Month: December 2019

Yet Another Holiday Memo

BlackBoot

From: Steven Brenner, High School Music Director
To: Michael Porkwit, 9th grade
Re: The Winter Holiday Concert

Michael,

In the carol Gloria in Excelsis Deo, your version of the refrain,

Gloria, in an Exxon station

would not be regarded by anyone as an improvement on the original.

And again, the line in “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” is “God and sinners reconciled.” Your rendering, “Deion Sanders reconciled,” does not even mean anything. I am given to understand that Mr. Sanders was a professional football player some years ago; he certainly was not a public figure at the time this carol was written.

Comment on backstage behavior:

Mrs. Stokes, the mathematics teacher, wasn’t wearing black boots with high heels so she’d “look more domme.” It’s simply practical and stylish footwear given the kind of weather we’ve been having.

She told me about this later and said that, when she firmly corrected you on this point, your response was, “Does this mean no blowjob?” That was way out of line, Mr. Porkwit. I didn’t hear about this until after the concert, or I would have sent you home right then and there. As it is, you are hereby removed from the chorale lineup for the rest of this academic year and will not be receiving course credit for chorus this semester. I am assigning a course grade of F.

I must say I find your behavior discouraging, especially since you’ve ignored the two gentle requests for better comportment that Mrs. Stanton in the Middle School sent you in previous years. Do better, Mr. Porkwit, or it only gets worse from here.

(I also heard a rumor – though I suppose it’s technically none of my business – that you recently attended a breakfast hosted by the local Jewish Community Outreach group, and complained loudly about the lack of bacon on the menu. I don’t know if you thought this was funny, or if it was simple ignorance, but in either case, Michael, you are really testing the limits of everyone’s patience.)

Very sincerely,
Mr. Brenner, High School Music Director

Pro-Natalist Ben Gadwin

I just serendipitously found Ben Gadwin’s excellent pro-natalist Twitter account, https://twitter.com/sovereignfamily

Update: Some of his stuff is actually kinda weird, like his notion that he’ll give all his wealth to his first-born son and nothing to any of his other children. WTF? And I don’t trust this:

Four dates a day? On average? Hard to take that seriously, even if he’s independently wealthy and doesn’t have to work.

A random selection of good stuff from it:

1) https://twitter.com/sovereignfamily/status/1194155323252256768

If your religion doesn’t build healthy, loving, ambitious, and large families that want to spread life to the stars, there’s something wrong with it.

2) https://twitter.com/sovereignfamily/status/1193526079807508480

Dates in Western Europe vs Eastern Europe (I wish I was making these up):
Western Europe: “I’m studying political science. It’s fascinating. I’m learning about critical theory and how capitalism oppresses all of us.”
Eastern Europe: “Feminists are crazy. Why would I want a job when I can stay at home, cook, and raise kids?”

3) Some stories still have happy endings:

Son of psychotically evil woman, who tried to turn him into a girl, will be allowed to attend school as a boy. Next step: Applying the death penalty to his “mother” (who is not even his actual, biological mother).

4) A sad case:

Creator of Sex and the City, single at 60, regrets choosing a career over children as she is now “truly alone.”

5) Normie/Rebel

Normie-Rebel

Not sure I’d even fuck the girl on the left. Holy moly, would I fuck the girl on the right, and I’d cum so hard I’d blow the top of her head off like a shotgun.

Why is fertility lower among high-status women?

Why is fertility lower among high-status women than low-status women? It’s not just a weird unfortunate coincidence. It’s because they’re high status. Female hypergamy means that the number of men a high-status woman regards as worthy of her are smaller. It’s a terrible thing for a woman to be high status. It hurts her reproductive success. And so it hurts the reproductive success of the population of which she’s a member.

Men and women are different in terms of everything, including the effect of their social status on their reproductive success.

Look at human history with Darwinian eyes. (If you’re an evolution denier, look with Chesterton’s Fence eyes.) As far as can be told from history, women are by default lower status than men in all societies that existed up to around 1900. Why? Not because those horrid men forced them all into low-status roles. All? Seriously, all? In every society in the history of the world? Please. Nothing is “all” in the world of social phenomena. No, indubitably there were some societies just like ours in which deluded social innovators allowed and encouraged women to have high social status. Those societies are gone now.

Because those societies in which women had higher or even equal status by default were outbred. They’re not around any more. They didn’t even survive long enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record.

Let us pause to refute some feminist idiocy on this topic. God knows they make it easy.

The fuck-witted feminist account of all this is this: “In earlier eras, men were higher status than women because men— those brutes!— kept women down with overwhelming physical force. But now, in our modern society, this is not relevant any more.” Why not? Anyway, notice how stupid this is, if you just think about it instead of mindlessly repeating it: Men kept women down by physical force? Really? No they didn’t. What the hell? I love this notion that the average woman was thirsting to be a sailor on a whaling ship but the men used violence to prevent her from doing so. Or the average woman yearned to be a statistician in the actuarial department of an insurance company but those violent men beat her senseless until she stopped trying it. Fucking LOL. In fact, it is the opposite: In the modern world it takes a constant barrage of one-sided propaganda just to make some women think they want to do such things.

Also: Were the highest-status men in the last few millennia the ones who were biggest and toughest? Did you get to be Pope or Corporate CEO or College President by beating up other men? Or even credibly threatening to do so? Bitch, please.

Also notice that this whole moronic feminist argument contradicts the other, opposite feminist argument, that women should be in combat positions in the military because they’re just as good in a fight as a man. Well, which is it? Did men use their superiority in physical conflict to keep women down? Or are women just as good in a fight as men?

Feminists. Jesus. Stop trying to make arguments, sugar-tits. You’re just not very good at it. Now quit being such a skirt and get me a beer; I want something to drink while you’re blowing me.

So that “argument” makes no sense. No, the reason we see no historical societies in which women had higher or equal status compared to men, is that they didn’t breed enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record. And the reason for that, or a main reason for it, is that female hypergamy means that high female status is highly contra-reproduction. Lethally so.

The only antidote to the contra-natalist tendency of high female status, that has worked empirically, is a set of social conventions and traditions in which (1) husbands automatically have higher status than wives, and (2) fathers can marry off daughters even if the daughter thinks the prospective husband isn’t good enough for her. In that way the deadly poison of female hypergamy is rendered irrelevant. In a society with these two features, even a girl who is born a heir presumptive to the crowns of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland can be induced to squeeze out baby after baby, enough for seven of them to survive to adulthood.