Where There Are No Big Breasts, There Is No Victory In War, by Hashimoto Kotoe
"Are American women not big-breasted? Consequently, America is the most powerful state. Because the big-breasted birth good children. Because big breasts make men strong."
Where There Are No Big Breasts, There Is No Victory In War
Hashimoto Kotoe1
In contemporary society, eugenics is treated as a dangerous idea. The aim of eugenics lies in selecting superior beings from the group and ending the lives of inferior beings. Because when inferior beings exist, they threaten superior beings.
In fact, in agricultural science “culling” is fundamental. When several things sprout, none of them can develop, so in a homogeneous environment the “inferior” are culled. The same reasoning applies to livestock. Thanks to this, modern man is able to eat delicious koshihikari2 and Kōbe beef.
But when you apply this reasoning to human beings, everyone objects. That is ultimately because the danger of “mistaking the superior for the inferior and killing him.” There is the presupposition that people can judge the quality of plants and animals, but not other people.
On the other hand, there is in developed countries the societal tendency to label themselves “symbiotic societies” and to seek to help even the most inferior people under the pretext of poor relief like welfare by taking money from superior people.
As a result of having pursued such policies, in Europe “people whose brains have become paralyzed” have increased, people born in Middle and Near Eastern countries where there is absolutely no welfare have flooded in, and they are letting them commit rapes and whatever else they want.
In terms of impartial reasoning, “not killing” and “not helping” should be a set, but for some reason on one hand they’re “not killing” and on the other hand they’re “helping.” With this, the natural order collapses.
Why can they say that Syrian refugees are “people whom we must help?” Is it not possible that they might be clever people who are pretending to be refugees for fun? But if you say “We cannot reject that possibility,” the criticism is uproarious.
That’s why I think that we should have either the combination of “not killing and not helping” or “killing and helping.”
It makes sense to either, like America until 1973 (America prohibited abortion until that year) not doing any artificial selection and leaving things to natural selection (America has the highest infant mortality rate among developed countries. Their stance is that children from families that cannot even afford vaccinations should die), or, like Japan’s abortion law system, to “help” with a health insurance system, a pension system and so on while “killing.”
Now, that was a long introduction, but essentially in this world there are two pressures called “natural selection” and “artificial selection.”
Natural selection and artificial selection, exemplified by abortion and surgical sterilization, are fields that many researchers, beginning with Darwin, have studied exhaustively. However, my study concerns “sexual selection,” which is included within artificial selection.
Sexual selection is, put simply, whether or not a woman thinks that she wants to have a man’s children. That is, popular men leave behind lots of children, and unpopular men die without having any. Because they were thought by women to not be worth having.
However, not all women perform “sexual selection.” It differs by species.
Lion and elk females perform sexual selection. So the genes of superior males remain and inferior males die. But cockroaches and mice do not perform sexual selection. The females mate immediately after meeting.
Speaking of humans, what they call “young sluts”3 correspond to brown rats, and those who say “I will spend my entire life with this person” correspond to lions.
Cases where sexual selection is not performed are called “selection by luck.”
You make children by leaving it to fate. In this case, because depending on fate children will die in large numbers, you make many in advance. It is for this reason that fish and insects have many children.
Now, my study begins here.
Now, is there any difference in biological characteristics between chaste women who perform sexual selection and unchaste women who leave things to fate and have tons of children?
From men’s perspective, at first glance, women who perform selection by luck may seem attractive because they will sleep with any man. They offer the opportunity to leave behind children to any fool. On the other hand, women who perform strict vetting may seem to have unpleasant faces from the perspective of men who “failed the test.” Because no matter what they say, they are rejected as “lowly.”
How does one define the superior? I actually don’t know. Because it’s defined by women. But least enough muscular strength and physique to take down an enemy, enough immune strength to resist illness to some degree, and knowledge and reason to live will probably be liked by women.
No one ever says that they like frail, poor, stupid men who are bad at sports. Men who are good at fighting, good at every sport, and high value are popular.
To finally state the conclusion, I think that “Neanderthal women do not perform sexual selection, but human women do.”
That’s why Neanderthals didn’t evolve at all even after 800,000 years, while human beings evolved in only 80,000. I think that the fact that we have evolved so much in one tenth of the time is the fruit, not of “symbiotic society,” but of efforts of repeating "the inferior should die” selection.
I certainly stated previously that “humans cannot judge the quality of other humans.”
However, I thought, “if she’s a healthy human woman,” wouldn’t she be able to tell the difference between a superior and an inferior man?
Consequently, I thought, wouldn’t superior men be born in regions where there are many women?
Certainly, the physical abilities of African men are great. That is the result of African women having continually chosen men who are good at fighting for tens of thousands of years.
And in the West, because with monogamy only superior women are able to bear the children of superior men, men were born who are not just “good at fighting,” but have many excellent qualities.
Thanks to that, the world became such that even if there are cases of Europeans helping Africans, the reverse does not exist.
Now, what sort of women are “women who perform sexual selection,” that is, “women with the ability to perceive men”?
I think that they’re “womanly women.”
Women with big boobs are justice. When I say big, there is no necessity for them to be big like a cow. They should be big enough for men to say “they’re big” or "I can’t say they’re small.”
If they have big boobs, they will have normal secretion of female hormones (proof that normal ovulation was performed), in which case estrogen is secreted from the ovaries, and frontal lobe functioning is preserved.
See what are popularly called “mentally ill women”! Are they not skinny? Are they not flat-chested? Have you ever even once seen a mentally ill woman with big or beautiful breasts? Such a thing cannot exist biologically.
These women will bear righteous descendants.
That is what I think.
The countries that lost the war were obviously lacking in big breasts. That way they’re supposed to lose. When they look at big breasts for even a few minutes in a day, men secrete testosterone and their minds and muscular power become stronger.
(Look at the nose art on American fighter planes. Are they not girls with big breasts? Look at German or Japanese fighters. There’s nothing there. The Air SDF had Belldandy drawn on their supporting aircraft, but that’s a joke.)
I am not joking. Are American women not big-breasted? Consequently, America is the most powerful state. Because the big-breasted birth good children. Because big breasts make men strong.
“When the various Germanic tribes go into battle, the women encouraged the men by baring their bosoms.” (From Tacitus, Germania)4
橋本琴絵 Hashimoto Kotoe. A prominent figure on the contemporary Japanese right known for supporting Donald Trump and making tweets, statements, and articles that upset many people. This little essay can be read as an indication of the extent of free speech in this country as well as of the failure of the Japanese right to capitalize on it to put forward truly compelling ideas.
A variety of Japanese rice.
恋多き乙女 koi ōki onna. Recently coined slang for a woman who is constantly seeing different men.
The passage she refers to actually reads as follows: “It stands on record that armies already wavering and on the point of collapse have been rallied by the women, pleading heroically with their men, thrusting forward their bared bosoms, and making them realize the imminent prospect of enslavement - a fate which the Germans fear more desperately for their women than for themselves.”
Have you ever even once seen a mentally ill woman with big or beautiful breasts? - I have.
Such a thing cannot exist biologically. - Objectively false.
Bottom line: Everyone likes big boobs.