How my worldview deals with the complications of human nature and modern culture

It seems to me that most of the complexities in political and cultural discourse today come from not being able to accept the stark reality that we are higher animals driven by biological needs that help create the cultures we create, adapting our selves and our cultures to our various environments. There is too much cultural baggage devoted to such things as universal sameness and equality. To see past these things, or to see biological man, for many modern intellectuals is too much for them. The propaganda for the modern liberal view has been powerful throughout our educational systems and the whole media.

So its seems to be realism versus idealism, with idealism always fading as the world and human nature always do what they really do, that is, separate according to differences, different states, different ethnic groups, different cultures based on the needs of different environments, and then they tend not to cooperate. So what can be done about this when intellectuals don't even accept the biological part of this worldview and they continue to think we have to find a way to all get along equally within the same democracy? This is mainly where the complications come from, because it really can't be done successfully.

My work tries to deal with real human nature and real human behavior, to find a way for order to be achieved rather than chaotic disorder over time. Sociobiology has to be strongly included in this search because it has dealt with the reality of real human behavior. Nietzsche's conflicts regarding the individual and society it seems to me split into before the break with Wagner and an after the break. Before the break he thought of heroes working within the cultural order, and after the break from Wagner it was individualism, individual heroes all the way. The latter libertarian side of Nietzsche is becoming more and more popular among intellectuals on the left and the right.

What does sociobiology say about this (Wilson's version) ? It says that the group is vital, that the group actually created our values and ethics, with such things as altruism, which is the basis of most religions. So libertarianism takes a back seat in this view of human nature and the creation and maintenance of culture. Sociobiolgy for me suggests small states, even ethnostates, and a light federalism to protect them from internal and external threats. But then something is needed to help then cooperate beyond federalism.

My work moves on to worry about society without religion, which we virtually have now, accept for surging Islam. My religion takes sociobiology into account, but unlike Cattell's courageous Beyondism (which I admire), I keep God in the equation, or Godhood, with my philosophy of the Twofold Path, theological materialism, etc. Conservatism influenced me more than it did Cattell, which made him too radical in relating to human nature in my opinion. But this is thinking beyond where modern intellectuals want to go. I think who we really are as humans will eventually take us to evolutionary religion, if we manage to survive until then.

So that is how my worldview deals with the complications of human nature and modern culture.