The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Birth Strike’ Is a Stupid Idea (And We Should Encourage Liberals to Embrace It)

Posted on | April 10, 2019 | No Comments

The world needs more people like you — yes, you, personally.

Why do I say that with such confidence? Because:

  1. You are a highly literate person;
    and
  2. You are reading this blog.

Stupid people don’t spend their leisure hours reading about politics, culture and current events, and since you’re reading this particular blog, you’re probably someone who shares my worldview. You are therefore obviously a superior sort of person, and the world would be a better place if there were more people like you. So please, reproduce — procreate, breed, spawn, be fruitful and multiply — in sufficient numbers to ensure that the world is supplied with more of your excellent DNA. Of course, you may be past your reproductive prime, in which case you should encourage your children (or nieces and nephews) to do their part on behalf of supplying the world with more hereditary excellence.

Liberals, on the other hand, are inferior — degenerate, perverse, misguided and ungodly — and such people should be discouraged from reproducing. Fortunately, most liberals are either ugly or homosexual (or both), and are therefore steadily marching toward extinction. However, it’s possible to accelerate this process, and Katharine Schwab is helping.

 

Ms. Schwab is a 2015 Stanford graduate who writes for Fast Company, and produced a video endorsing the idea that because of “climate change,” people should stop having babies — the so-called “birth strike” movement, founded by a British feminist named Blythe Pepino.

 

Strangely enough, while endorsing this genocidal neo-Malthusian idea, Ms. Schwab makes a startling confession:

“The idea that having fewer kids can help the planet is starting to catch on. . . . It’s the single biggest thing you can do as an individual to lessen your impact on the climate, but will people do it? As a young woman who personally wants to have a family in the future, it’s a really tough decision.”

What? A Stanford-educated feminist wants a family? Doesn’t she know the family is a structure of heteropatriarchal oppression?

On the other hand, Ms. Schwab is probably not heterosexual — she is a Stanford-educated feminist, right? — so when she says she “wants to have a family in the future,” she probably means some kind of IVF arrangement with her lesbian partner, but that’s an expensive resource-intensive process, what with liquid nitrogen to freeze the donor sperm, etc., and that can’t be very good for the environment.

No, Ms. Schwab, if you really believe all that climate-change stuff, you shouldn’t have children, and it’s imperative that you spread this message to all your liberal friends. Basically, if you didn’t vote for Trump, don’t have children. Meanwhile, the Trump supporters will keep making babies the old-fashioned heteropatriarchal way, and in another 50 or 60 years, our great-great-grandchildren will ask: “Grandma, what’s a ‘liberal’?”

Our granddaughters will answer: “Well, a long time ago, when Donald Trump was president, ‘liberals’ were people who didn’t vote for him. But then the liberals decided to stop having babies, so they went extinct.”

“Why did they stop having babies?”

“Because of a video a liberal woman made in 2019.”

The “birth strike” is an excellent plan, insofar as it will encourage environmentalists, feminists and other liberal wackos to eliminate themselves from the gene pool, thus providing a decisive Darwinian advantage to conservatives. By the time it’s decisively proven that “climate change” was just another liberal fraud, like the Jussie Smollett hoax, all the environmentalists will be too old to have children, and thus the Trump voters will inherit the earth. It’s brilliant.



 

Comments