it's actually way worse than people think. 'feminism' is not just about women qua women. it's an anti-vitality, anti-life, anti-human disease that has enveloped all of modern human civilization

it's wrapped up in "liberal" enlightenment values and it can't be extricated from the baseline moral assumptions and beliefs that the modern world collectively holds

reversing it would require the complete dismantling of our society and its replacement with something totally foreign to modern human sensibilities

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757345)

all of this - feminism and the rest of what i described above - is an inevitable consequence of enlightenment values. some would even argue that christianity alone put us on this trajectory, and that the enlightenment and its values were inevitable, too

i am not, at least not right now, advocating for a complete "roll-back" of enlightenment values. partly because it's impossible. "we" as the collective body of western civilization have already biologically evolved to an animal that's incompatible with pre-enlightenment values

there isn't actually a "solution" to all this. optimistically, there will be smaller pockets of westerners who will end up with pre-enlightenment values out of necessity due to selection, as modern society breaks down. those who maintain enlightenment values will not reproduce and/or they will be killed

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757385)

modern western values are a rejection of these things, not a natural evolution or consequence of them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757404)

individual rights, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, free markets, "human rights" - all of these enlightenment values are incompatible with being "based" on women. they inevitably lead to 'feminism' and to the state of our society today

anyone or anything that tries to resist this trend has been and is out-competed. that's why it's "inevitable." but as the system collapses under the weight of foreigners who are incompatible with it, the selection pressures will eventually reverse, like i explained above

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757426)

this is why it would be impossible to ever "roll them back." someone like you literally cannot even mentally conceptualize that this set of values and assumptions about the world that we have is totally unique and totally foreign to everyone else throughout history. there's no "pivoting away" from it. it's all that anyone knows and can know, now

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757555)

lol retard, you know all of this can be easily reconciled with being "based" by simply limiting the direct application of those principles to men. If a woman wishes to exercise them, she must do so through a man. Nothing is lost, for instance, if a man has veto power over his wife posting stupid shit on facebook.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758046)

We know this because it literally already happened. The men who lived before us were far more "based" than we are, and far more aware of the problem than we are

They tried to reconcile it. They failed. Because it cannot be reconciled

This is another reason why discussion of this topic is pointless. Because you can point out, like I'm doing right now, that we *know* that reconciling these irreconcilable things is impossible, because it has already been tried and failed by far more (relatively) powerful and capable people than us

But people don't want to believe the truth, so they simply refuse to. Discussion therefore goes nowhere

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758069)

our society has chosen the individual over the collective. We can lament this all we want but it is what leads to less government interference, 2A rights, and 1A rights - all of which should tilt the other way in a cohesive collective.

of course women will avail themselves of these arguments and we have been trained to believe in the principles underlining them all

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758104)

There's a lot more to say on it but even reconciling this fundamental fact and value-'belief' about the world with being "based" on women is impossible

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758234)

When the economy can't support completely unnecessary industries and jobs that are entirely tied to consumer spending, women will go back to their natural roles.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757742)

of course men will do the heavy lifting but there's a ton of shit women tend to be better at like cooking, cleaning, etc. and of course they *can* do hard labor too, and have had to survive or because they were forced to. and there are plenty of female professionals that outperform men.

normalizing working women was a gc trick to increase the labor pool. it could only be reversed if an average man can provide sufficient resources for his family alone. increased resource scarcity would obviously put more pressure for women to generate resources for their family.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757839)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757871)

please expound

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758297)

not at my career. I haven't met a single woman in tech who is nearly as knowledgeable or productive as me. Not one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758346)

To the extent that you conflate "success" with "performance," I guess I can tell you that there are plenty of successful women who've found themselves behind bars.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758410)

Like I said above people's brains are so completely warped by modern society and the objectively extremely strange beliefs that it rests on that they literally cannot cognitively wrap their heads around this stuff

You can see how and why "talking about this stuff" never gets anywhere. People are not capable of "talking about it" because they don't even know what's going on

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757801)

until a country is willing to say this and tolerate feminazis going insane i doubt TFR goes up

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757848)

As conditions become more difficult, resources will be further allocated towards real productive labor. Almost all of which is done by men.

I also think women will welcome this. Most women don't actually like *work*. Many men don't like their *jobs*, but they don't have the easy "get out of work free" card that women do (pregnancy, child rearing.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757858)

When we say "entering the workforce" we are referring exclusively to the latter, which results in a net negative effect to overall economic production for a variety of reasons

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757901)

which would require women to work to supplement household income. as has been the case in pre-industrial eras. so sure, perhaps women would be excluded from important roles, but theyd instead be employed mending clothes, cleaning, cooking, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757927)

Therefore, the "household" in the future state we are theorizing doesn't have as much to actually support from a financial POV. People would eat simpler food, travel less (if at all), buy less new clothing. No more 84 month loans for GMC Yukon Denalis, etc.

Take away the bullshit of a modern household and it becomes much more supportable on one income. The NEED to have two incomes is in part due to people's expectations of bullshit that the economy cannot deliver without them taking on unnecessary debt. But our system is currently structured to push as much debt on people as possible because it is that debt which drives the economy.

A YUGE portion of GDP is driven by transactions, not by real production. And these transactions are driven by access to credit...and increasingly this means access to credit for smaller and smaller things (e.g. using Klarna to buy a latte.) If the credit bubble ceases growing, this shit will go away. People will have much simpler lifestyles and households will become cheaper to sustain. Even if they'll have less "stuff."

Things will simply return to the way they've always been and the blip of the 20th century will finally be put to bed. Frankly, it should've been put to bed in 2008, but Boomers (and jews) couldn't deal with right sizing their lives. And we are all paying for that today.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758222)

Somewhat related, I often think about how awful the job of Fed Chair must be at this point. It's just constant crisis management because anything less will pop the bubble.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758294)

what consuela types fuck up is believing this must occur via some sort of centralized authority, that it's some plan, or a component of an even larger plan.

the reality is that all the biggest beneficiaries of the status quo work in their self interest just like everyone else. they see the way the wind is blowing and make adjustments for that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758308)

post hunter-gatherer societies have been like 95% subsistence farmers where both men and women worked which is his entire point. to the extent the current time is a "blip" solo-wagecuck households are also a "blip" in the context of human history

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758299)

The current situation is such that the debt bubble is so large and TPTB are doing whatever it takes to keep it going. This has the effect of immiserating huge swathes of the population - costs keep rising, asset prices stay elevated, so households need both people to work in order to stay above water.

Over time, I think we will see:

1.) Deflation of asset prices, thus a lowering of the cost of living.

--Note that this may also mean people have less from a material standpoint, but are not living on a knife's edge from a financial perspective.

2.) People shifting to much lower cost of living lifestyles. People will "choose" to deflate. This is already happening IMO. Look at the rise of tiny home communities, as one example.

A huge number of bullshit jobs are being kept afloat by the Fed's never-ending "emergency" measures. Many companies are zombie firms that need to continuously roll over their debt to stay in business. This wildly distorts markets, including labor markets.

If and when these companies are allowed to fail / restructure, the workforce itself will restructure to better reflect the types of companies that can sustain themselves in the fundamental underlying economic environment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757926)

re 2: if people begin living more spartan lives out of necessity this would put even more pressure on women to earn whatever they could to support their increasingly meager lifestyle.

i think if things go the way you're theorizing it could lead to some sort of labor revolution where male wage earners demand enough to support their family. but it wouldn't happen naturally, and there would be a period where the entire working class is working like slaves to get by. this has happened historically as well. but thats not a natural consequence if increased scarcity such that wed see female employment declining as resources decline. what would happen would be similar to russian serfs where shit got worse and worse until it became intolerable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49757958)

however, ipso facto, he too must be a witch if he was borne of one, no?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847862&forum_id=2ﾃ｢竄ï½���„1¤77PHPSESSID=3d8e678aec504db068978830e992758d#49758272)