@;-; @ThisIsB_

What if I do some introspection and realize I wouldn't ever be able to love a child? I'm not saying I would mistreated the child, I'm saying I would forever and ever see it as a burden. I'm heading to a lonely retirement ANYWAYS, I either do it with savings or do it broke af because I wasted all my money on a child I never bonded with, and that never bonded with me.

Homo Sapiens hunter-gatherer societies were NOT largely matriarchal. One could point out a few matriarch-adjacent groups, but they were just that: few. Anomalous. Abnormal. Weird. That's why their imagery stands out more in post-modern research: they are DIFFERENT from the rest. Post modernism in research is all about writing a thousand pages about the odd one out while leaving a footnote describing the norm. But, regardless of the truth, it's ideolocally ~interesting to be full on pro-matriarch while attributing 100% of the civilizational victory of our species to Patriarch. If Patriarch has been on since forever, then the unprecedented technological developments of the last 12.000 years can be attributed to dozens of other factors. If Patriarch "became a thing" suspiciously close to the start of these developments, one cannot help but wonder if maybe there's causation. Yes yes, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but even so, that would mean the same thing that caused unprecedented technological development also caused Patriarchy, maybe technology itself caused Patriarchy, who knows... regardless, that would mean the origin of Civilization and the origin of Patriarch are so intertwined that the former cannot fully exist without the latter. In this belief system, abolishing Patriarchy would mean abolishing Civilization itself. The funny part? I have a feeling that's exactly what they would want. Let's go back to the hypothetical "woman-cave" times when every single resource was scarce and the average lifespan of our species was abysmally small and painful.

EPSTEIN FILES 2.0 Going off on the conclusion that there's no such thing as a true leak and "they" have planned this for their own gain, one can observe people's reaction to the scandal and conclude "their" motive might have been, among other things, to weaken people's willingness to partake in the social contract. Such a conclusion comes because, at the end of the day, no matter how one may feel (or not feel) about the situation, it seems that most people invested in the story inevitably concludes that personal engagement in pro-social behavior is meaningless and useless. People who blame "The Patriarchy" for what happened end up (even more) disinterested in building relationships and families, people who blame "The Jews" for what happened end up, again, (even more) disinterested in building up relationships and families. Doesn't it seem plausible that, somehow, that was the end goal they planned for since the beginning of the Epstein scandal? A society not only more divided politically but also less willing than ever to live their personal lives REGARDLESS of the big picture?

@;-; @ThisIsB_

4 months ago

EPSTEIN FILES Many (most) people view the Epstein phenomenon as a bug to an otherwise healthy system. Some people see it as a feature to an inherently unhealthy system. Both, more often than not, believe it's feasible to "take them down," either replacing those rotten people for

0 0 0 99 0

EPSTEIN FILES Many (most) people view the Epstein phenomenon as a bug to an otherwise healthy system. Some people see it as a feature to an inherently unhealthy system. Both, more often than not, believe it's feasible to "take them down," either replacing those rotten people for better ones that would execute their powerful roles similarly but without the rotten part or not replacing them at all, allowing the power vacuum to be filled by the will of the popular (or something like that). Whether or not it's actually possible to "take them down," one may ask: is it possible for the civilization as we know it to not collapse if we do? If not, is it worth it living in a civilization that necessarily has to be (and can ONLY be) governed by rotten people? Is this elite class something that, like a parasite, installed itself on the civilizational host in the last few decades but, in doing so, took over so many vital functions that it's now practically impossible to remove it without severe damage (if not death) to the host? Or could it be something more ancestral, and just like a child finding out mommy and daddy were ALWAYS serial killers, we (the civilization) are now finding out this elite class has not only predated our existence by a long shot but, given it's vital importance on our upbringing, we only exist the way we do because of them? Maybe the truth is, as in most cases, somewhere in the middle, and we are dealing with different types of rotten elites. Maybe the ancestral elite that organized civilization into existence is somewhere darker that none of us could ever look at, maybe this newer elite that thrives on grotesque parties and blackmail has a tight leash around it's neck that's being pulled by something we cannot fully comprehend. My hottest Epstein take: there's no such a thing as a true leak, and by that I mean: every single thing the public knows about it is because *they* expect us to know it, *they* planned for us to know about it and they ABSOLUTELY have something to gain from us knowing it. Ask yourself, genuinely: what would *they* gain from the public knowing exactly what it knows now? Everything is fake. They make you cry and then sell you tissue.

A take on the modern political left:

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

#PL2338NÃO