Nikola Tesla explains why he never married.

Sure, but mass democracy is doomed. It was a way to buy off the proles in the industrial era ('look, we'll let you decide which of us gets to boss you around!'), and the 1% won't need that for much longer, because they won't need the proles.

How exactly is it doomed? What are "elites" going to do exactly? Kill everyone? In the age of mass media and Internet where you go to prison for a politically incorrect tweet? The 1%-ers can't do shit on their own, they're wholly dependent on the system itself. The instance they go against the system they're fucked. The IMF chief. The US president. The billionaire CEO. There are no sacred cows anymore. The capitalism generates so much wealth that most people are already unemployable and it's cheaper to finance them from the budget rather than lose productivity by having them "working". They'll vote more and more money from the public purse. No socialist wealth transfer program in the history of the US has been reversed. In Europe also since the end of WW2. Those who even suggest it get fucked on elections so much they'll study them in history books as what not to do in a campaign.

The industrial era needed a large population of relatively dumb people to operate its factories, because the side with the biggest factories won (and smart people don't work well in factory production-line jobs). Now, that's no longer the case. That large population of relatively dumb people are mostly unable to operate in a post-industrial world, let alone needed there.

Modern factories don't require dumb people. They require automation engineers, software developers, muscles to carry and transfer things (though this is getting increasingly automated). Dumb jobs are growing extinct in the developed world, unless they're protected by laws (unions, public sector and various monopolies in law, medicine etc.) Modern factories are run by few hundred people at most and have the output order of magnitude higher than those of few decades ago that employed thousands of people. Companies go bust by having key people in cognitive-related jobs quitting their jobs. Modern knowledge workers are not replaceable cogs in a wheel anymore. You're describing ancient history.

This is, of course, one of the real reasons for feminism. Women are typically much better production-line workers than men, at least where physical strength isn't required. So the 1% wanted to get women out of the home and into their factories.

Feminism is a result of politicians pandering to their female vote. Weaker groups always vote for "their" candidates. Blacks in the US 90% plus voted for Obama. The same ratio is in Europe for every single minority group voting for leftist parties. Women similarly vote for those enabling big government, wealth transfer and social support networking funded by men. As workers women are useless except in few typical female jobs where their biological predispositions are relevant - nursing, teaching kids and similar shit. They can be taught to work repetitive jobs but these are increasingly becoming less common. For high IQ they're orders of magnitude thinner in distribution, and for creative intelligence even more. The 1% are simply driven by economic incentives, which feminism enables. They don't give a shit for women per se. They'll drop the agenda the instant it stops becoming profitable for me, or gives them bad publicity. Cue the Gamergate scandals, Googler losing their job etc. Next big company will think carefully before doing something like that.

There are many, many people who'd have kids if the woman didn't have to spend the best part of a year growing it. There are also many who'd have kids if they hadn't waited until it was too late and their bodies were no longer capable of producing one.

Making kids is literally the easiest jobs in the world. If they wanted to get pregnant, they'd get pregnant. But they're busy waiting for the 2 meter tall jacked Chad billionaire in his yacht while their eggs rot exponentially. They don't want to have families but social status fantasy that the media has sold them and their mothers and grandmothers were too dumb to protect them from. It doesn't matter if the woman is in her 20s, 30s or 40s - it's only when they start to panic that the settle with the first willing guy that's good enough. Even then, they still believe in the fantasy deep inside. They are biologically evolved to give birth in late teens and twenties, and nobody told them that, that's the problem. The lie that there is always choice around the corner, and that modern medicine renders time irrelevant. That lie is the reason why most fertile women today are childless. Who sold the lie doesn't matter, what matters is the recognition of their capacity to delude themselves, and making sure that in the future they don't get to repeat the same mistake. Either by stripping them of the right to vote, or eliminating the high-powered sluts from the gene pool. Personally I hope for the latter option, for the sake of men who were trapped in Marriage 1.0 arrangement in ages gone by, lol.

if we decided we needed a rapidly-growing population, we could soon churn out kids as fast as the vats could produce them.

Nah, the degeneracy is irreversible. The pendulum swung too far. If the society were a stock market we're a on a strong bearish trend, with the support lying only far into the future when patriarchal minorities become two digit percentage of the electorate. Literally all the women profit from the current arrangement, as well as vast majority of the very wealthy men. Women will never just "decide" to have many babies without a willing man and wider societal support, and men will keep checking out of the society which discriminates them and rips them off with high taxes. All unwillingly and subconsciously, gut decisions by both genders. Economic incentives dictate demographic trends, and unless you have some kinds of of enlightened absolutism, the trends are irreversible simply by decision, since the collective will never make such a sharp turn spontaneously.

Centralization of power was an inevitable result of the centralization of production in the industrial economy: big government could collect big taxes from big business in return for giving them big government contracts. Now production is decentralizing again, power is too.

It's a chicken and egg problem, though I see it from another perspective - it's a necessity for the human civilization to evolve and solve wider (global) issues by centralization. That's why globalist love the global warming, terrorism and similar real or imagined issues which require centralized global efforts. The centralization itself is not the problem however, it's the ability for women to force their decision upon men by voting. The centralization enables that. So either will state decentralize or it will disenfranchise women to survive. If it does neither, it's demographically (and perhaps economically) unsustainable and will be replaced by something that is.