't think that's gonna happen. They're rats. So the implosion is immanent where people aren't going to put up with it anymore. All Goddess is waiting on is a new plan. And that's where I come in ...
Usurped vs surplus. that is soo spot on! calling it "surplus" when producers can't afford basics is gaslighting economics. Usurped (love this term - am going to be using this) captures what's actually happening: wealth extraction masquerading as natural market dynamics. Usury = usurping ownership, surety = children as collateral. Same letters scrambled, same mechanism repackaged.
On the gambling economy, "force people to gamble to survive, then blame them for not being good enough gamblers." That's the exact mechanism. 50-year mortgages, variable rates, CBDC, crypto Ponzis all require betting your survival on rigged games, then calling you irresponsible when you lose. Not economic policy. Wealth extraction with morality play attached.
Rats will always be rats, ratting out everybody and everyone! This is the sharpest observation and it connects to everything. If archons would recirculate even fraction of extracted wealth, they could sustain the system indefinitely. But they won't as rats. Won't cooperate even for self-preservation. That's not strategic calculation, it's compulsion.
It matches what we're seeing: Thiel accelerating collapse instead of managing it. Surveillance infrastructure that reveals desperation, not confidence. Looksmaxxing funding that neutralizes threats but also destroys the consumer base. Crypto schemes that extract everything knowing it kills the host.
They can't help themselves. The extraction is the point, even when extraction guarantees implosion.
Here's what I'm stuck on: You say Goddess waits on new plan before providing opportunity. I see the problem: everyone alive was trained by system we're trying to escape. Looksmaxxing shows men can't handle hierarchy's collapse without bonesmashing themselves. Women trained for arrangements that ended. Both sexes shaped by 400 years of opposite training.
What does "new plan" look like when the substrate, actual humans who'd have to build it are all broken by what broke? We can't romantically return to Wendat model. We're 15 generations deep in hierarchy training and can't just remove constraints and expect adaptations to disappear.
So when you say implosion is imminent and people won't put up with it anymore, what replaces it? Not what should replace it in an ideal world. What can replace it when everyone's been systematically trained to be incapable of building alternatives? Because what I see is rats extracting until collapse, people breaking under systems that ended, and nobody with both vision of alternative AND capacity to build it. yes, Tereza has vision but can substrate (us, shaped by this) actually execute?
Or is implosion just... implosion? Rats feast until house burns, everyone scrambles, and whatever emerges is determined by who survives chaos, not who had best plan?
My aim is not trying to be defeatist. Genuinely asking: What's the mechanism between "people won't put up with it" and "Goddess provides opportunity"? Because looksmaxxing boys aren't putting up with it either, they're just destroying themselves in response. Refusal without alternative = self-destruction, not liberation.
I say that socio-spirituality is two feet of the same body, by just moving one, you go in circles. On the level of sociology, you have to convince everyone--or at least a majority--to give up the advantages they have in favor of an unknown alternative. Ain't gonna happen. We're doomed.
But what if we're not 'flesh-encapsulated minds' in separate bodies? Are you willing to question your dogma that you exist as a separate entity? This isn't the same as believing in something like Oneness, it's saying that both are belief systems. Our confirmation that we're bodies depends on the senses of that same body, it's a circular loop.
What questioning that dogma means is looking at the things that happen in your life, especially the timing. To ask if there's a significance to how things happen--even the bad things. It's looking for meaning in what occurs, and if things that maybe need to happen, happen in the least bad way regarding the timing.
In terms of an alternate economic plan, thinking that we have to convince everyone else stops us from even thinking about it. But what if the only person you need to convince is you? What if you're the only one who needs to know what you want? That wouldn't put you at risk, wouldn't lose you anything but time. Is it worth trying?
I'll be interviewing Tonika from Visceral Adventures in March. If it was something you could do without risk, politically, I'd love to interview you in April. I'll continue with some more thoughts on the next thread.
I’m a huge fan of Tereza’s and I saw this article because she restacked it. Excellent article. I look forward to subscribing and reading more of your content.
In my experience, Ope, there is nothing as satisfying or as rare as a man saying he was wrong. I've had men write multiple articles on why I was wrong, write entire parody hit pieces ridiculing me, but I have never EVER had a man devote an entire essay on why I was right.
I had to close my eyes and savor the moment several times. I had to do a little happy dance with the hummingbird in the garden. I may need to mark this day on my calendar and celebrate it annually. Thank you!
And in particular that it came from someone whose writing is as widely knowledgable, perceptive and insightful as you. To be honest, those things had to go together. They always have, in my his-story. It's the quality of noticing patterns that I 'get' in you and you in me.
And now, to continue the conversation. Yes, the whole picture gets sharper and darker--but it's not because the patriarchs are winning. It's because they're losing and increasingly desperate.
First, hierarchy and patriarchy are the same. The hiero brought hierarchy, hieroglyphs, hero. The word hiero was pronounced heir/ Air. It meant Lord Air, who inherited the right to rule over the archons (the archy in hierarchy). These are the Aryans--not a race but a VERY exclusive inbred royalty. And cunning as hell. They brought the Sky Father Dyeus Pitr, from which we get Zeus and Jupitr (the illusion of choice), along with the 'patr' in patriarchy.
Here's the thing when women control their own bodies and sex is a sacred and public act--there's not a lot of it. Especially with nubile young women. They're going to choose to mate when they want to get pregnant, and possibly not again until they want another child. I suspect the priestesses were post-menopausal and 'initiated' young men so they'd be trained and ready in pleasing a woman. And it's possible the high priestess was a crone--a word I'll be claiming for my upcoming 69th birthday!
This would have resulted in fringe and semi-feral men who resented this. Here's how I imagine the recruiting pitch of the Aryans: "So boys, you getting as much sex as you want? Nooooo? Well we should do something about that, don't you think?" Obedience to the [Aryan archon] hierarchy was the ancient contract in exchange for women as sex slaves and domestic servants. They never needed to be chosen by the women. The women were the spoils of war to be given in exchange for their violence and ruthlessness. They were awarded by the hierarchy.
But it gets even darker. The woman was your breeding stock for your own slave colony--not to you but to be sold to others. This couldn't be done outright. What you'd do is accept a loan and your child would go to serve in the lender's house as surety. The word interest in Greek means offspring. At the end of the year, a 'debt jubillee' would be declared, so you can keep the money, which was really just an advance payment. The word amargi means freedom and return to the mother. It was a fucking game played by men to traffic their own kids.
So that's the origin of 'father rights.' And I'll explain why the patriarchs made a fatal mistake and why looksmaxxing is men pimping themselves out, in another comment if interested.
Tereza, glad the essay landed. Honestly, I've never understood the impulse to defend being wrong when someone shows you better evidence. Why wrestle with reality? I am always open to correction. I learned a long time ago that admitting I was wrong is how I actually learn and that turning around on public record is strength, not weakness. Most people can't do it, I have seen this, especially online. So when you showed me the Wendat model and the mechanism I missed, I took it happily!
Now let's go deeper because what you're laying out here connects everything I've been documenting in ways I haven't fully seen.
Hierarchy = patriarchy. The etymology (hiero = heir/Air, Aryan archon royalty, Dyeus Pitr = Zeus/Jupiter) makes the mechanism explicit. Not just "men rule women" but hereditary divine right requiring controlled reproduction. That's the through-line I was circling without naming clearly enough.
The incel recruitment mechanism. "You boys getting as much sex as you want? We should do something about that." That's the exact pitch, 3000 BCE and 2025 CE. Obedience to hierarchy in exchange for women as spoils. They don't need to be chosen, they're awarded. That's not just historical. That's still the operating system when you look at how elite men distribute access (Epstein network, modeling agencies, the whole apparatus).
Interest = offspring. Children as loan collateral, debt jubilee as trafficking mechanism, amargi (freedom/return to mother) as the game being played. If that's the origin of "father rights," then looksmaxxing as endgame makes perfect sense. The system's collapsing so men are now pimping themselves instead of being awarded women by hierarchy.
I need you to help me break that down. How are looksmaxxing men pimping themselves out? What's the fatal mistake the patriarchs made? And if they're losing and desperate (which tracks with everything I'm seeing: Thiel, surveillance infrastructure, the acceleration), what does the endgame look like?
This is the sharpest analysis I've encountered on how deep this goes. PLS keep going...
In some of my episodes I talk about a person who changes their mind as the second most powerful force in the universe (https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/when-did-you-stop-being-wrong?) But the most powerful is two people asking the same question, with more interest in the right answer than being right. (https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/we-need-to-agree-to-agree) And those are obviously related. I'm learning so much from you!
I think there's a difference between the heir-archy, or divine right to rule, and the hire-archy. We're all in the latter. Our status depends on how close to the archons we can get hired. At this point, the system is self-regulating because you need to secure the job to get the woman. The archon marriages are arranged, not for their pleasure.
The archons have a problem. In my book I call it the crisis of overaccumulation. Money is a means of organizing labor in the interests of whoever creates it. What the archons want is more money, so labor is organized to concentrate wealth and ownership of real assets. But labor has to be rewarded with money that goes out, equal to the money coming in. If there's not enough money in circulation, people stop working and the system grinds to a halt.
Mortgage-generated money creates the principal but not the interest. Since that's 93% of all US dollars, if the interest is equal to the principal (at 5.3%), all the money put in circulation has been siphoned out in 15 yrs.
In my generation (but not my mother's) this was solved by encouraging women to compete in a man's world. Over that time, two incomes became the basis on which mortgage loans were issued. Voila! Twice the debt-money put into circulation to be siphoned out. At the same time, interest rates went from 20% (as they were when I bought my house) to almost zero. Since we're bidding against each other, each point drop meant that the same repayment could fund a larger loan, as I show in a table in my book. So it doubled, tripled, quadrupled the house price while putting more money in circulation (at no cost to the archons), each time upping the bidding war.
My plan solves this, btw, by preemptively generating and distributing the same amount of local money--carets--as is needed for the collective mortgages monthly. I lower the bidding war by making outsiders (non-natives or long-term residents) pay twice as much in imperial currency. And I reduce the amount that leaves by taxing carets at 50% if turned into imperial currencies.
But under the current situation, what women are looking for--what's termed the holy grail in Southern states--is a man who makes enough money so they can raise their own kids. Something my mother's generation took for granted! But now a man has to make twice as much to equal a dual-income family. And women are often both the primary wage-earners and the primary care-givers, making men more burden than they're worth--hence the custody conspiracy to threaten women with losing their kids if they jettison the deadbeat dad.
While the looksmaxxing boys are serving a male dominance hierarchy, it's not a hire-archy. They're not positioning themselves to get those jobs that would enable them to raise a family on one income. Although I'm not saying they're thinking this through, the best they're aiming for is a woman who will support them. They want to be the arm-candy for some alpha woman. They're selling their looks, not their brains.
I can't write looksmaxxing without hearing look-smacking. And ain't that the truth.
Heir-archy vs hire-archy. That distinction is sharp. Divine right archons at top, everyone else competing through employment to get close enough to secure resources for mating. The system became self-regulating: need job to get woman, so men police themselves. Archon marriages arranged for alliance, not pleasure. Working class thinks they're participating in same game but they're just fuel.
The mortgage mechanism. You just explained it aptly. Mortgage money creates principal but not interest. 93% of dollars, 5.3% interest = all circulated money siphoned out in 15 years. Women entering the workforce doubled available mortgage money, which drove bidding wars and inflated housing prices. Interest rate drops meant same payment funded larger loans, quadrupling prices while putting more debt-money in circulation at no cost to archons.
That's not women's fault. That's engineered solution to overaccumulation crisis that made single-earner provision impossible while appearing to give women freedom. Both sexes got played.
Now makes me think of how an overaccumulation crisis (surplus elites) leads to systemic “fixes” (financialization/fictitious capital), spatial fixing (real estate/infrastructure/globalization), opening/creating new markets and finally, cultural-political superstructure: elite legitimation narratives and status signaling (where looksmaxxing probably sits)
Looksmaxxing as role reversal is one I definately missed. They're not positioning for jobs that would support families, those don't exist. They're aiming to be arm candy for alpha women. Selling looks, not labor. Wanting to be supported, not supporters.
That's men pimping themselves out. Not because they chose it, but because the hire-archy collapsed for working-class men and this is what's left. The award system (obey hierarchy, get women as spoils) ended. The provider system (get job, support family) ended. So now: optimize appearance, hope to be chosen by woman who can support you.
"Look-smacking." is brilliant. That's exactly what it is but here's what I'm still trying to map: If archons are desperate and losing, what's the endgame? They engineered two-income trap to solve circulation crisis temporarily. That's collapsing now (housing unaffordable even on two incomes, family formation cratering). Looksmaxxing keeps men destroying themselves instead of organizing. What's the next move when even this stops working? What am I missing? Or maybe this is implosion itself?
Thanks for that lovely summary of my thoughts, Ope. They sound more coherent reflected back from you.
One aside, I think the term surplus always confuses the issue. It's not really a surplus when those producing don't have enough. And if producers did create a surplus, that would be a lovely thing. The operative word I use is usurped, which has many of the same letters as surplus skewed around. Usury means usurping ownership of the homes in order to extend the credit against them. I was also thinking this morning how similar usury is to surety, when I was writing about children as debt pawns, being surety for the loan.
In keeping with my book, OMGdess, I entertain the possibility that the archons aren't in ultimate control. There's meaning in the world, and as soon as we know what we want to replace the current system, Goddess will provide the opportunity. Before then, it would be wasted. So I don't take the things they're doing as the real endgame.
What they're trying to do is 'You will own nothing and be happy.' Trump's 50-yr mortgage. Variable rates. CBDC. Crypto Ponzi schemes. Stock market Ponzi schemes. All the same--force people to gamble to survive, then blame them for not being good enough gamblers.
When I wrote rates, I first wrote rats. And that's how I think of them. I used to have chickens and anyone who has chickens long enough will have rats. I got ratproof chicken feeders. If the rats would cooperate, they could take turns weighing down the treadle while one of them feasts. But they don't do that. They're rats.
If the kidfucker Sethians (not Satanists) would put some of their trillions back into circulation, they could keep this game going indefinitely. But I don't think that's gonna happen. They're rats. So the implosion is immanent where people aren't going to put up with it anymore. All Goddess is waiting on is a new plan. And that's where I come in ...
Usurped vs surplus. that is soo spot on! calling it "surplus" when producers can't afford basics is gaslighting economics. Usurped (love this term - am going to be using this) captures what's actually happening: wealth extraction masquerading as natural market dynamics. Usury = usurping ownership, surety = children as collateral. Same letters scrambled, same mechanism repackaged.
On the gambling economy, "force people to gamble to survive, then blame them for not being good enough gamblers." That's the exact mechanism. 50-year mortgages, variable rates, CBDC, crypto Ponzis all require betting your survival on rigged games, then calling you irresponsible when you lose. Not economic policy. Wealth extraction with morality play attached.
Rats will always be rats, ratting out everybody and everyone! This is the sharpest observation and it connects to everything. If archons would recirculate even fraction of extracted wealth, they could sustain the system indefinitely. But they won't as rats. Won't cooperate even for self-preservation. That's not strategic calculation, it's compulsion.
It matches what we're seeing: Thiel accelerating collapse instead of managing it. Surveillance infrastructure that reveals desperation, not confidence. Looksmaxxing funding that neutralizes threats but also destroys the consumer base. Crypto schemes that extract everything knowing it kills the host.
They can't help themselves. The extraction is the point, even when extraction guarantees implosion.
Here's what I'm stuck on: You say Goddess waits on new plan before providing opportunity. I see the problem: everyone alive was trained by system we're trying to escape. Looksmaxxing shows men can't handle hierarchy's collapse without bonesmashing themselves. Women trained for arrangements that ended. Both sexes shaped by 400 years of opposite training.
What does "new plan" look like when the substrate, actual humans who'd have to build it are all broken by what broke? We can't romantically return to Wendat model. We're 15 generations deep in hierarchy training and can't just remove constraints and expect adaptations to disappear.
So when you say implosion is imminent and people won't put up with it anymore, what replaces it? Not what should replace it in an ideal world. What can replace it when everyone's been systematically trained to be incapable of building alternatives? Because what I see is rats extracting until collapse, people breaking under systems that ended, and nobody with both vision of alternative AND capacity to build it. yes, Tereza has vision but can substrate (us, shaped by this) actually execute?
Or is implosion just... implosion? Rats feast until house burns, everyone scrambles, and whatever emerges is determined by who survives chaos, not who had best plan?
My aim is not trying to be defeatist. Genuinely asking: What's the mechanism between "people won't put up with it" and "Goddess provides opportunity"? Because looksmaxxing boys aren't putting up with it either, they're just destroying themselves in response. Refusal without alternative = self-destruction, not liberation.
I say that socio-spirituality is two feet of the same body, by just moving one, you go in circles. On the level of sociology, you have to convince everyone--or at least a majority--to give up the advantages they have in favor of an unknown alternative. Ain't gonna happen. We're doomed.
But what if we're not 'flesh-encapsulated minds' in separate bodies? Are you willing to question your dogma that you exist as a separate entity? This isn't the same as believing in something like Oneness, it's saying that both are belief systems. Our confirmation that we're bodies depends on the senses of that same body, it's a circular loop.
What questioning that dogma means is looking at the things that happen in your life, especially the timing. To ask if there's a significance to how things happen--even the bad things. It's looking for meaning in what occurs, and if things that maybe need to happen, happen in the least bad way regarding the timing.
In terms of an alternate economic plan, thinking that we have to convince everyone else stops us from even thinking about it. But what if the only person you need to convince is you? What if you're the only one who needs to know what you want? That wouldn't put you at risk, wouldn't lose you anything but time. Is it worth trying?
This year I'm interviewing different people familiar with my plan on how they would implement it in their home hamlets. I'm alternating women and men, starting with Victoria Alexander, who interviewed me: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/revolutionary-housewives-and-economics and then Gabriel from Canada: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/system-change-with-gabriel.
I'll be interviewing Tonika from Visceral Adventures in March. If it was something you could do without risk, politically, I'd love to interview you in April. I'll continue with some more thoughts on the next thread.
I’m a huge fan of Tereza’s and I saw this article because she restacked it. Excellent article. I look forward to subscribing and reading more of your content.
Thank you very much for subbing! i look forward to engaging and learning from you.
She's just not satisfied with her man that's why she's pushing this dumb narrative
Women are very picky in mating specially those with higher standards that's what pushes competition between males