Thread 82773999

what will be the conclusion of this?

>>82773999 (OP)
Collapse

>>82773999 (OP)
everywhere will just become Indian/black. That's the conclusion.

>>82773999 (OP)
Extinction of humanity, mass demographic collapse, or mass rape and reversion of women's rights.

"We need infinite niggers and Indians because uhh we just do ok."

>>82773999 (OP)
>>82774009
Birth rate collapse in the developed world and our elites have to import millions upon millions of high birth rate Africans to keep the GDP and pensions up.


Lots of clever people have predicted that this is the future and the massive overrepresentation of black people on TV and music is a way of preparing the population for this huge shift.

>>82774028
Basically this. They also want the native men of these countries demoralized and full of hate for the women. That way there is little push back.

Cool another graph I cant read

>>82773999 (OP)
>what will be the conclusion of this?
Me pressing this button.

>>82774028
> to keep the GDP and pensions up
They don't do that tho
They are a net drain by a lot, same as every other global south thirdie

>>82774097
This, at best they subsidize a bigger consumer base but that wont work out in the long term

>>82774044
tl;dr: women are stupid
r9k was right again as always

>>82774097
I honestly believe the plan is just to enslave them when white people are so few in number that they can't form a revolt against them. The elite has always enslaved people throughout history. I'm not so gullible to believe slavery is over for good suddenly just because.

>>82774105
>a bigger consumer base but that wont work out in the long term
boomers don't care about that though, which is the problem. they know they're almost dead so they're just trying to get the last little bit of money they can to waste on a cruise

>>82774118
>I'm not so gullible to believe slavery is over for good suddenly just because.
White people are the only ones against slavery anyway so once they're gone, the Chinese will just enslave every brownoid they need and not care about muh "human rights" and other shit, especially because roasties have poisoned that well so much already

>>82774137
I think that's the ultimate plan. They also need to kill off a lot of people in the future as robotics and AI truly takes hold. It's a lot easier to kill off brown people directly and openly than it would be white people. The past few years has proven that.

>>82773999 (OP)
The immutable law of the universe: return to the mean

>>82774237
libtards (women) are the great filter it's pretty clear at this point.

>>82773999 (OP)
Declining birthrates and social degradation until hard times, then we get a strong man leader that takes the necessary steps to solve the problem, then we reset back to factory default settings until the process repeats itself in a few hundred years. Women's views will align back with men's once they need men to survive, as they always have eventually throughout history. The cycle has always been, the cycle will continue to be so long as we are tied to the same genetic programming. This won't really stop until we either go extinct, become machines, or evolve past it.

>>82774044
what's so complicated about that graph that you can't read it?

>>82773999 (OP)
Men will troon out and become the gf because women will refuse to date misogynists who hate them desuuu

>>82775025
yes it's actually incredible how easy it is to get guys to fall in love with you just be being caring, happy to talk to them and a bit coy and demure

>>82775025
>women will refuse to date misogynists
How come they do it all throughout the 3rd world?

>>82774097
This is proven to be false with mexicans in the US. They do generate wealth, about as much as whites on the same economic brackets. It might be true with nigs in Europe though.

>>82775518
They're poor and forced to put up with the guys, and often they simply don't know better. My grandma used to say she wished she could have divorced because her entire life sucked until grandpa died.

>>82775950
Isn't that what's likely to happen in the West too then?

>>82776102
Well yeah. As soon as women get out of the shithole, they realize how much of a shithole it was and start looking for better options.
Men have two options: learn to behave the way women prefer, or force women back into the kitchen and continue beating them.

>>82776134
It seems to me that those two options are the same thing.

>>82776147
They're not. Option A requires you to be an almost-rapist who is also clean, emotionally intelligent, and protects their reproductive needs. That disqualifies non-psychopaths who learned to "respect women", slobs, like half of all men, and most right wingers, respectively.

>>82776182
Pretty much all of the paki rapists that trafficked hundreds of little girls in the UK were married and had kids.

>>82776213
Yes, I believe I talked about those in
>They're poor and forced to put up with the guys, and often they simply don't know better
they're thirdworlders and keep their women in the shithole

>>82775518
>moidtard tries not to think about brown dick for 2 seconds challenge (impossible)

>>82776224
How exactly? Those women live in a (on paper) 1st world country.
Are the women that send marriage proposals to serial killers also retarded oppressed women? Are the cheerleaders dating school bullies just retarded women who simply don't know any better? Are the single moms dating felons also completely ignorant?

Seems to me like a bit of a cope on your part. Every woman that doesn't select for the traits you imagine they should is actually just stupid.

>>82776269
The shithole is mostly ideological, those women already got enslaved. Many of those children might notice and start avoiding pakis though, as it happened to 2nd gen immigrant girls in the USA (you'll notice all the asian whores nowadays).
Yeah, I do think they're mentally fucked up, brainwashed, or stupid, all of them. I've talked to several of them, I've seen them oppress other women themselves too.
For that matter, I also think many men are stupid, but in other ways.

>>82776287
But you do see the problem we're running into here, correct? You're considering the mostly childless women who you ideologically agree with the representatives of female selection, whereas the women actually having children aren't.

>>82776303
No, I don't think there's a single correct form of female selection. I'm saying if these women were not in those situations, they'd select differently.
In the examples you bring up, we have:
>women that send marriage proposals to serial killers
coomers (often traumatized, fetishizing what they fear)
>cheerleaders dating school bullies just retarded women
high schoolers. Yes, they don't know any better
>single moms dating felons
poor

Wealthy countries lead to less poverty, meaning less crime, meaning less insane men, less trauma, more education. The only people these changes don't affect are the high schoolers, who, again, don't know any better.

You might argue that the true way is to simply oppress women. I don't think there's a single true way; we simply have women raised with ideals that clash with the oppression style, and men have yet to figure out how to convince those to pump out babies. At this point, they might try to revert to the oppression scenario.

>>82776378
But you do because you're invalidating all the women that aren't selecting in the way you agree with. Women that do select for violent/immoral men are simply defective women and that psychologically healthy women that are raised in good environments will universally agree with you somehow.

My stance is the opposite of yours. I believe there is no significant difference between what women find sexually attractive in the 3rd world than in the 1st world. Women do not select for "nice guys" ANYWHERE on the planet.

This behavior is so ubiquitous and inbuilt that even Machiavelli was talking about it all the way back in the 1400's.

>>82776437
>Women do not select for "nice guys"
This might be the error. I never said this, and you assume I did. There's a reason why I included "almost-rapist" up there: educated, wealthy women want men who agree with their political stance, but also treat them like prey, AND in a safe way. Those conditions disqualify the immense majority of men, precisely because women do not select for nice guys.
The good fuck Chad is a misogynist who attracts ignorant women, while educated women fuck him but know better than to marry him; the nice guy does not get laid at all, but women recognize he'd be a good partner (see "if only I could find a man like you, but not you" cases).
This is why they also say "there are no good men". Male ideologies and libidos would have to change radically for such a man to be common. You'd be right to say these women have impossible standards.

>>82776264
Answer the question, future nigger rape victim.

>>82776475
I think we still disagree regardless.
>educated women fuck him but know better than to marry him
I do not believe this happens. I think women settle down with boring men precisely because big dick chad rejected them, not the other way around.
Jeremy Meeks, a literal felon got the daughter of a Jewish billionaire pregnant.

>>82776534
A billionaire's daughter? So, someone who already has all her needs covered? I wonder why she doesn't have to think about her man's qualities.
I'm talking about majorities, about poor and midclass women, not the wealthy. Women who have financial awareness choose men based on finances, security, safety, and chadness, yes, that's always a factor. If we all looked like Chad, they'd seek the guys who won't murder them.
That, though, is the problem: their monkey brain tells them to fuck Chad, while their human brain reminds them it's a terrible idea. And that happens to men too: we tend to pursue mentally insane women and enjoy sex with them more.
I realize I'm implying an insane society fucks more than a healthy one. I can see why many think we're better off keeping women traumatized, poor, and ignorant.

>>82776631
Oh ok so now being educated is irrelevant or what?
>Women who have financial awareness choose men based on finances, security, safety
If that was the case then the average marriage age would be in the mid 20's at most and the divorce rate would be very low in order to enjoy a dual income as long as possible. That's clearly not true.

>>82776660
I just said why it's relevant. I don't get that part.
>If that was the case then the average marriage age would be in the mid 20's at most and the divorce rate would be very low in order to enjoy a dual income as long as possible
That would be the case if men behaved like those women want, yes. Men are not doing that.
Thing is, divorces happen because of emotional differences, neglect, infidelity, etc. That's part of safety, and I included it in "emotionally intelligent" before.

>>82773999 (OP)
Collapse then mass rapes.

>>82776683
>I just said why it's relevant
No, you said "educated women" and then started to add conditionals when I gave you a clear example that you were wrong.
>That would be the case if men behaved like those women want, yes.
Ok so then you're backtracking again. Women with "financial awareness" do not choose men based on finances and security if they value men's behavior above financial pragmatism.

>>82776705
You want me to simplify matters and that is simply not possible. Everything is measured and prioritized by rational agents. You won't always choose the cheapest item if color, quality, and reputation also vary.
I have to add conditionals, and being educated is one of those conditionals. It does matter, it's just not the single reason, and it does not lead to a single outcome.
Notice that I had to include the hypothetical "if we all looked like Chad" to isolate a trait and talk about it.
Also, I don't accept your example because I do not consider a billionaire's behavior to be representative of women's, or even educated, wealthy women's choices. When I say "wealthy" I mean "still has to work to make a living", not the aberration that is extreme wealth. A midclass woman with a university degree would have more incentives to avoid the guy because to her, he actually represents a risk.

>>82776746
You are retreating into a cloud of vaguery and non-committal statements.
Saying "it's complicated" is not an argument, it's a refusal to provide an answer. Obviously I know it's complicated and I also know not 100% of women are identical, but I don't believe that you cannot discern trends or general rules by proxy of that.

You literally backtracked yourself out of the conversation at this point.

>>82776794
I mean, if you want specificity, sure. I was giving you specificity and you went for the simplistic "Oh ok so now being educated is irrelevant or what?", and used an extreme outlier, which implies you are thinking in absolutes, so I gave you a summary of why I cannot satisfy your desire for an easy answer.

>Women with "financial awareness" do not choose men based on finances and security if they value men's behavior above financial pragmatism
They do, it's also a factor out of many. A woman has to estimate the best candidate from a pool of men with several pros and cons. You can have, as an example:
>leftie who votes the way she likes, is poor as shit but has a job, is emotionally intelligent, has anger issues
>rightie who votes against abortion, has a secure job, is ugly, is emotionally mediocre but sensitive enough, has no anger issues
>nonpolitical who beats women, has a great job, looks average but fuckable, has zero emotional intelligence
So on. There are many possible combinations. Women rarely marry the guy they want because he simply is uncommon, so they have to make unsatisfying choices.
In the third world situation, you can go ahead and get rid of "emotionally intelligent" or "safe" because men there are trained to be violent.
In the first world situation, they're not much better either: more men, yet still few, are emotionally intelligent, nonviolent, etc. The culture has not changed enough, and the recent turn towards the right will make it even less ideal.
And now, the ones not trapped, traumatized, or ignorant are realizing the situation is just too unsatisfactory, probably pushed by the terrible standards of living. It's getting to the point where they still need money, so they can't finance the uwu leftie, yet they can work for themselves, so they don't need to marry the rich misogynist. They do still fuck, obviously, but they don't want kids and would rather live by themselves.

>>82774097
It's not supposed to generate wealth for YOU, it's supposed to generate wealth for the rich CEOs who get employees they get to pay less to, and a consumer base that's very impulsive with their money

>>82776905
How to convince women to fuck, then? Basically two ways:
- Make women have less bargaining power or worse critical thinking by dropping their education, wealth, legal powers, what have you (oppression)
- Make the dating pool more satisfactory by giving more men who fulfill more conditions: sexually dominant, nonviolent, safe, emotionally intelligent, financially secure, etc. (close to impossible)

>>82776905
I don't believe the example I gave you is an outlier. I can give further examples just like that. For example, Joe Rogan's wife is the Jewish daughter of a multimillionaire and some black thug got her pregnant as well. How many examples of rich, educated women can I give before you change your mind on it?
>you went for the simplistic
Ironic. Just a few replies ago you simplified all of it to "women that disagree with me are stupid".
>In the first world situation, they're not much better either: more men, yet still few, are emotionally intelligent, nonviolent, etc.
Ok but how nonviolent do you need to be to satisfy women? Cause the countries with the lowest violent crime are the ones that have problems with their birthrates the most.

Again, it seems to me that women select for sexism and oppression and that they are not simply an unfortunate outcome of culture. Look at black ghettos, an environment almost entirely controlled by female choice, what type of men do those women select for?

British men are fucking horrible

>>82773999 (OP)
Men and women will fail to understand each other even more than they already do.

>>82777554
I think men will understand women a lot more.

>>82773999 (OP)
Have you ever read history, or studies historical art, and thought "where are all these great complex men today? Why are they only in the past?" It's because Women filter out intelligence, cognitive ability, and autism when you give them autonomy. "Good times" and civilization are by no means a given. It's more like a crystalline chandelier painstakingly crafted over 10s of thousands of years and we just threw it away.

>>82773999 (OP)
>>82774009
FPBP
Also, gender separatism/segregation, which is effectively already happening.
Which spells doom, of course.