Reading the economist is illuminating. Everything the bugman overclass thinks is laid out in stark, almost crude, prose. economist.com/leaders/2018/0…
Like this, for example. If you're confused by this part so counter to common sense (less time at home means better parenting?) being thrown out of nowhere with no citations, understand that these people LITERALLY mean "investment." 
So, why, you might ask, are the ruling class so insistent on female labour, then? Surely, as neoliberals, they believe that income corresponds to productivity, so why does female unemployment matter if the husbands can pick up the slack? Well...
Remember how Thatcher infamously told us that "there's no such thing as society?" The Anglos have gotten even worse somehow. Now there's no such thing as society OUTSIDE WORK.
"government make-work schemes attract more women than men."
It's not even about productivity, and they admit this casually.
It's not even about productivity, and they admit this casually.
"Oh no, we don't have to work in sweatshops. That sucks."
t. The Economist's hypothetical Indian woman.
(for real though, you Indians gotta be vigilant for suppressing this stuff. That highlighted part created the exact conditions for modern feminism in the west.)
t. The Economist's hypothetical Indian woman.
(for real though, you Indians gotta be vigilant for suppressing this stuff. That highlighted part created the exact conditions for modern feminism in the west.)
Well done, Indians! I'd really like to know how you guys managed this. "Subduing the urban bughive" is one of the most pressing issues in the west right now.
China may never achieve communism, but India has achieved distributism, I see.
Note the telling phrase "sucked into jobs." In the west, we call it "the two-income trap." A lesser magazine would pretend that this was about "empowerment" or something.
Note the telling phrase "sucked into jobs." In the west, we call it "the two-income trap." A lesser magazine would pretend that this was about "empowerment" or something.
Remember: two working parents is a horrible decision and once your society starts, it can't easily stop: amazon.com/Two-Income-Tra…
Wait, WHAT sins? India's spent hundreds of years being a British colony and/or being reigned by the Mughal Empire. What on Earth could they be responsible for? At least white guilt has a kind of dream logic about it.
Powerful.
Again, lesser neoliberal propagandists would throw some token platitudes about work-life balance or some shit, but the Economist doesn't give a fuck and wants you to be fully clear that you should be trading husbands in for jobs.
So, what have we learned here? That everything progs told you before was a pretnese.
It's not about giving women options, their only option should be to work.
It's not about women's education, that's pointless if they don't work.
It's not about "having it all," jobs>husbands.
It's not about giving women options, their only option should be to work.
It's not about women's education, that's pointless if they don't work.
It's not about "having it all," jobs>husbands.
No, the Anglo bugmen want your families destroyed and your daughters sucked into "mega-factory" (their words!) sweatswhops because GDP is their God and they'd like to outsource even more western labour.
Liberalism is the cult of capital in the cause of humanity.
Liberalism is the cult of capital in the cause of humanity.
I.E. The universal, abstracted "humanity" divorced from any particular human beings, or even any particular group of them. The "rights of Man" that Maistre so ably mocked.
Supplementary info from an Indian follower via the DMs about how India doubled its economy while restricted female out-of-home employment.
Stay made, Anglos. 🤣
Stay made, Anglos. 🤣
