Blog Archive

Monday, August 28, 2017

Reasoned Debate Doesn't Lead to Truth:

There's this myth being peddled by the right wing, that leftists must feel insecure in their beliefs because they prefer shutting down right-wing speech over reasoned debate.  But this makes no sense.  For the past few hundred years, America has been a haven of free speech, where everyone could peacefully engage in reasoned debate.  In all this time of reasoned debating, where no one's speech was violently shut down, did we ever arrive at truth?  Or did we just keep falling into greater and greater error?

If the right wing really believed that free speech always led to correct, well-defended, fully reasoned out conclusions, then they would have no objections with the totalitarian leftist system we currently find ourselves in -- because that was the exact method we used to get here.

Instead we find that free speech led us to believe -- for the first time in human history -- that shoving a dick up someone's ass was marriage.

It led us to believe that men could become women simply by cutting off their genitals.

It led us to believe that all people were completely interchangeable on Earth, despite the fact that the differences between groups of people could not be more stark and obvious all across the world.

It led us to believe that a magical institution called 'school' could 'educate' anyone into being the next Einstein, Steve Jobs, insert-whoever-is-respected-or-successful, and when kids do not turn out this well, it is simply because our schools have not yet received sufficient funding and support from the community.  The answer is always to double down on more schooling, no matter how wretchedly it actually performs in the real world.

It led us to believe in invisible phantom forces, called 'institutional racism,' 'microaggressions,' 'white privilege,' and so on, that keep down minorities, despite the entire law code and media and everyone bending over backward to give special benefits and favors to non-whites.

It led us to believe that women could do anything men could do, but better, except for the invisible oppression known as 'the patriarchy,' 'the glass ceiling,' 'sexism,' etc.  Meanwhile, whenever men perform worse than women, like at, say, criminality, or college admissions, that's just men's own fault.

It led us to believe that IQ doesn't exist, that good genes don't exist, and therefore eugenics is a pseudo-science.

It led us to believe that spending half the gdp of the country on health care would correspondingly improve our health by 50%.

It led us to believe that marriage and children were no longer necessary for happiness, and that the far preferable substitute was various legal and illegal drugs.

It led us to believe that illiterate, low-IQ, high criminality barbarians were moving here solely to help pay our pensions and cover our social security bills out of the great generosity of their hearts.

I could go on like this for hours.  The point is we're the stupidest, most error-prone, and most ridiculously inverse to reality culture in the history of mankind.  It was much better when we worshiped cows and alligators.  When we thought the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around us.  When we still believed human sacrifice could placate the gods and bring in good harvests.  As stupid as these beliefs were, they weren't nearly as damaging or extinction-level crisis as the belief that foreigners were our long lost friends, that men and women were fungible, and that marriage and children were no longer necessary to civilization.

We are reaching levels of stupidity even the gods couldn't conceive of.  They clearly made our bodies different so that we could easily see how different we all were, and we just go ahead and say the gods were wrong and we're all the same underneath.  How absolutely absurd is that?  How do you reach these levels of stupidity, that even infants should be considered sages in comparison to?

They made very distinct plumbing, a stick and a hole, so that people could figure out what goes where.  And we somehow screw it up and decide sticks should mate with sticks, and holes with holes.  This is the product of reasoned debate!

It's obvious that reason, free speech, and debate are useless in the face of human stupidity.  For the vast majority of mankind, they don't need to be reasoned with because they can't be reasoned with.  They do not arrive at conclusions via reason, or the insanity of the modern world would never have appeared.  Their faculties are at a level where they just seek out consensus, obedience to authority, status signalling, ego reinforcement, etc.  They never think twice about what they believe, they just believe anything convenient to them must be true.

The left understands that they did not arrive to power via reasoned debate.  They arrived to power by bludgeoning their enemies into submission, into seizing control of various high-status institutions, and then cloaking all their words in the authority of their high status, to the point that no one could dare question them anymore without looking declasse.  Then for the few recalcitrants who didn't 'get it' yet, they would be threatened with expulsion, firing, antifa violence or jail time based on trumped up charges and silenced once and for all.

This is why the left understands the threat of leaving right wingers on the loose to say their piece.  It has nothing to do with insecurity over their beliefs.  They believe passionately that all reason and logic supports them, but they do not believe humans are intelligent enough to follow reason and logic to the proper conclusion.

And they are right about this.  Obviously all reason and logic and free speech and debate would eventually come to the conclusion that right-wingers are right.  But who cares?  People do not think in these terms.  They have never thought in these terms.  So winning such a battle is completely fruitless, a game just to pass the time, while the real battle for the human spirit and civilization rages outside.

People will believe you if you look high status while you say things, and will disbelieve you if you look low status while saying them.  They will believe you if a great many people are seen to agree with you, and disbelieve you if you appear to be alone in your stances.  And so on.  It's completely visceral, instinctual, logical fallacies, all the way down.  They never once even care about the structure of your argument or any of the facts you might cite.

Antifa, the fake news New York Times, CNN, etc, all understand how to convince people to properly toe the line.  That's why they always cast their opponents as low-class, unpopular losers.  That's why they have to break up right-wing rallies, so that no one gets the idea that their beliefs may be popular or powerful.  That's why they have to exile them from all respectable institutions, so no one gets the idea that they might have something intelligent to say.  The right wing is so bizarrely incapable of understanding human nature, despite supposedly being the party that emphasizes nature and reality as intractable forces we must accommodate ourselves to, that we're just ceding the entire battlefield to the left wing while trying to win a completely unrelated mini-game called 'reasoned debate.'

Reasoned debate is not a useful tool except in a league of Socratic philosophers.  It's meant for a small scintilla of the population to talk to each other seriously.  For everyone else there's propaganda.  That's the only level of thought they'll ever be able to understand, it's the world they operate in and it's the only thing they can follow.

In Vinland, reasoned debate will be fine and dandy in private corridors of power, but the public shall never be exposed to left-wing thought again.  It's just poison and corruption.  There is nothing to be gained from it.  Lies and degeneracy.  Absolute rot.  But its power of persuasion is manifest.  All around us we can see its success.  If people are exposed to these lies, they'll believe them.  Because of wizard's first rule -- people believe what they want to believe is true.  The lies of the left are all things that flatter people's egos, excuse their crimes and give them licenses to sin.  Every lie is self-suited and rewards selfish, delinquent behavior.  It's impossible to win against such a creed because the weak willed are always eager to hear justifications for why they should do all the evil things they've always wanted to do since birth.

Instead, there should be zero free speech, all the airwaves should be controlled, and only carefully filtered messages should ever be taught our children.  There is a narrow path to being a good person, and infinite ways to be bad.  Allowing good and bad influences an 'equal place in the marketplace of ideas' is absolute madness.  In that case a kid will be exposed to a million bad role models, ways of life, and ideas for every good one.  What are the odds they'll turn out ok?

We can see for ourselves how low the odds are.  The endpoint of freedom is mere licentiousness.  Bastards, buggery, divorce, adultery, drugs, alcohol, crime, obesity and always lies, lies lies.  No one has any personal honor, loyalty, or integrity anymore.  Everything is phony and fickle.  No one cares about anyone or anything except their own self gratification through the basest and most primordial of means.

In Vinland, not only will all left-wingers be purged, but leftism itself will be purged, so that it can never take root in future generations again.  The mistake the right made, in the 1800's and forward, was this ridiculous belief in the Enlightenment that everything should be open and free, that all topics should be debated, that nothing was sacred and there was no objective truth.  They allowed utter chaos to subsume all the social systems mankind had built up over millennia to police our bad behavior and forestall the various evils that destroy civilization if left unchecked.  Religion had to go because no serious person can believe in these silly superstitions in the light of science.  But that did not mean that morality itself had to be questioned or put under the microscope.  There was no reason why we had to start debating basic moral norms like, "marriage is forever," "men and women are meant to be together," "our body is our temple and thus must remain pure," etc.

There is a perfectly rational, scientific basis for keeping our ancient moral norms in place.  They are what lead to a successful, happy life and a prosperous, harmonious, and ever-advancing civilization.  Just look how much progress humanity made in the brief periods it rigorously enforced good moral character in its citizens.  From Rome, to Sparta, to Victorian England.  We always soared the highest when we asked the most of ourselves and forgave the least.  Japan was a morally advanced society long before we came into contact with it, but was benighted in every other way.  They didn't even have the wheel.  So we sailed in with ironclads and told them to adopt science and technology already, and boom, fifty years later, they were a world power.  Within one lifetime they made a leap from the stone age to whupping the United Kingdom in World War II, what was previously the greatest power on Earth.  How did they do it?  Because all the groundwork was already laid.  If you keep your people moral, diligent, and dutiful, you can accomplish anything.  For the same reason, Germany was able to rebuild its economy from the ashes of World War II in just five years.  From a ground state worse than any African country, they moved their gdp back up to top class, while the rest of the world continued to plod along just as they always had.  Why?  Because the German people had been raised to be moral, and so civilization quickly restored itself to the level of the people's virtue.

In Vinland, there won't be any freedom anymore.  People do not have a choice to be good or evil.  They're either good or they're gone.  It's as ridiculous as saying people have a choice to be good or evil in heaven.  Heaven is absolute good, obviously no one has a choice to be evil in Heaven, or else heaven would no longer be heaven because it would just be another mix of good and evil again.  Well the same is true of Vinland, heaven on Earth.  Since heaven doesn't exist, because God doesn't exist, we have to make our own heaven and our own God, our own absolute Good and our own absolute enforcer -- the State.

There will be no further debate over whether an evil deed should be legal or permissible or not.  There will be no free speech composiums where people get together to advocate satanic rites and deeds that would torpedo civilization the moment they were enacted.  There will be no corrupters, whisperers in the ears of men, telling them it's okay to do the wrong thing, to lie, to steal, to inconvenience or abuse, to drug themselves or take the easy path.  Good and evil could not be more simple.  It's all obvious on its face what is right, true, virtuous behavior.  We can all spot it from a mile away.  Therefore even opening it up for debate is just weakening Good's hold on people's souls and allowing in a wedge which will eventually burst open the whole dam as all the waters of human vice flow through like a torrent.

Good behavior will be mandatory, like marriage before the age of 20 (and yes, real marriage, between a man and a woman, and real men and women, not people deciding what gender they wish to be.), followed by at least two children by the age of 25.  Divorce absolutely impermissible, the only possible way someone could end up single being that their partner violated our rules and thus was kicked out of the community.  Everyone will be a virgin before marriage, in both body and mind, ie, they will not even have pledged their love to someone else before marriage, which would already be a two-timing obscenity.  And obviously, no one will ever be allowed to cheat again.  Aside from your partner, no sexual, intimate, or deeply emotional bonds are allowed.  You can't just put your husband aside and go spend all your time with your 'friend' Jack across the street, while saying oh we're not having sex so it's okay.  No, it's not okay.  Your deepest commitment and emotional involvement and time investment must always be with your spouse.  You must exchange more words, more events, more memories, and more companionship with your spouse than anyone else, as well as keeping your bodies exclusively to each other.  Married people belong to each other.  They are each other's property.  Their owners and masters.  You don't own yourself, you don't decide what you will do with your time, emotions, heart, body, whatever.  All of that belongs to your spouse, who you gave yourself to under oath.

And if you aren't willing to swear that oath, that troth, that marriage vow, then get the fuck out of our country.  Because marriage is mandatory in Vinland by age 20.

It used to be that the world was a desperate place, where even a small error in judgement would lead to certain death.  Not only was adultery literally a crime in the past, but the enforcement was far more severe than just the law.  Everyone would abandon you, both socially and fiscally.  You wouldn't get a scrap of food if you were known to have whored yourself out, shamed your family and blasphemed God.  Any child you forged out of wedlock would be given zero support and zero opportunities, a blasted life and usually short.  Everything was hellish for sinners.  You simply could not get very far because the community would not put up with it.

The complete social isolation, with no one saying a word of approval or mercy towards you, was an equally severe punishment.  People like to be liked, they want to belong, and when everyone turns your back on you simultaneously, it's equivalent to a death sentence.

And in that world, where morality was enforced by everyone, where no one forgave you your trespasses, we advanced rapidly as a people, as a species.  A hell of a lot of people were hanged in London, in public, making it clear to everybody that this sort of behavior wasn't acceptable.  Even pickpockets and other 'minor crimes,' it all went straight to the hangman.  If you insulted someone's honor, you could be gunned down or stabbed to death right there, with the public looking on approvingly at the honor code being enforced.  The law would not intervene, because it upheld good morals that people not try to corrupt women into infidelity or cheat men out of their hard earned property and reputations.

When people's vices are checked, their spirits and minds roam free.  They are elevated.  The angel inside takes the ascendancy, and they start thinking and living for higher things than their next rush.  So we get places like Puritan America, where people couldn't even dress up, but guess what?  The west was won.  We colonized a howling wilderness full of hostile savages trying to kill us.  We took over 50% casualties, but we doggedly plowed on, and came out the victors.  We were hard men and women back then who didn't back down to any threat, from inclement weather to enemy tribes.

From disciplined living comes strength, personally and nation-wide.  A rabble of undisciplined Persians was never any match for the disciplined Spartans, who held at Thermopylae against unbelievable odds.  And the undisciplined Gauls were wiped out by the disciplined Romans under the generalship of Julius Caesar.

Disciplined training and regimented living are what give professional athletes their edge over the bodies of common men.

In order to excel at anything, the very first thing that must go is freedom.  Instead everything must be closely controlled.  Why would this not also be true of morality itself?  Of the level of virtue to be found in your country as a whole?

Has anyone's advice ever been, when coaching, to 'just do whatever you want, whatever feels right.'

And yet life coaches have ended up with this conclusion?

Give me a break.  The phoniness should be apparent to anyone.  Why should the single most important thing in life, getting people to combine their strengths to form a greater cohesive whole, from getting people from mere humans to timeless humanity, be the least necessary to police, guide, or control?  As though it would just happen naturally if left alone?

You know what happens naturally if left alone?  Africa.  You know what happens with constant meddling and intercession from birth till death?  Japan.

But even Japan, with its soft power of shaming people who stick out and make fools of themselves, of quiet disapproving silences and faces that make people aware that they've done wrong and everyone is distinctly aware that they've done so, is not the perfect system.  Even Japan is going to rot, slowly but surely, under the power of 'free-wheeling' Enlightenment thought that came in alongside the ironclads.

The real alternative to Africa is Vinland and only Vinland.  A land exclusively devoted to principles that are the complete opposite of the enlightenment, of freedom, of licentiousness, of sin as a 'human right.'

There people will be made to be socially beneficial, not just 'every man for himself.'  And there people will be guaranteed fair rewards for good behavior, like a wife and kids, low taxes, a citizen's dividend, and an honored place in society -- ie, zero demonization for bullshit sins people never actually did or were never even sins in the first place.  If you live in a way that supports society, society will always support you.  And if you live according to the traditions set before you, your children and grandchildren will not betray and defile and abandon them, leaving all your life work in tatters.  They will inherit and honor them, and when you die, you know that nothing else dies with you.  That you can rest in peace, with the satisfaction of a job well done.

There, science and the economy will increase at an unprecedented pace.  No longer will money be wasted on education, health care, the military, dealing with crime epidemics, supporting immigrants and refugees, food stamps for single mothers, etc, etc.  Everything will go towards simple living, followed up by investment into the arts and sciences.  Instead of a measly few percentage points of gdp being dedicated to the future, while 90% of it is wasted making up for people's bad lifestyle choices, we could devote 10% of the economy to taking care of our bodies and 90% to progressing our souls.

In a few generations of this level of exponential growth, we'd become the premier power on Earth, and could then dispose of all the planet's denizens as we see fit.  After that we could take to the stars and dispose of the whole universe however we desire.  Unlimited power would be within our grasp, all because we forsook this pointless, dissipating 'freedom' that shackles us to the ground.

In Vinland, people's behavior would be policed, and any speech that went against the moral necessity of good behavior being enforced would likewise be policed.  What possible use could it have, except to undermine society, this long-term project destined for greatness?  Free speech is not a right-wing value, it was the right wing's undoing.  There is no place for it in paradise.

Free speech is like a train station.  You ride it until you reach the destination, and then you get off.  We've already discovered all the proper rules of human conduct and behavior, how to lead your life best in a way that's healthy, productive and fulfilling.  All that's required now is to enforce the good behavior that we know leads to success.  Maybe if we were still dazed and confused about this matter, and it still wasn't clear how best to live, we could debate all about it.  But the facts are in, the historical examples are in, we know what works and what doesn't, who's happy and who's miserable, who's functional and who's dysfunctional.  It's all clear as day by now.  Any further talk just obfuscates what needs to be done.

Free speech in Vinland will simply mean the right to tell the truth.  People should never have had a right to lie, and anybody who says degenerate lifestyles are acceptable, or that everyone is the same when they manifestly and obviously aren't, are just lying.  We don't have to put up with their bullshit anymore.  There is no moral reason why we should.  We don't have to give them a platform to spew their venom, to poison the polity with.  Do we give equal access between sewage and fresh water to our sinks and bath tubs?  Do we give pedophiles and serial killers equal access to our children?

We do not have to give people the right to undo with a few careless words what we've done over the centuries, to destroy in a fit of 'freedom' what it took thousands of years of discipline to build.  We do not have to treat good and evil, right and wrong, true and false equally, when they are unequal things and thus deserving of differential treatment.

It may be tactically wise to support 'free speech' in an environment where we are a powerless minority and the left could shut us down at any moment, but it actually isn't.  Because once you've violated your own principles, you no longer represent what you say you stand for.  If you say you're for free speech when really you aren't, when really it's a bad idea, and really you'd never put up with it if you were in charge, people can see through that phoniness, that you're just a self-serving liar like everyone else, and that you are not an avatar of the virtues you say you stand for.

No one will respect you if you just say whatever's convenient while simultaneously calling for a moral revolution and holy war.  First we must show that we are genuine about what we believe in, then we must show that what we believe in genuinely works, by living it and succeeding with it, and only then will the masses decide there must be something to what we have to say.

Christians didn't argue for free speech or freedom of religion.  They believed their religion was the only true religion, the only acceptable religion, and all other religions had to go.  For this reason they proudly martyred themselves for their faith when they were out of power, and proudly extinguished their enemy's religions once they were in power.  They were consistent throughout, which led to people respecting them.  Christianity won in the end not via pluralism, but via fanatical devotion to the cause, far more so than anything their opponents could muster up in favor of their own beliefs.  Extremism, not 'fair play,' but belief in superior and inferior and clinging to the superior, was what eventually led to complete victory.

And guess what, if you know you're a powerless minority, rather than arguing for stuff that undermines your own principles, like free speech, just so you won't be inconvenienced by state oppression -- wouldn't it be better to form your own country, where you can create your own speech codes?

Isn't free speech just another cause of our cause's lethargy?

Just imagine America without any free speech.  24/7 full blast liberalism, no argument allowed.  Wouldn't we have broken away from that long ago, at any price?  Wouldn't we have long since preferred civil war over that fate?

So what does arguing for free speech get us?  Contented cows, willing to watch the future slip away from us day by day, because at least we still get to gripe about it online.

I wish we didn't have any other recourse but secession.  I wish life here were intolerable.  I wish there were no escape from the commissars.  Because then we would have to make our own way, like those fleeing religious persecution to America did.  Because then, just maybe, we'd actually act on our convictions instead of just keep free speaking about them.

Millions of us who are not allowed to be ourselves anymore is a nugget of power that could be forged into the most heroic of legends, through hardship, through adversity.  Instead we just let off all that heat, all that steam, into the atmosphere of 'free speech,' and in the end nothing happens and the needle never moves.  We just keep slouching towards Gomorrah.  Free speech isn't helping the right wing at all.  It's actually our worst enemy -- by coddling us!  Never mind that it coddles the left in the hypothetical where we're in power.  It's bad enough when it's coddling us when we're out of power!  No matter who's in power we're worse off because of free speech and nothing but free speech.  It's time to throw this illusion away.


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."

No comments: