Post: #1

Men who work for a living/have their own business strive to create value for society every time we labor. However, are we digging our own grave by making society wealthier through producing goods and services as it allows feminism to flourish? Alternatively, is it the presence of welfare rather than overall and the redistribution of resources from men to women that cause feminism and decrease the quality of the female population? Of course there can be no controlled conditions like in physics or chemistry but we can make some general observations from today and the past.

We can all propose that the prevalence of feminism plus the legal and technological enablers are the primary factors in the decreasing quality of women today. Judging from my experience of life in Eastern Europe, USA and travels to Asia and South America, as well as the general consensus of the Manosphere- wealth seems to spoil women as can be easily observed is almost all Western countries. In my opinion, the highest quality of women are in Ukraine and Russia - two relatively poor countries when you compare them to the West, but middle of the road if you take the whole world into account (obviously - most of South East Asia and Africa is poorer without having higher quality girls than Eastern Europe). Despite Soviet propaganda championing feminism, it has remained rather low there until recently with more openness to the west. Roosh best describes it in his experience in Poland 2011 vs 2018 how he had to switch from hybrid game to clown game due to the country becoming wealthier.

There is a similar situation in South America to Eastern Europe yet wealthy Muslim middle eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia and UAE still maintain traditional values (despite allowing women to drive recently). Israel is also an interesting phenomenon as it has high birth rate despite high wealth and lots of liberals and multiculturalism. http://www.returnofkings.com/77443/5-rea...ful-states

Furthermore, when we look back at history, we see some feminism in the wealthy parts of the ancient world with a drop in feminism with the European Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. When we read the memoirs of Roman poets who lament on their wives falling in love with actors and athletes and the prevalence of PUAs such as Ovid (http://www.returnofkings.com/53677/lesso...tin-lover-) one can easily see the parallel with modern United States. However, 5 centuries before, in wealthy Periclean Athens - women did not participate in public life and it was thought that the biggest virtue a woman can have is not to be talked about. Perhaps it was the fact that Rome had welfare and Athens did not (although it did have lots of government jobs)? Do not recall any nomadic step people having much feminist values except for perhaps the Scythians. Same for Germanic and Nordic tribes of the Middle Ages. Obviously, the Industrial revolution caused wealth to skyrocket everywhere and feminism seems to correlate with it. But does it cause it?

This thought first occurred to me six years ago when I was watching a historical documentary about the 20th Century of America and she asked if hippies and feminists of the 60s caused the economic slow down of the 70s or if the economic success of the 50s and 60s caused the Baby Boomers to become hippies and feminists? Are men stuck in this hamster wheel of more work leads to more wealth leads to feminism leads to inversion?

Love to hear your thoughts - searched for this topic before hand. What is your opinion?

Post: #2

Yes... and SJWism... and Depression. Basically a lot of problems we have is because peoples lives are soooo easy now compared to before that they can actually sit around and make up shit to be sad and complain about.

Post: #3

In part, but there are obviously race differences at play here also. So it`s not the ultimate explanation. The difference between Dubai and Stockholm illustrates my point. Some will say this is more culture rather than genetics, but I think that`s bull. Genetics determines the parameters of possible cultures.

Post: #4

Jews cause feminism.

Post: #5

Hard times create strong men. Strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.

Post: #6

Read up on r/K. r is conflict avoidance, which allows immorality to flourish. And immorality(narcissism, fucking people over) is extreme r. Roughly speaking, welfare(taxation) is immoral, but people don't do anything about it in an r environment where it's better to surrender your resources. Feminism is an r strategy(reduced sexual dimorphism and sex role reversals) to try to reproduce quickly with low investment.

Post: #7

I voted no

Besides making people soft, wealth won't necessarily have women shitting on the streets and putting religious symbols in their vaginas(actually happened where I live and it's not a wealthy place)

Case in point: Japan and Korea, relatively rich but not many neon-haired dykes around, just annoying entitled princesses but not nearly as bad or similar

Argentina and Ukraine, on the other hand, are relatively poorer but are plagued by a number of radical Antifa-like scum organizations throwing molotovs on churches and disrupting national events

There is a reason for feminism tho, and it goes back to the Weimar Republic..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

Post: #8

(11-26-2018 08:29 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:  Read up on r/K. r is conflict avoidance, which allows immorality to flourish. And immorality(narcissism, fucking people over) is extreme r. Roughly speaking, welfare(taxation) is immoral, but people don't do anything about it in an r environment where it's better to surrender your resources. Feminism is an r strategy(reduced sexual dimorphism and sex role reversals) to try to reproduce quickly with low investment.

I listened to Stephan Molyneux series on r/k and rabbits versus wolves is probably the best comparison that I heard. If feminism, immorality is an r strategy, it is surprising that it results in decreased birth rates except for welfare queen cases. So would this mean that the parts of the world that have high birth rates like Africa and India are more k cultures than the west? But would not that mean that they would have less children since their environment is harsher? For examply, my late grandfather who was the ultimate provider male, had 12 brothers and sisters on a farm and some moved out and some did not, I see elements of both k and r in this strategy as focusing on the family is more wolf-like while having a lot of kids is more rabbit like. Was that an r strategy or a k?

Corollary, if the developing world is still using k strategy, than why do so many want to move into the r environment of the West? For me, it was the pursuit of wealth yet considering the lower quality of females, why does the k gene fail to prevent one from going into the r world?

Post: #9

It causes many societal ails, because in order to have wealth there needs to be uncontrolled greed by corporations. These corporations destroy society so that people are incomplete, mentally and physically sick, and in need of their products to sooth their own degeneracy.

We can either be poor and healthy as a society, or wealthy and degenerate. Even the Bible talks about it, we haven't changed.

Hopefully there is an in between, if there is I'll fight for it.

Post: #10

I think wealth and jobs going to young women creates feminism and female entitlement, which is a luxury afforded to wealthy nations. Wealthy nations such as Japan which still promote strong hierarchal values across society don't suffer the plights of feminism - not to say Japan is some conservative utopia, they have their own problems.

I think the issue of women entering work is largely two fold;
-Women with high status jobs demand higher status men
-Men and women do not know where to place women of the workplace on a conventional hierarchy.

The whole thing just creates so much more chaos to life than existed in generations previous. Work/employment seems so demeaned from what it used to be as value structures and hierarchal status surrounding being a 'professional' erodes. Feminism has removed all the systems of 'respect your professional elders (your boss)', because 'muh patriachy'. All because feminine fertility is so valued that society is too weak to say 'no, our systems were put in place for good reason'.

The 'patriarchy' and feminism is really more of a disdain that the youth have to submit to their elders and a want to live free of all responsibility. A bunch of blue haired 23 year old girls who think they know best as to how the world operates - and we collectively are all to soft to tell them to shut the fuck up.

Post: #11

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/20...m.html?m=1 great new article on this topic by Aaron Clarey

Post: #12

It is not wealth that causes feminism but usury which, increases the gap between rich and poor at exponential rates. The national debt the financial democracies are in thrall to need wages to be decreased but the tax payer base to be increased.

Captain Capitalism blaming Communism is just plain lazy. How do women compare in countries which were Communist for 40 to 70 years, with those in the liberal capitalist countries since the 1960s?

Post: #13

Good answer as I had a recent debate about this and calculated that social spending in Russia is about 50B $ compared to US 500$B but when you account for GDP and population, they are almost equal. So Russia and US are equally "Communist."

Even during late Soviet times (in my childhood) the women there were more feminine than today's while they may not have had as much in terms of wardrobe- they certainly had traditional values and made the most out of the 2 dresses and pairs of heels they did have. Sweet spot was in the early 2000s when they still had the traditional mentality but could afford a lot of fashionable clothing.

Noe one hypothesis off the top of my head is that true communist ideals did not really permeate into the Soviet Union as they discredited themselves even in the eyes of the Communist party as Lenin himself acquired and allowed Capitalism to return in 1921 with the New Economic Plan. Similar thing happened in China after Mao died and the communists who participated in his great leap forward and saw how flawed the ideas were took over snd just kept the symbols. Most true believers did not survive Stain and the Communists simply became a sort of priestly class that did not really understand the goals behind he ideology they were preaching. Maybe this is because Marxism was developed by rich German intellectuals- not by peasants who just wanted a better life. An example is peasants joining KGB just because they had higher rations. People mostly remained the same as prior to the 1917 revolution.

Post: #14

I voted no.

The perverse fact is that feminism increases national wealth for two obvious reasons.

First, adding women to the workforce gives employers more options and keeps wages down, increasing profits and capital investment.

Second, giving women control over more money as wages increases consumption, because women buy more shit than men. They're also more concerned with status-signalling, which has a price.

"National wealth" is a metric which means little unless wealth is distributed and quality of life is preserved.

There are several countries which have much lower per capita GDPs than the USA but have adequate infrastructure, pleasant surroundings and a less feminist culture, eg Poland, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, Costa Rica, Colombia. Good places to live according to taste.

Post: #15

It makes it much more likely. Throughout history you see warped gender roles appear in many societies that achieve a good level of affluence and cosmopolitanism. Due to constraints in technology, they don't last long before the whole thing collapses, or the men get back in charge.

Things are different these days. If men don't get a grip on technology and the unconscious impulses that it encourages (such as the destruction of families so as to co-opt women for corporate work and consumption), then within two generations — but more likely one — we will be permanently enslaved until the technosphere depletes Earth's resources and collapses.

Post: #16

Is it monetary wealth or lack of it that creates bad quality, or is it the destruction of traditional cultures and replacement with garbage corporate/globalist culture that does it?

Post: #17

Indirect - yes. As illustrated in the Saudi [Kuwait etc.] comparison, those are some of the richest countries in the world in terms of per capita GDP. Yet they are the countries with the least feminism.

I think the key factor is who controls the culture. I would describe almost all of history as fascist. That is, society gets melded into narrow areas of permissible behaviour; usually relating to socio-economic status, gender roles, religion and general manners.

As far as I know (maybe someone can enlighten us) Japan still has some quite strong traditional/conservative forces that have kept the women more feminine than here.

In Russia, women do better than men in management, but it's not generally culturally acceptable to be a feminist.

If the SJWs were raised in Russia, not many of them would be SJWs. They would just be going along with the acceptable culture like they do here.

Hard fascism, would be some form of dictatorship, like North Korea or Mussolini.

Then you have soft fascism. Kazakstan is a good example of this, where virtually everyone votes for the President and they agree that they are all going to accept the same rules of society and not question them. Russia is a lesser example of this, where people look to a strong leader to stop all sorts of social fissures appearing.

And in The West we have subtle fascism, which we know as political correctness. We're all told we live in free countries, but really, the avenues of acceptable behaviour, belief and speech are about as narrow as the two previous examples. In this example we have our own beliefs, which we may confide in allies in private, but we know if we don't shut our mouths in mainstream society that the subtle hand of fascism will nudge us into the bigot's corner.

The former (hard, soft) are controlled by strongmen; while subtle fascist societies are controlled by weak men. Weak men control by manipulation, like women; whereas strongmen control via stoicism or force.

Weak men are desperately afraid of strong men (see media hysteria re. Drumpf!); and I think weak men both ally with and use feminism to form a power block that effectively flushes exemplary strongmen out of society so they don't have to compete with them. Just imagine Cuckerberg going head to head with Trump, no holes barred and with the rules of society removed. He'd be bricking all over his booster seat.

I know a guy who could only be describe as a Soy Royal. He has the most painfully blue-pilled approach to women I've ever known; and of course it gets nothing but rejections from the flakes that drop from the post-wall table. He's very averse to the competition we need to create brilliance. If only everything could just be nice. Recently he came out as a male feminist. As by siding with them he gets to remake society in a way that is more suitable for him to succeed, i.e. banning healthy masculine behaviour that makes his life difficult and reduces his status.

---

One thing I've noted is that in stable jurisdictions there are 100 year liberal to conservative cycles. England had been the most stable and has been in these cycles for at least about 1000 years. This is analogous to:

Hard times create strong men,
Strong men create good times,
Good times create weak men,
Weak men create hard times.

3 Generations. 100 years.

The 1600s were very turbulent and ushered in a conservatism - Cromwellian puritanism. Out of that England started to become the center of the world and with the agricultural revolution people had much easier lives than ever before. The people took their wealth and used it for luxury and living carelessly.

Welfare spending went up about 800% to 1815. Illegitimate births up 500%. A French visitor said at the time, "There is no religion in England."

By 1815 the game was up, people had taken their wealth and opportunity and landed in hard times: overpopulation, mass unemployment, mechanisation, poverty and degeneracy. So that ushered in a new conservative cycle that included temperance, Victorian manners and hard work. Being poor was essentially partially criminalised.

We're at this position again, bad decisions and degeneracy have taken us to the point there is little free ride left to be had.

In the period 1815-30, you had both liberal degeneracy and conservatism rising at the same time. You have the same happening again in the 2015-2030 window,

The left are finished for this century. It's just a question of how much damage they will do before life becomes too hard for their ridiculous ideas to be given any credence.

As per "The people took their wealth and used it for luxury and living carelessly". When people are wealthy they have the luxury to make bad decisions. As women now have the luxury to hop on the cock carousel. You can only get feminism and leftism after you have wealth, and it could be practically inevitable. Weak men cannot take control in hard times. Who would want John Oliver leading an army?

In terms of the likes of Japan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Saudi etc. They haven't been stable for long enough for the cycle to kick into leftism.

---

You can see the shift between strong and weak men most clearly when you look at the fashion of the era.

Cross-over to liberal: 1730s:



At the peak of the liberal cycle: 1770s:



Cross-over to conservative: 1830s:



At the peak of the conservative cycle: 1870s:



Cross-over to liberal: 1930s:



At the peak of the liberal cycle: 1970s:



Cross-over to conservative: 2030s: Prediction:

Post: #18

(11-28-2018 05:38 PM)gework Wrote:  Cross-over to conservative: 2030s: Prediction:

More like:

Post: #19

"Upon the Suiones, border the people Sitones; and, agreeing with them in all other things, differ from them in one, that here the sovereignty is exercised by a woman. So notoriously do they degenerate not only from a state of liberty, but even below a state of bondage."

This was observed by the Roman Historian Tacitus all the way back in year 97 AD. The Suiones/Sitones where basically Scandinavian peoples, only different tribes. He also notes similar (but not as pronounced) traits with Germanics. To me this is a strong indication that the basis of gender equality within certain races is mostly an evolved trait.

Of course with modern technology this trait becomes greatly exaggerated, and ends up as a destructive if not fatal mechanism. What must have been advantageous at one stage (or it wouldn`t have evolved) has now become detrimental. The solution as far as biology is concerned, is to evolve or perish. All species (and subspecies) encounter this dilemma from time to time. So either Feminism will die, or Europeans (Anglos at least) will die with it. I belive that we are seeing this dynamic play out at this very moment in history. But it will get much worse before it hopefully get`s better. It sort of follows from this logic that the more r selected type of Europeans will have to die off, which I guess is what we are witnessing at the moment. Liberals don`t reproduce in the numbers that conservatives do as far as I can tell.

Post: #20

(11-28-2018 05:38 PM)gework Wrote:  

This fashion is badass as fuck man
Hard, stone cold and imposes immediate respect, even the mustache plays into it
Gotta look into a modern version of that

Post: #21

Hipsters are kind of trying to repopularize some 100+ year old trends like beards and lumberjack apparel. It's more of a parody, though.

Post: #22

Quote:Hard times create strong men,
Strong men create good times,
Good times create weak men,
Weak men create hard times.

This has been altered via technology. The industrial/green/aerospace/info revolutions.

The good times are now being driven more by technology than strong men, and you could say weak since most technology comes out of betas.

What's adaptable today as far as attaining financial success is to be good at STEM which is beta. Traditionally masculine men have little value in society other than being playthings for women. Even though we've had constant conflict since 911, there's no clear and present danger on the homefront. And few well-paying jobs require breaking a sweat.

So I think we're in uncharted territory here.

Think of what happened during the last recession. More men than women lost their jobs. There were lots of articles about armies of househusbands staying home while women brought home the bacon. So those hard times did not breed strong men.

As waves of automation crash over society it will be harder and harder for anyone to get a white-collar career without being STEM-oriented.

Post: #23

I would say technological saturation is more specifically the cause, but that is absolutely tied to a nation’s wealth.

Post: #24

(11-28-2018 05:38 PM)gework Wrote:  Cross-over to liberal: 1730s:

Actually that was 1820's dressing, as your source specified such. As a vestige of his military service, Beau Brummell popularised trousers (pantaloons) and tailcoats among monied middle class men in favour of the aristocratic breeches and full-skirted coats previously in vogue in the English court.

Post: #25

Japan is one of the richest countries in the world. There is no feminism.

It is a culturally not an economic phenomenon.