On Accepting Changes In The Church

The social bonding of the Church is one of its most vital offerings, perhaps its most important offering; the science of sociobiology has brilliantly affirmed this as well. In light of this, how must one think of the changes of Vatican II, e.g. changes in the Mass (Recently changed back to the Traditional Mass) which traditionalists defined as virtually a change to the Protestant mass?

I think it would have been better had the Protestants changed to the Catholic Mass, since the latter is an older, deeper, and more authentic way to reach God the God Within. The general problem, however, is the fading interest in Christianity in the world, which Vatican II was essentially trying to deal with by moving toward connection between all Christians in the world.

The Theoevolutionary Church will require a few more rather large changes in the future, or at least changes in emphasis, which should not be thought of as evil. Conservatism supports traditions, but not to the point of ignoring the reality of change in nature and change in the kosmos, where God created the laws of evolution, which affirm the reality of change.

Science has damaged Christianity, but Christian's who cannot accept the truths of science have also damaged Christianity. Science can bring a deeper understanding of Christianity, but this deeper understanding requires at least a change in Christian emphasis. Traditionalists who refuse any kind of change refuse the changes that God affirms in an evolutionary kosmos, and this cannot be virtuous, especially if refusing change leads to destroying all traditions, and in destroying traditions the people of the West are destroyed.

Two choices facing Vatican II were: (1) If we do not change we will decline and perhaps fall, and (2) if we change we will decline and perhaps fall. The Church was declining before VII, perhaps because it rejected much of modern knowledge, and it has declined since VII because it accepted much of modern knowledge.

This can be resolved by affirming Evolution as both a scientific and religious principle. We evolve materially and spiritually to Godhood. We accept the spirit of VII as eventually moving toward refining and synthesizing the evolutionary goal of Godhood. But traditionalists can certainly retain Church traditions all the way back to Christ, and affirm the same God we affirm, Who is also Him whom we must evolve to.

Conservative Change over Radical Change

All conservatives of whatever leaning seem to see the present and coming crisis in the West, it is the methods we advocate for trying to solve the crisis that separate us.

Critics on the Right of Conservatism (e.g. evolutionary) tend to emphasize the evolutionary over the conservative, which seems to lead to more radical political schemes (although it need not do so). But Conservatism involves not merely economic or social philosophy, it also involves conservative political methods.

Being prudent should be vital, as Russell Kirk always talked about, taking into account the reality of change, preferring conservative change rather than radical change, even when radical change is desperately needed, because radical methods almost never succeed.

I emphasize conservative change over radical change. I affirm the Theoevolutionary Church for conservative reasons over radical Modernism and Traditionalism which are equally radical. Successful survival and reproduction help determine the method, along with the overarching long-term spiritual goals in our evolution toward Godhood.

Reconciling Traditionalists With Evolutionists

The relatively new “evolutionary integralists,” e.g. Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen, have apparently blacklisted the Traditionalist School of Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, Mircea Eliade, etc., and not for the politically incorrect tendencies of Traditionalists, but for their rejection of evolution and science. I can agree with rejecting those who reject evolution, to a point, but the Traditionalist School (and Perennial Wisdom) deserve better than blacklisting. (Christians against evolution get the same New Age disdain)

The Traditionalist School is a great resurrection of Traditional religion, which I define as the micro-traditional way to discover God in ourselves and in our history and traditions. Living in the West, Traditional Christianity is the conservative way to approach God in the micro-traditional way. The Theoevolutionary Church is the combined macro-evolutionary/micro-traditional way, which I have been defining in this blog.

The Traditionalists and Evolutionists can be reconciled when both approaches are seen as legitimate. Micro-traditionalists and macro-evolutionists approach God running back to back, on the same continuum, and not running perpendicular (at right angles) to one another, as Robert Godwin has suggested regarding scientific and spiritual things. Godhood is seen virtually, in micro-traditional religion, and actually reached through evolution, in macro-evolutionary religion.

Enlightenment and Evolution

One problem with the new “evolutionary spirituality” proposed by Andrew Cohen, Ken Wilber and Robert W. Godwin, is that is maintains outmoded, one-world ideology, seeing future evolution in large-scale empires, which they would call world “cooperatives.” Yes, individuals learn to cooperate in groups, but real evolution breaks down in large scale empires, as the old Roman, Soviet and American Empires have shown.

When examining actual evolution, “small is beautiful.” Small-scale societies assure variety, which is vital in evolution. Christendom is not governed with one-size-fits-all, contrary to liberal opinion; subsidiarity and federalism affirm variety. Conservatives and liberals are biased toward one another, which hurts both their attempts to find workable social programs. Conservatives should claim ecology and evolution, liberals should claim small states rights and religion.

“Enlightenment” has two unequal definitions, one virtual, the other actual. Revealed religions have defined the virtual experience of enlightenment, glorious as this was; bio-spiritual evolution defines actual enlightenment, which can be achieved only at the majestic culmination of evolution.

What I Affirm

For the historical, traditionally-understood God, I affirm Traditional Christianity, and the Involutionary Inward Path, for the same, evolving, but futuristically-understood God, I affirm the Evolutionary Outward Path.

I affirm two ways to understand Godhood: Traditionalist, looking back to God, and Futurist, looking forward toward evolution to Godhood; the micro–back, the macro-forward, affirming the same God, although the Theoevolutionary Church (TC) says that Godhood must be evolved to.

I affirm the conservative social philosophy which harmonizes with subsidiarity, agrarianism (including serious ecological concerns), separatism and a strictly interpreted “federalism” of the American variety, i.e. strong states rights, and above all local rights.

“Small is beautiful” is affirmed for conservative and sociobiological reasons, e.g. Beyondism; evolution seems to work best within the biological variety of a natural, conservatism. This can harmonize science and religion.

The Traditional Church is affirmed, for spiritual, conservative, and sociobiological reasons, with the important and vital addition of evolution, and with the "expanded" definition of Godhood defined as that which must be evolved to, a Godhood which was virtually, and blissfully “seen” or “experienced” inwardly by the great religious founders and sages. We see now that we evolve to Godhood.

From Paul VI

“Modern man, will he not gradually come to the point where he will discover as a result of scientific progress, the laws and hidden realities behind the mute face of matter and give ear to the marvelous voice of the spirit that vibrates in it?...”
Milan, 1956

“The order to which Christianity tends is not static, but an order in continual evolution towards a high form...”
Dialogues, Reflections on God and Man

“Mankind is undergoing profound changes and searching for guiding principles and new forces which will show it the way in the world of the future.”
Speech in Bombay 1964

Change In The Theoevolutionary Church

Nothing practical changes when evolution is brought into Catholicism or other religions. The change is in the consciousness of Godhood as that which must be bio-spiritually evolved to. Prudent Conservatism remains the preferred political method, along with federalism or subsidiarity. Traditional Catholicism remains a healthy religious base and structure. Aspects of Vatican Two are affirmed, which can help end the tragic feud between traditionalists and modernists.

A great advantage in the Theoevolutionary Church, with its evolutionary consciousness of Godhood, comes from rejoining religion and science, which have been tearing apart the Western world. Another advantage comes in joining insights from other religions, e.g. Eastern religions, which could lesson tensions and advance wisdom.

Resolving Definitions of the Soul

The Theoevolutionary Church seeks to resolve the differences in defining the Spirit, between Christians, Platonist, Gnostics, Eastern Religions and Darwinists.

The Bible talks of the union of body and spirit, immortality requires the “resurrection” of the body to sustain the spirit. Yet to Platonists the spirit must be immaterial and separate from the body.

Platonists need not denigrate the material world, and empiricists need not denigrate the ideal world. The Theoevolutionary Church can resolve the differences.

Darwin did not tell the deepest truth about our purpose, he did not take evolution as far as it goes.  And Aristotelians and Thomists, who believe that the spirit is an action that cannot be explained by material survival drives, can perhaps, rest easier. In the sacred material evolution of life to Godhood, evolution eventually brings us into the higher realms, and evolution continues, all the way to Godhood, for those who are successful.  Wide is the gate and narrow the way.

Evolution and Conservatism

The science of evolution can save the Church from much of the modernism it absorbed since Vatican Two. For example, the communist views on man were decadent, even as the new attitude toward science was healthy.

Evolution brings federalism and subsidiarity back, indeed, evolution affirms conservatism, if an unbiased reading of sociobiology is applied. Sociobiology affirms the preference for group and ethnic selection and this moves the Church back to a healthier traditional position of federalism and subsidiarity, as well as ethnostates. 

Sacred Evolution And The Church

All the things that have been said about attaining happiness, and ultimately attaining God, by St. Thomas, St. Augustine, and others, including the great sages of Eastern Religions, can be applied to the sacred evolution to Godhood. It is not only the inward vision of the Divine Essence we seek, it is actually evolving materially-supermaterially to Godhood. Godhood is attained through sacred evolution, evolving within nature, and evolving through higher stages until Godhood is supremely attained.

The vision of Divine Essence which the great sages saw was a virtual inward vision of Godhood, but Godhood Itself must be evolved to in the cosmos. Christianity believes---unlike the other revealed religions---that Jesus Christ was also God Himself.

Our view of the sacred evolution to Godhood can be confirmed within the structures of the laws of nature. The Spirit-Will-To-Godhood within Primal Matter activates natural law and evolution. The terrible long-term antagonism between religion and science can this way be synchronized.

Having great respect for the philosophy of conservatism, I have no wish to harm the great traditions of the great religions. I seek to add the Outward Path to Godhood to the Inward Path to the Father Within.

Blending science with religion

As unacceptable as it is to Traditional Catholics, the following guide from Vatican Two (The Church In The Modern World) may be the only way to save the Church in the modern world.

“Let them (the faithful) blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine.”

For example, we would say, to deny the theory of evolution is absurd and to continue to do so will mean the virtual end of religion, which would then end the spiritual truths that religion can teach science.

However, to quote Vatican One... “let there be growth...and all possible progress in understanding...but only within proper limits, that is, in the same doctrine, in the same meaning, and in the same purport.”

From a talk on evolution and religion by Father Coyne

Here is an excellent look at evolution and religion, which begins: “The following is the text of the talk to be delivered by Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne, “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution,” at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Jan. 31:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504

And here is an interview with Father Coyne from the Counterbalance Foundation:

A href="http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/coyne-frame.html

The Holy Office On the Writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin

“On June 30, 1962, the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) regarding the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin. In 1981 the Holy See reiterated this warning against rumors that it no longer applied. Following is the text of both the monitum and the 1981 statement:”

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3160

Ramakrishna on truth

"It is said that truthfulness alone constitutes
the spiritual discipline of the Kaliyuga.
If a man clings tenaciously to truth
he ultimately realizes God."

Ramakrishna

Conservatism and Change

I see Conservatism as the middle way between the reactionary and the progressive. Conservatism is not against change, including changes that can help us better understand supernatural knowledge. But Conservatism does insist on taking its slow time in deciding on changes, always keeping in mind practical and even sometimes illogical human life and living.

Beyondism

“Beyondism” is an interesting attempt to create religion from science. I have few problems with Beyondism until it denies the spiritual realm and the cultural developments that come from revealed religion. Religious thinkers have studied the spiritual realm longer than Western science has studied the material realm. I think it may be possible to apply evolutionary thinking to the spiritual realm, even when one affirms Traditional Roman Catholicism. In any case, Raymond Cattell's “A Concise Beyondist Catechism:” is very far sighted and much of it will be applied to the Evolutionary Christian Church. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/beyond01.html

On questioning

Some men who question doctrine may be heretical, others may not be. "Material" heresy--a matter about which religion has been mistaken--is not the same as "formal" heresy. And men have been lost to the church in this creative mix. It is not heretical to attempt to explain and define doctrine by bringing in other truths. This is not merely innovation. Aquinas applied Aristotle and other nonchurchmen to deepen the understanding of doctrine.

I agree that Tradition does not change, it is either accepted or rejected, but it is not rejecting Tradition to creatively question it. In any case, the Magisterium will always correct us. Perhaps one should not question with the world watching; then again, why not? Many people today are simply bored with religion.

Can There Be Truth Outside of Catholicism?

Here is part of a letter Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy wrote to the Le Floch Report regarding the presence of Truth outside of Catholicism.

There have always been Catholics who can recognize the presence of Truth outside of Catholicism.

...“Consider the words of St. Iranaeus: “There is only one unique and the same God the Father, and his Word has been present to humanity from all time, although by diverse dispositions and manifold operations he has from the beginning been saving those who are saved, that is, those who love God and follow his word, each in his own age.” (Against Heresies, IV, 28, 2) And again: “Christ did not only come for those who, since the time of the Emperor Tiberius have believed in him, nor has the Father exercised his providence only in favor of people now living, but in favor of all without exception, from the beginning, who have feared God and loved him and practiced justice and kindness towards their neighbors and desired to see Christ and hear his voice, in accordance with their abilities and the age in which they were living.” [ibid, IV, 22,2 (SC bis, p. 688.,)

“Christ is the first-born of God, his Logos, in whom all people share. That is what we have learned and what we bear witness to. All who have lived in accordance with the logos are Christians, even if they have been reckoned atheists, as among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus and the like. ” Justin Martyr, Apology I, 46 (PG 6, 397)

St Allbert the Great; “Examining the teachings of pagan philosophers in the light of sound reason, he demonstrated clearly that they were in fundamental accord with the tenets of the faith.” From the second Nocturn of St. Albert the Great, Nov. 15. )(Breviary Pius X). One could provide many similar quotations from the saints.

St Thomas Aquinas held with St Ambrose that all Truth, no matter where it was found had the Holy Spirit for its author, and further that extrinsic proofs could be used in support of the Catholic Faith. Indeed his Summa is full of quotes from extrinsic sources.”...

For the complete letter see:
http://leflochreport.com/site/index.php?Dr.-Rama-Coomaraswamy

The Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta

Here is a section of a book review by Paul Rooke on "The Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta" by Swami Prabhavananda, Vedanta Press, Hollywood, CA, 1992; 110 pages, ISBN 08874810507

Swami Prabhavananda lived in the United States from 1923 until his death in 1976, and acquired a deep understanding of both the Bible and the western approach to religion. He had the highest respect for Jesus as a spiritual teacher and often used his words to elaborate and exemplify the themes he was explaining. This short book, originally published in 1964, is a thorough analysis of several chapters from Matthew from a principally Hindu viewpoint, with frequent references to Buddhism. Lucid and inspiring, it provides many valuable insights for daily living and the spiritual quest, as well as understanding of key issues in comparative religious studies.

..."The central theme of the Sermon on the Mount is that the whole purpose of one's life is to seek perfection and realize God. But what is perfection? Christ taught that it is union with the Father and must be sought within. It can never be found in the external world of things, for as Jesus proclaimed, "The Kingdom of God is within you." The author compares this idea with that of sat-chit-ananda (immortal life-infinite knowledge-eternal love and bliss) as expressed in the Vedas. Developing the theme of sin and maya (illusion) in Christianity and the Vedas, Prabhavananda advises that an obsession with worldly things masks the perception of our fundamental element, the unifying essence within us all. All religions have as their ultimate objective a union with the Absolute, however this may be described. This goal has been called samadhi (Hinduism), nirvana (Buddhism), and mystical union (Christianity), and all faiths emphasize the need to be purposive about realizing it. The four main paths in the Vedanta are karma yoga (selfless work); jnana yoga (discrimination between the ephemeral and the eternal); bhakti yoga (devotion to God, the path followed by the majority of religious believers); and raja yoga (meditation on the supreme reality). This last path may be said to include the other three, and ``a balanced spiritual life demands a harmonious combination of all four yogas, [although] one or another usually predominates, depending on the temperament of the aspirant.'' Christ's teachings can easily be assimilated into these four paths, with devotion emphasized most strongly."

Here is the URL. http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-prook.htm

Comment on the above statement: Swami Prabhavananda is speaking of what is defined as the Involutionary Inward Path in the Evolutionary Christian Church, which is shared by all the revealed religions. Our mission is to include the other half of religion, the Evolutionary Outward Path, which is the path of material-spiritual evolution to the God first seen in the Inward Path.

Politics in its place

Claes G. Ryn said it well, (August 28, 2006,The American Conservative) Conservatism has been too enthralled by politics..."To recover, American conservatism would have to reorder its priorities and most especially put politics in its place. America’s crisis is at bottom moral-spiritual and cultural. Though a new alliance of homeless political groups is desirable, a realignment would be unavailing in the long run unless the old obsession with politics were also broken. The issues most needing attention will make the eyes of political junkies glaze over."

Read the full articule: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article19.html

Slow Ways

Why do men remain radical for so long?
The mystic songs of religion and
intuition seem to drive them
away. Science, which is here to stay,
has often been a school for
radicals--think of Bentham and
Marx--with Sabbaticals of PhD’s
replacing convocations of
bishops. The slow ways of tradition
are as hard to precisely define
as the Gothic line. Have our
universities created a better
world than our churches? Slowness
is key. Bend the twig of tradition
and you avoid decay and rot. Cut
the tree down and even the benefits
of science fall to the ground.

Rumi poem

Evolution is the prime process visible in the universe, says Raymond Cattell, and other scientists. But according to Jelauddin Rumi, and other mystics, “everything you see has its roots in the unseen world.” Here is the poem:

“Everything you see has its roots in the unseen world.
The forms may change, yet the essence remains the same.
Every wonderful sight will vanish, every sweet word will fade,
But do not be disheartened,
The source they come from is eternal, growing,
Branching out, giving new life and new joy.
Why do you weep?
The source is within you
And this whole world is springing up from it.”

Jelauddin Rumi

Guenon quote

The following quote is from the English translation of René Guénon's most important book "La Crise du Monde Moderne,"(1927) although he may have lost faith in this position in his later life.

"...We think that if a Western tradition could be rebuilt it would be bound to take on a religious form in the strictest sense of this word, and that this form could only be Christian; for on the one hand the other possible forms have been too long foreign to the Western mentality, and on the other it is only in Christianity - and we can say still more definitely in Catholicism - that such remnants of a traditional spirit as still exist in the West are to be found. Every 'traditionalist' venture that ignores this fact is without foundation and therefore inevitably doomed to failure; it is self-evident that one can build only upon something that has a real existence, and that where there is lack of continuity, any reconstruction must be artificial and cannot endure."

Religion and Science...Science Is Great But...

If “truth” remains a central goal, could we see the tracks of science and religion converge? Would this hybrid contain more of religion, and less of science, or the other way around?

Perhaps the real model is this: science following religion in all its forms and gradually "proving" the ethical truths of religion using scientific methods, e.g. traditional conservative values affirmed by sociobiology. And this would continue as science “proves” many more of the truths of religion.

If this is the case, then scientists, and others, who claim that religion is backward may see that religion has been far ahead of science, and this would define religion as superior to science in knowing the truth. But perhaps “superior-inferior” is a less accurate description than, say, the analogy of object and mechanic: religion is the model, which science attempts to examine in detail.

Science Is Great But...

Science Is Great But we
has been late to use it as a tool,
yet we would be fools to make
our rules conform to stillborn
equations from a germ free lab,
Sad and violent history attests
to the best plans of man overrun
by nonmathematical forces.

Traditional Flow

Youth attends the rose, age the soil,
and in this roiling strain the world
goes on. Are new songs truer
than the old? Is boldness
more valuable than golden age?
Even the sages disagree,
and we are often left between
the cleft of rock and sea. Ideas
weave their way into the mix
and try to fix everything
with tidy simplification,
while the ones who know go
with the traditional flow.

Only A Dawning

Not finished running through
the material world, just a hint,
a strobe of light, not a new
love, no new technical
jewel, only a renewal of
very ancient Tradition, yet
only a dawning, the great
yawning gap of hell remains.

The Problem With "Progress"

The problem I have with “progress” and “evolution” is not with science, which can be sound. The problem comes when material theories allow for nothing else, when they emphatically deny anything in the realm of immutable and eternal principles. The developments and inventions of science and technology are its main superiority, but when it is claimed that these things are all there is, it can lead to decline, unhappiness and chaos.

On the blog: Family, God, Nation

An interesting blog called Family, God, Nation . This site shows, indirectly, how the findings of sociobiology regarding human nature can work harmoniously with traditional conservatism. It’s all here: rejection of narrow left and right political labels, defense of Christendom against all its ideological enemies, the validity of ethnic and national identities, along with supporting patriotic/nationalist aspirations of Christian peoples, defending the heritage of Europe, decentralization of government control, in accordance with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, “Small is Beautiful,” defending the family, a just economic system based on wide ownership of property, small business, including the agrarian way of life, society built on communitarian values and a foreign policy of armed neutrality. There are links to many other traditional sites. This blog was linked through Jim Kalb's excellent site Turnabout.

Permanent Things

Lawrence the sensualist won,
and Eliot the puritan lost,
the cost we paid was to lay
Western Civilization in
the grave; is this how it ends,
with the well-known whimper and
not a bang? Who reads Eliot
anymore? Who believes in
the core values of the gentleman?
Who thinks about sin and redemption?
We will come back to permanent
things because we must, human
nature and survival will
select the virtuous.

Inconvenient Truth Indeed

Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) and other big-government pols should not own as they do the environmentalist movement since it is a natural for paleo-conservatives. Paleos rejected many of the assumptions of modernity long before the ecologists did. Deep ecology prefers the “vernacular,” even tribal societies, which were Conservative themes long before the left discovered them.

Conservatives do not promote big government as the way to solve our problems, and this is the big difference between the paleo, the left and the neoconservative solutions to problems. Regionalism, small is beautiful, is the best way to counter environmental damage, and the destruction of our manufacturing base, which has been caused mainly by globalist big business and their friend, big government. And the paleo-conservatives own this subject. Why aren’t paleos taking this issue away from the left? There are hints of interest, e.g. crunchy bohemian conservatives, but paleo leaders mainly ignore ecology; it is not smart.

Placing Universalism

Universalist ethics help basic survival for any and all groups. There is also a need for more specific, regional variety to avoid stagnation and sameness, and here, if the universalist ethics of religion (or international Marxism) are not to be accused of closing off creativity and variety, adapting the Thomistic idea of primary and secondary conservation can be applied.

Secondary conservatism defends fundamental, universal, ethics such as those which help all groups survive, as well as personal individual ethics which help the individual survive. Primary conservatism accepts specific group ethics, which can help specific groups survive. The group is and has been the main unit of evolutionary selection. One does not have to ignore variety while upholding universal ethics. The principles of subsidiarity and federalism follow this kind of social philosophy, which unifies universal, specific and personal ethics.

High Modernism

The pendulum of classicism
does not worship the past, it moves,
starting new grooves while retaining
the same brain, the swinging
weight never stagnates, the earth
rotates, yet it stays, while the rays
of the sun permeate the skin,
the thin membrane breaks when
the old scars have healed,
the wheels travel down the proven
path, and the last man resembles
the first; we thirst for the new
although the grooves rarily change,
they bore us to death, classicism
progresses yet remains the same.

Rest

We are going down to the sound
of punk rock, not Bach,
the sky is falling, the ground
is moving, let us gather
souvenirs and stash them in
black cans, it’s a world of
multi-niches now; we hurl down
our challenge with a measuring
stick, and crawl to our little
corner of the world.

Federalism

Hermes and his cousin Dionysus
are not the same as Apollo,
and so a duality is defined
for people inclined toward conservatism
or revolution, no solution
has been found for the mix, we continue
the war of classic characteristics,
conservatives hold to tradition and
order, revolutionaries seek
power through disorder; which is virtue,
which is sin? Who will win?
Conservatives define the origin
of the moral, which the revolutionaries
destroy as they see fit, both sit on
different thrones seeking to overthrow
the other: controlled separation,
federalism, may be the only
path to control the endless
wrath of man.

Conservatism and Evolution

Nine out of ten new mutations in evolution are unfitting, the development of new and better mutations is slow. This parallels Conservatism and its policy of attempting to alter the more ugly aspects of change, while accepting slow change.

Selection by groups seems to have helped develop the ethical values that are also tied to religion. Ethics which encouraged mutual respect and self-sacrifice by individuals for the group enhanced the group’s survival success. Societies with low ethical standards tended to collapse.

Decline is influenced by luxury, pluralistic ethics and egoistic individualism. American Conservatism struggles against these things but at the same time addresses the danger of sameness. Big bureaucratic states and global business often hurt competition and variation.

The disappearance of all groups but one would be catastrophic. Men like Stalin and Hitler damage the survival and variation of smaller groups by seeking world domination, more or less. Cooperative competition among separate state powers is the essence of Federalism. War is a breakdown of competition, it tends to lose the physically and mentally fit, and the most patriotic among us.

Conservatism and Federalism, as well as religions that affirm subsidiarity and traditional ethics, work in harmony with human nature and evolution. When we sink to imperialism or universalist ambitions we move away from the mutual love and self-sacrifice that has always worked best in smaller communities.

I see these developments in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology as renewing traditional American Conservatism.

Not For Cash

There are salt mines in our modern
cities, where men are free, they say,
not slaves, so far away from ancient
forms of craft, with few objecting
cries, no blue sky dreams, only
convention and monotony, and
this strange belief that we are free,
when freedom serves the sacred,
and not for cash.

We Will Go Back

We move faster toward an undifferentiated
mass, the last aristocrat was seen
playing with his cat on the back waters
of the Mediterranean, the sun is setting
on the artificial empire–
they won’t even get up to put out
the fires–the line between order
and chaos has grown thin,
therefore, we will go back
to where we had been before
the doors separating the regions
were removed, before the global
legions built plastic factories
where our gardens used to grow.

Conservatism

The will to live and survive and reproduce successfully is like the raw ingredients used to develop wine, or fine cooking. We might be able to survive on the raw ingredients, but why would we want to?

Even if the radicals and revolutionaries succeed in destroying the evolved traditions, the raw ingredients, which they attempt to use to form their new societies, will themselves naturally evolve more or less the same wine-making and cooking techniques all over again, because human nature does these things.

It is better to carefully revitalize the customs and traditions, reforming yet conserving, or even revitalizing as a means to conserve, which seems far more reasonable, practical and possible than attempting to start all over again from scratch.

The forms of wine and cooking techniques will vary from one people to another, as Burke’s “Chartered Rights of Man” develop from a peoples’ historic experience. Destroying customs and traditions dehumanizes men. The savage and the brute–and not the noble savage–lurks beneath the evolved customs and traditions.

A good society needs not only good laws but also religion, tradition, customs and the complex relationships that make up the ingredients of a successful, healthy society.

It is the revolutionaries and radicals who think that perfection is possible, who therefore destroy the long-evolved things, attempting to make more perfect things from simple ingredients, which they never accomplish.

Contrary to what the modern liberals say, conservatives are not against change, change is seen as the way nature works. When conservatives seek to modify the strange and ugly alterations to custom and tradition, they are following nature, where 99 of 100 new mutations don’t survive.

It turns out that traditions, customs and ethics are founded on permanent human nature, more or less, which includes such traditional things, seen in virtually all cultures, as gender differences, territoriality, kin-centeredness, monogamy, hierarchy and ethnocentrism, even xenophobia. Modern science, e.g. sociobiology or evolutionary psychology, have now affirmed this view of human nature. The traditionalists, at last, can claim science as affirming the basis of traditions and customs.

However, we cannot rush to found our entire worldview on science, since we adjust culture and politics to nature, including human nature, with its many arts and mysteries, and we do not merely adjust to science, which is only a part of human nature. Science alone is like one of those basic ingredients before they are developed into fine cooking or fine wine. The Enlightenment, for example, tried to base their new societies on basic, uncooked ingredients, such as science alone, and this eventually led to the monstrosities of communism, fascism and decaying liberal democracy.

Can a remnant hang on

Can a remnant hang on to Western culture, and is that what we must do?

We are prone to the great weakness of the creators of ideologies who develop abstract systems on paper, often with little reference to real life or real living.

Perhaps there is some inherent human need for an orderly long-lasting worldview. Nietzsche thought we would have the void as purpose rather than a world of no purpose.

I begin with what we have learned about human nature as the base of any further speculation on human culture. I apply knowledge I have gleaned from sociobiology and evolutionary conservatism, and whatever other knowledge I can find along the way.

During the age of decay, human nature will probably fall back on its own reserves, as we try to survive the attempted destruction of the old order. We may gradually reaffirm regionalism, more out of necessity than any other reason. The various regions will develop according to their needs and talents.

This, of course, depends on our first not destroying ourselves, or destroying the earth, which is not impossible.

So how do we live in the meantime, what do we believe, how do we think? This blog examines these questions through poetry, and occasional essays.