Freedom, what is it good for?:

Liberals see the world like this:

Typical person 'A' is unhappy.  If said person had the freedom to do 'X', they could be made happy again.  Therefore all unhappiness on Earth is due to authoritarian personality 'B' who denies them that freedom.  Whether it's the freedom to immigrate where they please, take drugs, get a divorce, switch genders, engage in petty crimes, or whatever, the answer is always more freedom and the problem is repression.

Traditionalists see the world like this:

Typical person 'A' is unhappy.  If said person lived in a community free of sin, and personally refrained from sin, they could be made happy again, because they would be once more aligned with God's/Nature's plan for their lives, which their instincts/human nature will seize upon as what they really wished for all along if they had only known, and they will no longer be beleaguered by the assault of other sinners all around them on everything they hold most dear.  All unhappiness on Earth is due to a lack of authoritarian personality 'B' having enough authority to ensure sin is stamped out.  The answer is always more repression and the problem is freedom.

Rather than theoretical debate about whether people are happier when they are free or controlled, let's just look at the historical data.

America has become a freer place for centuries.  It has surely become the freest place humanity has ever lived in.  No one could imagine the freedoms we've been granted in the past, such as gay marriage, no fault divorce, and 'sanctuary cities' for anyone who wishes to invade across the borders.

We are also in the midst of an unprecedented drug epidemic.  It's so bad that we've actually managed to lower the average lifespan, despite all our medical/technological breakthroughs.  Over 50% of Americans take pain killers, and 50,000 of them per year die from overdosing.  That's just from opioids.  There are still plenty of other people dying due to overdoses on other drugs, that are perhaps even more dangerous.

Death by alcohol abuse is also up.  Every form of death by substance abuse is up.  And I believe suicide is up even on top of all these other numbers (which are essentially suicides already.)

The revealed preference for America is that freedom is pure poison.  It's literally killing them.

Let's take a look at some other numbers.  Gays always have lower quality of life than straights (on average, as a group.)  They report higher depression levels, more alcohol/drug abuse, higher suicide rates, lower length of life, etc, etc.  They even have lower incomes, higher criminal victimization rates, anything you can think of.  It just plain sucks to be gay.  And transgenders are just out of this park wild.  50% of them commit suicide.  The rest are suicidally depressed and just on their way to getting there.  These people are mentally ill, not enjoying themselves.  I'm not even sure there's a single happy transgender on Earth.  Giving people the freedom to engage in this lifestyle doesn't seem to have helped them very much, now has it?

Children of gay/transgender parents also suffer.  They have higher mental illness rates, depression, substance abuse problems, and suicide rates -- while also of course having higher rates of being gay/transgender, which leads to all these other bad numbers.  Perhaps even more pertinent, they have higher rates of being sexually abused than children raised by straight parents.  When you allow sinners to sin, it never only harms themselves, it always spreads like a cancer to everyone around them, and eventually all of society is harmed.  That is just the nature of evil unleashed.

Married couples are far happier than divorcees.  Therefore, no fault divorce doesn't seem to have helped much, now has it?

Even when you compare couples who went through a 'rough patch' and decided to stick through it, versus those who decided to quit, the ones who stuck together report being much happier today.  It isn't that these people would have been 'even worse off' if they hadn't divorced, it was the divorce itself that caused the majority of the problems.

When you compare the happiness, as shown in polls, of Americans in the 1950's and the like, even for women who didn't have any rights, it was much higher than the self-reported happiness levels of women today.

With the sexual revolution, we decided it was now okay for women to be sluts and adulterers, and there shouldn't be even any shame attached to it, much less legal penalties.  Has all this extra sexual freedom paid off?

Actually, no.  The happiest Americans are those who have had one or two sexual partners in their entire life.  The next happiest group is zero sexual partners.  After that is three, and then it's all downhill from there.  The average American has 11 sexual partners, so you can guess how happy the average American is.

As expected, women who have had even one previous sex partner before marriage have a dramatically higher chance to divorce.  Once it gets up to three plus, it's almost a foregone conclusion the marriage will not last.  As shown previously, divorce leads to unhappiness.

Free love hasn't paid any dividends.  It has just made relationships impossible and everyone miserable.

Since the 1970's or so, women have been free to enter the workforce and get high degrees.  Has this helped them?  Actually, no.  Women are more stressed and less happy than ever before, according to their own reports.

Women entering the workforce hasn't actually improved their standard of living.  The current generation of Americans are poorer than their parents were, at a time when only one breadwinner was the standard.

If anyone had thought for two seconds about this, it would have been obvious.  Doubling the workforce just means halving people's wages, since the law of supply and demand is ironclad.  Companies may be enjoying twice as much labor as before to power their CEO bonuses, but actual people haven't seen a dime.

Women have also discovered that their unnatural choice of earning a living has made them unsuited for their previous roles as wives and mothers.  First off, it takes so long to get a high degree in education and get a senior position in a career, they're just literally infertile by the time they can start thinking about families.  But there's a deeper, psychological problem at work as well.  Women want to marry 'up,' which traditionally they've always done by leveraging their good looks for someone older and more established than them.

The higher a woman's earnings, the fewer men are 'up' above her.  Simultaneously, the fewer men who are 'up' above her have any interest in her, because she's less and less young and good looking, because she devoted the last ten years of her life getting a high degree in education and reaching a senior position in her career.  So it turns out there's a complete mismatch now.  She only wants a few men, and none of those men want her.  She has boxed herself out of the entire romance market.

Studies show that if women out-earn men while in a marriage, the odds of divorce skyrocket to near certainty.  Unnatural relationships that go against people's hard-wired instincts are unsustainable.  You cannot ask a woman to be attracted to someone she no longer respects, and you cannot ask her to respect someone she's already outclassed at their own game.  Just think about it, if you're uglier than a woman, can't have or raise children, and can't earn as much as a woman, what the hell are you worth?  What are you good for?  Physical combat?  That era is long since passed, most warfare is conducted by drones now, and women could remote control them as well as men.  The answer is nothing.  You're good for nothing.  And asking a woman to fall in love with a good for nothing is like asking a man to fall in love with a wrinkled old hag.

It's no wonder that the rate of bisexuality has skyrocketed.  If women take on the role of male breadwinners better than men, there will obviously be a large segment of women who are attracted to those manly women who outclass men at their own game.  Since women see women as more physically attractive than men (because they have eyes just like we do), once women are also more spiritually attractive, ie, manly and alpha, what reason do they have left to pay any attention to men?

But of course, as we just pointed out, lesbians have much less happy lives than straight couples do, so this is a road to perdition.

If women decide to make their own living, they will have to settle for being single all their lives, going gay, or fruitlessly marry and eventually divorce in disgust as their hard-wired instincts rebel against their choices over time.

Divorcees and gays are unhappy, as mentioned above.  So what about people who stay single for life?  Sorry, you're out of luck.  Married couples are way happier than singles.  They are so much happier, they live ten years longer on average.  Or is it even more?  It's an absurd amount either way.  It turns out that single people produce an enormous amount of stress hormones, which eventually wear away and destroy the heart, leading to premature death.  Isolation is a terminal disease.  Even if you rationally think you're better off single, nature doesn't agree with you.  Nature wanted you to get into a relationship and reproduce, because that's what evolution evolved you to want.  And Nature punishes those who disobey her with pain and eventually death.

Alongside the opioid epidemic, America is suffering a loneliness epidemic.  More people than ever are completely isolated, and the average American only has one close confidante of any kind.  Studies have shown over and over again that strong social networks, having lots of people to love and be loved by, is the greatest source of human well-being, spiritual, mental, and even physical.  If doctors could proscribe everyone a marriage partner, it would be the most revolutionary drug/medical breakthrough in history.  Nothing else would have remotely as large an impact on human health and lifespans.

(By the way, the state could proscribe everyone a marriage partner, if they just went against this principal of ever more freedom.  Hmmmmmmmm. . . .)

Freedom of immigration has also been a curse.  Instead of the enriching vibrancy we were promised, it turns out that if people live around others not like themselves, they become stressed, unhappy, and lonely.  All of this was documented in Putnam's careful scientific study, "Bowling Alone."  Nothing has changed since then.  If people are surrounded by the 'Other,' they become turtles, retreating into their shells, staying inside their homes and detaching themselves from the world.  They become anti-social, refuse to volunteer or make any community efforts, and even oppose paying taxes for various social amenities like public health care.

All of this is instinctual.  Evolution wanted our genes to reproduce.  Obviously it would not encourage wasting time or effort promoting the genes of people unrelated to us.  That's just a recipe for self-destruction.  You may not care about your genes reproducing, but your genes care, and they will find ways to punish you via your instincts and feelings when you go against them.  The stress you feel when surrounded by what your genes deem as enemies, regardless of how enlightened and universal you may yourself feel about them, is just another source of unhappiness in modern America.

Humans are also happier when surrounded by nature.  When there's running water nearby, lots of greenery, and tremendous scenery like mountains or oceans or wide open vistas, people feel better.  The more we urbanize, via overpopulation, via non-stop immigration and crowding, the less happy people become.  Evolution obviously implanted in us a yearning for environmental circumstances humans would thrive in, like access to water and food.  When you go against evolution and put your senses in a place that screams 'desolation,' it doesn't matter if rationally speaking, you have all the water and food you need.  Your body doesn't feel that way, and it becomes stressed out accordingly at what, to it, seems like your suicidal urge to live in a land of pure grey wasteland.

Has going soft on crime made people happier?  Nope.  First off, drug users are not happier than non-drug users.  So anything that makes drugs more accessible to people will necessarily lower their quality of life.  Second off, the most common victims of crime are themselves criminals.  Which means that for every time society lets you get away with a crime you wanted to do (a +, which makes you happier), there will be ten more crimes done against you, and all the people who victimized you will also get away with it, (a -, which makes you unhappier.)

When people do not feel secure in their persons or property, their stress levels go through the roof.  It's like walking around in Auschwitz, always wondering if today's the day.  It's not possible to relax and enjoy yourself in such a paranoid setting.  It doesn't matter if you're very unlikely to be assaulted, raped or murdered today.  The physical and psychological damage these crimes cause are so high that even when there's a low probability the multiplied result is still enough to make people miserable.

Just watch the first 45 seconds of this video and you'll understand.  People are not happy when all they can think about is 'that god damn floor.'

The small benefit people gain by being able to do crimes is more than offset by the increased victimization people suffer from other criminals.  We'd all be better off if we were tough on crime, and this applies most of all to crime-prone populations like blacks and hispanics.

Nor do consensual crimes somehow fall under a separate category.  People who indulge in alcohol or drugs are far more likely to, afterwards, commit a violent or property crime.  Virtually all criminals are hopped up on one substance or another.  If they were sober, and in full control of their faculties, they could control their worse impulses, but since they're mentally impaired all the natural defense mechanisms humans have evolved against crime fly out the window.  When your entire populace is allowed to continuously be on drugs and alcohol, your crime rate will also skyrocket, because everyone's judgment is impaired.  This should have been obvious to anyone, but somehow it escapes all the advocates for freedom.

Victims of crime then go and radiate the damage outwards.  Women who are sexually abused find it harder to have trusting, lasting relationships with men in the future, and often turn to lesbianism (which we've mentioned earlier has dramatically worse life outcomes.)  Men who are physically abused develop anger issues and end up abusing their own family members down the line.  Anyone who suffers from a trauma is likely to self-medicate with alcohol or drugs, which leads to maladjustment and a higher likelihood of domestic abuse, suicide, etc, all of which impacts the people around them.

Being soft on crime will have adverse impacts multiple generations down the road, much less on the people at hand.

The freedom to eat as much junk food as we like has not led to greater happiness.  Obese people are less happy than fit people, and far less healthy.  These health consequences not only lower their own standard of living, they also cost an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars to treat.  Moreover, the human eye is attracted to aesthetic objects and repulsed by ugliness.  Obese people are ugly, so obese people ruin the scenery of everyone else around them.  Having to live around obese people is just as painful as living in a junkyard or a garbage heap.  It's visual assault.  Everyone suffers.  And the saddest part is, the obese are still just as hungry as ever, as their bodies just adjust to the new intake levels and their metabolisms demand ever more, so there's absolutely zero benefit.

I'm not sure what freedoms are left to give people at this point.  In Europe, muslims are allowed to gang rape little girls without penalty.  It's just hand-waved away as part of their culture and the price we must may for the immeasurable benefit of diversity.

Sometimes it seems like even murder is legal.  With clearance rates under 20% in major cities, odds are you'll get away with it.  If someone offends you, go ahead and blast them, the police don't seem to care and they aren't likely to ever intervene.

This is about as free as society can get without dissolving into pure anarchy.  Where has it gotten us?  If the liberal theory is correct, that the source of unhappiness is repression by authoritarian personality types, and the solution is ever greater freedoms, why is it that the trend line has been the exact inverse?  Why are we getting less and less happy even as we have become more and more free?

If instead the fascists are correct, that the source of human happiness is a well organized society which consistently delivers the spiritual food we've evolved to yearn for as part of our inherent natures, then all the facts are in accord with our predictions.  The more we stray from the traditional, historical, evolved roles our genes expected from us, the worse off we've become.

There is a platonic template for human existence, which all humans innately desire and yearn for, and all humans prosper under when provided.  It's the role of a fascist dictator to impose that template on his people, so that they have no choice but to play out the roles nature gave them.  People may think they don't want to live by this template, but their lived experience says otherwise.  Everyone who rejects this template is miserable and then dies.  Everyone who accepts this template is happy and then lives forever, through their descendants and a culture that memorializes and honors them.

If there really are people who are unsuited for the platonic template of life, it is not through the fault of the template which must be modified to suit them, it is the fault of the people who couldn't live up to the mold.

Just as there are people born with genetic diseases and various accidents that make them unfit, like retards and people born without brains, there will be some number of misfits whose genes sadly mutated to the point where they can no longer live the right, proper, and natural human life cycle out happily.  These people shouldn't be accommodated, they should be purged like any other genetic errors.  We shouldn't redesign society to suit schizophrenics either.

It is remarkable how wise the Bible was when speaking about this:  "the wages of sin are death."  "the punishment for sin is visited upon the tenth generation."  "behold, I present before thee life and death, therefore, choose life."

There really is a simple choice.  You can choose life, by rejecting sin.  Or you can choose death, by embracing sin.  Not only will you die an early death, but your entire line will be stamped out, because you will find it impossible to marry and have children in a healthy and stable environment any longer.  Or even if you do have children, they'll be so warped and ruined by the terrible environment your sins created for them, that they will find it impossible to marry and reproduce, or even if they do, it will be such a bad environment that their children won't manage to marry and reproduce, and so on.  The point is your line will become biologically unfit and sooner or later the reaper will have his due.

It has been pointed out time and again that liberal birth rates are well below conservative birth rates.  Liberals also self-report as being way less happy than conservatives.  Liberals are people who have embraced sin and as such nature has provided for them death.

Now, liberals have a cute trick, where, like gays, they recruit children of conservatives to their side rather than reproduce themselves.  But this parasitism is not a long term strategy.  For one, conservatives, the natural majority (because they're the people who chose life and thus are actually alive), could at any time refuse to allow liberals to corrupt their children anymore by stamping liberalism out once and for all.  And the more conservative children stolen by liberals, the more outrage conservatives will have for liberals, until the boiling point is inevitably reached.  Second, if liberals ever really did succeed and converted the whole country to liberalism, they'd run out of breeding stock and thus all die together.  Third, as conservatives undergo selective pressure generation after generation of being enticed into every sin imaginable, eventually a rock-solid core of conservative genes will emerge, which simply cannot be corrupted anymore, and this new conservative population will then become the vast majority in a few additional breeding cycles as liberals find they can no longer reproduce or recruit any longer.

One way or another, the liberal strategy will fail and they will die.  The only question is whether they will drag good people down with them.  And that's our decision.  We have weighed their theory and found it empirically wanting.  Isn't it about time to try out the fascist, traditionalist theory instead?

The platonic ideal template we should all be living by is very simple.  Live in a homogeneous society, in both genes and culture/ideology.  Marry by age 20, and have at least two kids by age 25.  Let men do the work while women stay at home with the kids.  If women desire to involve themselves in the working world, it should be as volunteers, hobbyists and charities, or co-owners of the family business, so that they never displace the man's role in the family.  Don't have sex outside of marriage.  Don't drink, smoke, do drugs, get tattoos, or piercings, or distort your body/mind in any way from God's original intention.  Live in spread out places with plenty of nature and scenery, not crammed together cheek by jowl.  Completely extirpate anyone who would disrupt the social order via crime, heresy, blasphemy, infidelity, etc, before the cancer spreads.  Discipline yourself to fit the mold before demanding other people accommodate your desires to not fit the mold.  Treat others with kindness and respect, and stop always making it about yourself.

The importance of tight knit families and communities could not be any clearer from the data.  High social trust and community involvement leads to better outcomes for all individuals in said community.  The way I plan on getting tightly knit communities is for them to all unite around their love of anime, video games, visual novels, music, manga, movies and television, and the messages embedded therein.  In the past it was going to church and singing together their love for Jesus.  It can really be about anything, so long as people love it together and thus can love each other.  But there has to be something people in a community share, or they aren't really a community.

Even if you can develop ten thousand rational arguments for why the platonic ideal template, the standardized human life cycle, is wrong and should be something else -- it doesn't matter.  It's not me you're arguing with, it's your own genes, that evolved to want what I'm simply telling you they want.  I'm just the messenger, the relay device.  There is no way to get around this platonic template because this is your nature, all human's nature, or enough of a majority's human nature that no society can deviate from it and survive for long.  We can choose life and obey what God has set out for us to do, or we can choose death and disappear while bragging about how rational and liberated we all are.  Just like the Bible warned.

"therefore, choose life."