Conservative group behavior comes before Libertarian individual behavior

Not long ago the great sociobiologist E.O Wilson affirmed group-selection over individual selection---as the Boston Globe put it: “Wilson is not arguing that members of certain species don't sacrifice themselves for the benefit of their relatives. They do. But it's his position that kinship and relatedness aren't essential in causing the development of advanced social behaviors like altruism ---that the reason such behaviors catch on is that they're evolutionarily advantageous on a group level. That socially advanced organisms end up favoring their kin, Wilson argues, is a byproduct of their group membership, not the cause.” Research backs up this position. I would agree with this as long as it is also understood that group-selection, altruism, and conservatism have favored genetically related groups over more distantly related groups. There is a natural continuum of altruism, concern for the world comes after concern for ones own land and people.

What does this do for individualism and libertarianism? Individualism often leads to hedonism and general selfishness, all passions and activity become submerged in the individual, which damages group altruism, and this in turn damages individuals. Yes, the individual is important, especially innovative individuals, and yes, it's easier for individuals to survive now, but nobody can rightly say that the individual can survive for long alone without the group.  And we must also mention the loss of foundational ethics based in altruism.

Public morality is legitimate, private morality is not nearly enough, so those who say if you don't like the program turn it off, are short-sighted and even irresponsible. Conservatism is not really a negation of individualism, it just puts it in its natural place. But I would probably still vote for libertarian Rand Paul, given the choices. This also affirms those who, like myself, see ethnopluralism within many small distinct states, virtual ethnostates, as the most natural social configuration, in line with real human nature.

We could improve democracy

How do we reconcile “rule by the best,” aristocracy, with our democratic republic? We could improve democracy. Our leaders and representatives could be picked by merit and virtue. We have to get the money out of the process of choosing our leaders. We also don't need to choose by families or titles or names, merit is what we want to apply.

I think it was Raymond Cattell who made the sensible suggestion that candidates for office pass exams on subjects relative to their leadership. There should be more social scientists, sociobiologists, and fewer lawyers (now the majority). Government is still, even in a democracy, government by elites---communism was too.

Citizens also could pass general knowledge tests before voting. And sanity tests could also be useful, and freedom from crime. The vote of the classics professor is canceled out by the vote of the man with a record of petty theft. We could trim the voting core to healthy adults.

In the end all leadership questions are ethical questions, and we need leaders capable of making ethical decisions on economics, education, social behavior and military matters. We don't have them now, for the most part.

The celebration of garbage with no good guys allowed

The morals and values of our Western culture did not depend solely on Christian values, before religion was even created or consulted real human nature related well to traditional religion in being kin-centered, gender defined, age-grading, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection.

Not that long ago characters in the entertainment media could be bad, but we wanted well drawn believable bad characters to show us how well drawn good characters were superior. Not any more. Now it's strait decadence and decay for the sake of decadence and decay. Reviewer's now actually criticize characters for being “hemmed in” by invisible moral boundaries, amoral protagonists are celebrated for boldly breaking all the ethical rules.

Some of this celebration of garbage has to do with the lack of courage of nerdy writers to go against fashionable trends, and some may come from a direct desire to destroy traditional morals, but most of it comes for the cultural Marxism (political correctness) taught throughout our college and university systems which allows no moral judgments, other than being against those who make any moral judgments.

The entertainment media is far more powerful and influential in a negative way than many of us thought it could be. Whether this means breaking up the media monopolies or building up our own media along side their monstrous media, remains to be seen. Meanwhile we sink further into the garbage, and no good guys are allowed. How can we change things! I am an American patriot and I don't advocate fascism, but it is becoming easier to understand how the fascists of the last century could scream in frustration over the  destructive media in their societies.

How the future can be good

It's not absurd to compare the Ancient Greek culture of always striving to compete in all things to the competitive free enterprise system. Constant contests of all kinds helped to make the Greeks great. America needs to revive the freedom of competition, not only in business but in all of our culture. And the high value of merit needs to be revived, which means that crony capitalism and monopolies need to be broken up so that real competition can resume.

The West had a head start in this, the idea of the separation of powers and small states was the original idea of America, with cooperative competition between states, protected internally and externally by a light federalism---perhaps more Jeffersonian than Hamiltonian, but keeping some form of economic nationalism to protect us.  Ethnopluralistic states, the virtual ethnostate idea, which is often mentioned here, can help to even better bond the states. Given our increasing unassimilating diversity, better things can come with the variety and competition of small distinct states, especially when the more sacred mission of the upward evolution of man, all men, is valued.

The prospect for regionalism and small states looks good. Regional government is now seen by rational people as better able to take care of the environment, climate change, and just about every thing else. Communities can and will become increasingly self-sufficient, with such things as permaculture, where people can grow their own food, and with smart homes that convert waste to gas, etc. The need to commute from suburbs etc. can fade as wireless is everywhere, with such things as video conferencing.



We do not need to become cyborgs or robots, and we don't need to embrace transhuman neurochips as the answer to all our problems, these things can aid in our evolution without us becoming computers. We need to insist on natural evolution, authenticity will become important, the question will be, is it real or is it artificial? But genetic engineering may eventually be useful. The boundaries between man and man-made need to be maintained.

The present contains the seeds of the future as the cliche goes but the choice of our future scenarios depends on our purposes. The central purpose here is to continue to evolve toward Godhood, and local, national and global choices relate to that purpose. Nature is the driver, with man working within nature, but nature and human nature need to be defined realistically. Human nature remains deeply kin-centered and group-centered, and this needs to be affirmed in our future cultures.

Calling either the Inward or Outward Path Satanic needs to end

When the material world seeks to live and evolve, this is not dark Satanic forces seeking entry into the world, it is life seeking to live in the face of spiritual traditions which have been blocking material evolution for centuries---unsuccessfully. It is the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood activating matter, not separate from matter, shaped by outside evolution, which we affirm, we don't “submit” to it, but celebrate it. These are forces of this world, not another world. It is remarkable how spiritual religions have made the material world a fearful Satanic force, rather than the vehicle to evolve toward Godhood.

What we need to do is not tit-for-tat make the “other” spiritual word Satanic, as both religionists and atheists do to the other, the idea is to affirm the Twofold Path, understanding that the Inward God of traditional religion was the first symbolic glimpse of real Godhood, which is transformed and reached through material/supermaterial evolution in the Outward Path. Calling either the Inward or Outward Path Satanic needs to end. In most cases this is a sublimation of the material will to power of the promoters of the definitions. The occult symbolism of religion is often empty spiritual or intellectual games, but they can be debilitating and even deadly games when people act on them.

Science as well as faith is needed in the general direction of evolution toward Godhood

Religion and science can bring Godhood out of the airy abstractions of religion and philosophy, and back to nature, when it is seen that man evolves to Godhood in nature. Human life is in need of this totality.

Old religion teaches Being, new religion teaches Becoming, and Becoming may be just as hard to define. We can see only imprecise patterns in evolution, with starts and stops along the way, toward higher consciousness and intelligence and refinement.

The internal world of the God or the Father Within has been estranged from the external world of the evolution of man to Godhood. This needs to be transcended without rejecting the first glimpses of the internal world, and this can be done in the Involutionary and Evolutionary Twofold Path. We don't negate the Inward Path we transform it in the Outward Path. The Twofold Path brings Godhood back, from being murdered in the modern world.

The estrangement of man from conscious material evolution and future material evolution also has estranged man from the social and group-selection of basic human nature. We have been dreamers of utopian dreams in religion but also in our social philosophies which were unrelated to real human nature. “Dissimulation increases in accordance with the rising order of rank among organic beings” (Nietzsche)

The more we learn of human nature the more ethnopluralism rises as a harmonious social configuration, and also as the best structure for creativity, variety and real evolution. Human beings remain kin-centered and local group-selecting, or ethnic selecting. We are all rising toward Godhood in evolution in our own distinct ways, and if we are civilized we can share knowledge without imperialism.

Liberal humanism and Marxism studied only nature and man in nature, seeing unknowable impractical abstractions beyond the study of man and nature. History has been the reality of man becoming man in nature, the next stage is attaining Godhood in nature. Science has acknowledged the first stage but not the second. Science as well as faith in the general direction of evolution toward Godhood is needed.

Stirred by beauty in art while conservatively evolving

We can be stirred by a beauty that is not novelty and impulsive excitement. I like that active movement applied against postmodern so-called art. I have called this the affirmation of the sacred---and it has to be more than boring affirmations, it has to stir in the way Burke describes beauty and excitement, which is now being overwhelmed by the novelty and excitement of postmodern nihilism, hedonism and hypertrophied individualist libertarianism. The present Media is genius in destructive seduction.

Beauty is greater than the sum of its parts---in human terms, think of a beautiful woman. In sacred and biological terms there is a connection between beauty and the sacred when the sacred is grounded in our biological evolution to Godhood defined as the zenith of beauty.  T.S. Eliot agreed in a sense when he said that beauty leads to the sacred. But by sacred I don't mean airy spiritual beauty, or merely the beauty of ultimate logic or Forms, as Eliot probably meant it; Godhood is the zenith of success in the survival of life, which is also seen as the zenith of truth, beauty and goodness. Godhood is a Supreme Object, or Objects, which life can evolve to become in the cosmos.

In evolutionary terms, leading to the sacred means that the form is not fixed forever, conservatism in art as well as in human and social evolution, means change while preserving the best of the past. We can be stirred by the beauty of art while conservatively evolving. Stability aids in evolution so that the best can be secured before moving ever onward to the higher and ascending levels of Godhood.

Both the subjective and the objective wrongly distance the object

I think subjectivism, the idea that all knowledge is subjective or individual feeling, and that there is no objective reality helped lead to the distancing of the real living object from religion, philosophy, science and life itself. Concepts, definitions, forms became more important than the object defined, which was considered only relative to the viewer. Even God became merely a concept, a word, a form and not a real object.

But objectivism, the idea that objects do exist outside of the mind, and that subjective feelings are distortions, also distanced the real object from religion, philosophy, science and life itself. The formulas became more important than the object itself.

I see it differently, not as object versus subject, but as object versus the abstraction of the object, whether that abstraction is subjective or objective. This means that Godhood and Being in religion and philosophy can center on the real living object, the supreme object, or objects, of Godhood and Being and not merely on the abstractions and definitions of God. God became distant from the object even to the point of becoming non-material! Both subjectivism and objectivism led to this.

Perhaps in some ways primitive man had a better conception, or rather non-conception, of God than modern man. But when Godhood is understood as the goal of material and supermaterial evolution, then the object can take its proper place ahead of the definition of the object.

Do we want to live, do we want to evolve, do we want religion?

Godhood is discovered through evolution, not declared or precisely defined now. Evolution gives us hints of a direction, if we see a pattern of evolution showing a steady movement toward more complexity, higher consciousness and intelligence, and so on, with starts and stops along the way. We can even now aid evolution in the direction it is going, applying the sciences of sociobiology and genetics. This is the transformed sacred path of revived religion.

Just because God has been wrongly defined as only a concept, only a definition, this does not mean that there can be no Godhood. Parmenides said, “One can form no concept of the non-existent,” but that is what most concepts of God are, and what most philosophical definitions of Being are, a non-existent concept. When Godhood is understood as a material/supermaterial supreme living object which will not exist for the life that is in us unless we evolve to Godhood, then real Godhood can be brought back into the real world. We don't worship non-object time, time has space and objects in it, and we don't worship a non-existent concept as God---we can bring concepts back to real living objects.

In the latest fashion, machine technology seems to proceed in direct proportion to the devaluation of human biological evolution. I am not against technology but the evolution of biological man needs to be valued higher than the evolution of machines. Technology is only an aid in the evolution life, even if the restrictions of political correctness (cultural Marxism) make it difficult to say so. Life and evolution need defending. The Great Spiritual Blockade to real Godhood needs to be unblocked. Godhood needs this transformation.

And contrary to the way it seems, radical religious revolution is not advocated: we can retain the old Inward God, the Father Within, which was only truly seen if we unattached ourselves from the desires of material life, as Jesus and Buddha and others taught us, we can preserve the old inward concept-experience of God in the Twofold Path as the first hint of real Godhood which must be evolved to in the Outward Path of material/supermaterial world.

Do we want to live, do we want to evolve, do we want no direction, do we want a religion of a God that does not exist, do we want no religion, do we want no philosophy, would we let science which proposes no values set our values? Life itself would rather have the zenith of success in survival, which is Godhood---this goal is worthy of real life, real religion, real philosophy.

The Left is more reductionist than the Right

Is it a reductionist ideological abstraction to relate ones personalty to real human nature? Leftist's would have us think so. But it is the ideology of the Left that is the reduction of personality to the sameness of an equality which does not exist. Cultural Marxism, or political correctness, reduces the richness and fullness of real human nature, which is affirmed throughout human history as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-grading, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, and with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. The Left reduces the variety of real life down to an unnatural frame unfit for human nature and life, causing many more problems than the natural problems of human nature.

The phenomenological description of theological materialism

My understanding of Godhood and the activating Spirit-Will-To-Godhood comes from my internal experience of how theological materialism appears to my consciousness, a description of what is intuitively, intellectually and even rationally given to my consciousness, with myself living and seeing in the world. I think this religious philosophy synchronizes with science, philosophical naturalism, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, human history, etc., but it nevertheless comes from a phenomenological description of what appears to my consciousness without first having the empirical okay of these various fields, they help to validate what I see. Perhaps in the past this was called intellectual intuition or even revelation, but a phenomenological description seems a better way to describe it.

General consciousness seems to be an abstraction of all the external and internal needs of survival and reproduction, with much of it unconscious. The Spirit-Will (which I also call the Super-Id, or the combined instincts) is seen as the essential activator of conscious and unconscious life, never separate from life, activating from the beginning universe onward, which then must contend with the outside shaping that takes place from the environment of evolution and natural selection. Belonging mainly to abstractions, religion has been estranged from this process of nature, religion has only approved of the material world begrudgingly, mainly because experiencing the God or Father Within has required unattachment from material desires. While retaining that Inward Path in the Twofold Path, Theological materialism brings religion back to nature, back to man, where real Godhood is understood as only evolved to in the formerly estranged Outward Path of the material and supermaterial world.

Sociobiology-based ethnopluralism can revitalize the realism school of diplomacy

Ethnopluralism backed by the definitions of human nature of sociobiology can affirm both the realism school of diplomacy and idealism, and overcome the condemnation of realism by the idealists for being “value-neutral” and not pushing our democratic ideals and morals on other nations---the debacles of Iraq and the Ukraine don't seem to have changed the minds of the idealists.

Sociobiology has affirmed that ideals and morals reside naturally in local kin-selection and group-selection, and especially in small ethnostates, where altruism toward ones own group was created in the first place as the basis for unselfish concern for the welfare of others, which is at the center of most versions of morals and ideals. This suggests a variety of groups and states and values that do best with the balance of power of realism, without meddling in the affairs of others or pushing distinctive ideals on others.

This sociobiology-based realism of ethnopluralism seems inherently stronger than the cool neutral form of realism because it is based in real human nature and works more in harmony with nature without being value-neutral. With this biologically-based realist school of diplomacy one is both ideally and realistically supporting the welfare of other states and nations by leaving them alone to live and evolve in their own fashion, having connections with them when its mutually worthwhile.

The return of ethnopluralism

The rise of studies in human evolution, sociobiology, etc. have brought new ways of looking at political behavior, social scientists in the humanities can benefit from these studies and create better theories of social interaction. This also means adapting to the changing cultural and genetic environments, a people or a social system that does not adapt could even become extinct.

For example, the return of ethnopluralism means a return of man to himself as a local group-being, which means a return to real altruism after being estranged by hedonistic individualism and quixotic universalism. It might not be an exaggeration to say that ethnopluralism may solve the riddle of human interactions.

Ethnopluralism is not a one-race imperialism, not mono-racialism, it is the return of all ethnic cultures and groups to the natural political configuration of ethnostates, in line with real human nature which continues to prefer kin and group-selection. Imperialism always breaks back down into ethnostates in any case, one way or another.

Ethnopluralism can be protected internally and externally by a light sort of federalism, where cooperative competition between small states can be pursued, which is good for innovation and evolution. In the United States the natural separation of powers and states can lend itself to ethnostates, even saving the nation from inevitable future ethnic disruptions.

It still takes a little political courage to openly affirm ethnopluralism but the discussion needs to begin.

The object itself is the truth

Why do modern philosophers sometimes call a necessary condition of existence defined as truth a “bias” in defining the truth?---beginning with Nietzsche. As if the truth resides beyond existence, and as if necessity is not truth. The truth is the object itself in existence, the truth is not primarily the definition of the object. Philosopher's seem to have wanted to show the relativity of truth by saying we bias the truth by making something true when it is “only” a necessity of living. That is not bias, the truth is in the object of existence. "Being" is a living object, not a spiritual definition, Godhood is a living object, or objects, supermaterial but nevertheless an object. Yes, this makes philosophy and theology look like hypertrophied word games and definitions, but that is mostly what they are.

Godhood is a material/supermaterial object evolved to at the zenith of evolution. Godhood is not merely a sacred word, a mathematical form or axiom of Godhood. The supreme object Godhood itself is the truth. Even energy forces, atoms etc, can be seen as primitive material objects which in some cases evolve to become biological objects, etc.. And these objects do exist outside of our mind seeing them, although we usually see only semblances of the object depending on the level of the evolutionary development of our senses. A frog will see less of an object than we do, but a God will see far more. As we evolve---if we evolve---into higher species we will see more of the reality of the objects outside of our minds.

Does this mean that we cannot find the truth from a priori “pure reasoning” without sense experience? We can rattle around a bit and sometimes arrange definitions of the truth better to understand it, as I am doing here, but it all originates in the sense experience of our bodies which create the mind etc. as the seeing aspect of our object bodies. Can our minds alone ever define the truth of our object bodies? The mind is never alone or outside of the senses of the body which develop the mind and develop the idea of pure reasoning, so our mind at this stage of evolution probably cannot completely or wholly define the body it resides within. But with the continued evolution of our bodies, and with technology that extends our mind's abilities, we may get there.

Perhaps when we evolve to the level of Godhood then the mind attained with Godhood may see the absolute truth of the object-body it resides within, as well as the truth of other objects outside of itself.

The task of reviving religion means transforming the sacred path toward Godhood

Marxism and its spawn cultural Marxism (now seen in political correctness) wanted to banish or abolish religion calling it the "other world” and wanted to put in its place a radical Marxist version of the truth. But the fact is, nature generally works conservatively and so also should cultural change, as Edmund Burke pointed out in his work. This applies to religious change as well. The task of reviving religion is not to abolish the “other world” of the Inward Path which leads to the symbolic experience of the God or Father Within, but to transform the Inward Path to the Outward Path of material/supermaterial evolution toward real Godhood, retaining both Paths in the Twofold Path. Biological materialism is not the origin of evil or original sin, it is the vehicle by which we evolve to real Godhood.

Politically this doesn’t call for the radical imperialism of Marxism, or global dictatorships, our evolution can work with various systems, including democratic republics. Man is a group animal and human nature always has preferred to bond with kin and related group, which was and remains our method to successful survival. This suggests a variety of separate regions and small states, or virtual ethnostates, where ongoing evolution can best take place, protected by a light sort of federalism. As Raymond Cattell first suggested, sociobiological research centers for all people can help in our ongoing evolution toward higher consciousness, truth and beauty. The task of reviving religion means transforming the sacred path toward Godhood.

When the universal affirms the particular

If the universal affirms the particular as higher than the universal, then the complicated attempt by Leo Strauss (guru of the neoconservatives) to lower in value Christian or German or Traditional particularist history may not be valid.

Universals, including spiritual universals, are usually abstractions of particular things, or they are definitions of things that simply do not exist. It is objects that are the reality which are only defined by the abstractions of universals.

If you affirm a particular people who use reason or revelation to affirm universals, as Strauss does with the Greeks and the Jewish people, his favorites, then you are affirming a particularism.

For me the higher reality is the objects that are only defined by universals, and this justifies the decentralization of states, people and particular traditions and histories, which can then be protected with a universal sort of federalism defined by the objects it protects.

This can be grounded in the definition of Godhood as a material, or more precisely, a supermaterial object, evolved to in the material world. When your God is only an abstraction or definition or symbolic-experience, then it is easier to hypertrophy spiritual universalism over particular living objects.

Thoughts on advancing human evolution

A good way to help advance human evolution is to just get out of the way, nature tends to have ways of gradually perfecting itself, such as the development from the simple to the complex, mind from matter, human from ape, etc. This relates to what has been called the “anthropic principle,” the idea that if the laws or initial conditions of the universe had been even slightly different, life would not have arisen, suggesting that the universe is fine-tuned for life from the start. For me this helps affirm the idea that there could be a causality in the essence of the universe, within the Primal Material, even before what we define as “life” evolves, which I define as a supermaterial Spirit-Will-To-Godhood. Those who say evolution is pointless do not see that life and evolution seek the zenith of survival in evolving to Godhood.

But natural selection has slowed with modern technology saving all lives, so we now think in terms of speeding up the evolutionary process by applying studies in sociobiology and genetics. Human beings are now capable of altering their own existence, which can help us lose the grip of determinism. There are of course perils in applying scientific naturalism, but there are more perils in promoting unnatural, culturally Marxists, political utopias. Normal people are already, increasingly, using the new tools of genetics toward having children, and medical science has been enhanced by genetic engineering, etc. Even so, as we are applying sociobiology we should never underestimate the natural forces of evolution, which are bigger than we are. The character of evolution cannot be precisely formulated, it is susceptible to change, but we can see the general direction toward higher consciousness, truth and beauty, and toward the zenith of these things, with starts and stops along the way.

I think we should also be aware of what might be called the transhumanist trap. We could become trapped at the human level if we merely settle for human-enhancing gadgets, intelligent machines etc. Gadgets may be more politically correct to talk about, since human evolution remains virtually a taboo subject, but it is life, not gadgets, that is evolving toward higher and higher species, on the path toward Godhood. Technology needs to be only a tool in aiding the evolution of real life.

The Forms As Supermaterial

We think in language, but then we literally make a God out of language.

Augustine said the changeless Forms were in the mind of God, but those Forms are language definitions, abstractions, which do not define material or supermaterial real objects, since God and the Forms are defined by Augustine as non-material and spiritual.

Naturalism, materialism, science are religiously thought of as leading to dead ends by traditional religion who see God as transcending nature and human beings.

But when Godhood is seen as material, or more precisely as supermaterial, then the Forms take on a different perspective.

The “ego” is not Being or God either, as Nietzsche and his postmodern followers tend to think. And the Inward God or the Father Within is also not God, it is the symbolic experience of God, experienced when all the material desires are blocked or unattached from.

Real Godhood is reached at the zenith of material/supermaterial evolution, which is also the zenith of success in survival and reproduction. Godhood is what we evolve to, we evolve from the Primal Material.

We need to bring our language and Forms and Gods back (if they ever were here) to real objects evolved in the world from the material to the supermaterial. This is the sacred goal to ground our groundless modern world.  We can, and should, with the Twofold Path, retain the old Gods, which were mainly the symbolic Inward God, and our first glimpse or impression of real supermaterial Godhood reached by evolution.

When the Great Spiritual Blockade is lifted and transformed in the Twofold Path

The Inward Path to the unworldly God or Father Within increases in value as it proceeds in proportion to the devaluation of the material Outward Path to real Godhood, and vice versa. This is the dynamics of the Twofold Path in theological materialism. Neither path is rejected, the Inward Path is retained but transformed in the Outward Path of material/supermaterial evolution to real Godhood.

The hedonism of the world indicates that the ascetics of the Inward Path were not successful in promoting the Inward God to the world, or in curbing the material desires of the world, which is necessary for the symbolic experiencing of the Inward God. Monastic life is not popular with the masses.

But when the Great Spiritual Blockade of the Inward Path is lifted and transformed to reveal the Outward Path of material/supermaterial evolution to real Godhood, then the value of the Outward Path increases as it proceeds in proportion to the transformation of the Inward Path to the Outward God.

A society without a transcendent meaning loses itself, as many conservatives have said. The core material ontology of the Outward Path, which has been corrupted by greed and hedonism, and denatured and blocked rather than religiously reformed, is the transforming sacred path of evolution toward real Godhood.

Why I praise the West

French and Russian intellectuals, and their subordinates in Western academia, have been attacking the West for some time now, blaming the West for the modernity that in fact brought material comfort and prosperity, the rule of law, freedom, etc, to large groups of people. The intellectuals are right in attacking inflated individual greed and the marauding crony capitalism of the West, but these are negative deviations of the natural free enterprise system and should not alone lead to condemning the whole of the West and modernity. Also, rarely have the qualities of Western people been praised, due perhaps to the universalism of Christianity, as well as modern cultural Marxism, which insists that all people everywhere are the same, other than the differences caused from different social constructions. Hypertrophied individualism also rose in the West, encouraged by Christianity, because universalist altruism---also encouraged by Christianity---did not counter greed very well. Altruism in real human nature is local and group-centered, as sociobiology has affirmed, and not universally very workable. People naturally love their kin and their group, their ethnic cultures, and beyond that bonding becomes increasingly difficult.

Greek and Roman culture also positively influenced the West---less the East---in philosophy, administration and the arts. All of these things led to the obvious advantages of the Western world. Calling for the destruction of the West, especially by Westerners, is neurotic and even ignorant. Reforming the West means blocking crony capitalism and hypertrophied individual greed without destroying the great Faustian spirit of the West, its free enterprise, its creativity, its civilizing of the beast, and perhaps most importantly, saving Western people. This of course will not be easy because crony capitalism now generally controls Western governments and elected officials.

I also think a natural ethnopluralism eventually needs to be accommodated by the U.S. Constitution, with its separation of powers and states, this will bring our increasingly diverse culture, which is naturally not getting along well together, back to real and workable human nature, which prefers kin, local groups and regions, and bonds best at that level, protected by a light federalism. Then we can all better get on with the deeper sacred mission of the evolution of life toward Godhood.

Those who have increasingly embraced the Traditionalist School, French, Russian and American, generally want to destroy the West rather than reform it, with their revolt against the modern world. They want to politically install an empire in Eurasia managed by Russia, allied with Islam, not unlike an ancient religious caste system, with initiations and levels of retreat from the world, with spiritual leaders who condemn the material world and seek only the non-material Inward God. But that is a transvaluation of life: the material world is the vehicle for the material/supermaterial evolution of life toward real Godhood, the Godhood only symbolical seen as the Inward God or the Father Within in the Inward Path of Traditionalism. Blocking the Outward Path of the material/supermaterial evolution to real Godhood is suicide, not life, and not a solution to the world's problems. The West, with its creative materialism, seems to be a natural fit for affirming this sacred, progressive, evolution toward Godhood, while retaining all that is best in the West.

Natural law/tradition is nature/nurture

I think it makes things clearer to compare the arguments of natural law (Straussian Neoconservatism) versus history/tradition (Paleoconservatism) to nature versus nurture, because there is no “versus,” they work together dialectically. You can't leave either history or natural law out of the world view.

But as we endlessly circle the cave of knowledge where the secrets are supposed to lie, Thomas Aquinas reminds us that we can discern only as much as we can discern of universal natural laws using reason or revelation. Natural law now includes the scientific knowledge coming in from sociobiology, in the development of evolutionary knowledge since Darwin. This can be applied to history and natural law.

Survival and reproductive drives adapting to various environments help develop human culture, and in turn the genetic qualities of the people who develop the cultures affect the cultures. Natural laws leading to natural rights need to be in harmony with these natural drives if we are to work in harmony with real human nature and nature.

With universal laws regarding religion I include the intellectual intuition and faith (revelation) in the goal of the evolution of material life to supermaterial Godhood, which can then help ground social philosophy and natural rights. The Inward God is seen as only symbolic of the Outward Godhood reached by material evolution, which gives religion a more natural connection with universal natural laws.

Then there is the further advantage of making reality clearer and more natural with grounding the Platonic/Revealed Religion abstractions of God, Being, or Virtue---which are only definitions---in the real Natural Object of supermaterial Godhood, reached by natural material evolution.

Political philosophy seeks to harmonize with natural human nature in developing Ethnopluralism, which harmonizes best with primary human nature in being essentially kin-centered, local  and group-centered. History (Paleoconservatism), and natural law (Straussian Neoconservatism), and natural rights, can come together in this, as nature and nurture do.

Consciousness and the Spirit-Will

Consciousness is not the conductor of the body, it is an organ of deeper bodily needs, consciousness is a sequence of thoughts and feelings become visible to consciousness. Consciousness is our relation to to the outer world, it was the outer world that helped develop consciousness. These causes are concealed from our knowledge. As Nietzsche (and Schopenhauer before him) pointed out, consciousness is a means of communication with a view toward the interest of the body, in relation to the outer world and our response to it. The inter-relations of bodily functions do not become conscious, nor does the storing activity of the intellect. Science is now trying to understand how this happens physically.

There is a superior directing force at work here which makes its power felt before consciousness, consciousness is not the conductor, and survival and reproductive success are also not the central conducting goal. The Spirit-Will-To-Godhood physically seems to exist as a kind of deepest combined instincts, prior to consciousness, and this is the central conductor activating life to evolve in the material and supermaterial world toward supreme success in survival, or Godhood, while being shaped by outside evolution and selection. The activation and goal of the Spirit-Will is yet to be affirmed by science, and religion sees the spirit as essentially unconnected to the material world.

Reverse Ontology

I'm not putting down the thinking process, I do a lot of it, but what I like about feeling in comparison to thinking is that it places us more in the realm of the real object before the object and subject are falsely separated. In thinking, the subject seeks to comprehend the object but then the subject tends to think it is king and the object recedes in importance.

The subjective and objective get confused. There is only the object which is the subject, and what is called objective is only the definition of the object by the object. This does not mean that all is subjective, as modern philosophy since Nietzsche has thought, this means that objects exist which may or may not relate to other objects.

Much of theology and philosophy placed the idea, the definition of the object, far above the object itself---as feeling is placed below thinking. But Godhood is seen here as an Object, although the highest evolved object, or objects, and Godhood is not merely the definition of God. Godhood is at the successful zenith of material/supermaterial evolution---non-material spiritual definitions and symbols alone are not Godhood or Being. We can apply symbols to help us understand, but symbols and definitions should not be taken as God, as they often are.

This ultimately relates to placing the spiritual (the idea-definition-ascetic symbolic experience) above the material, or even describing the material as really spiritual, which caused the Great Spiritual Blockade of material/supermaterial evolution to real Godhood. This needs to be reversed.  The Twofold Path retains the old understanding of the "non-material" Inward God, which is really a material or supermaterial state/condition brought about when ascetics rid themselves of material desires---as Jesus (and other great sages) advocated---but the Inward God, which perhaps helped us better understand real Godhood, is then transformed in the Outward Path of material evolution to real Godhood.

Biologizing the Eschaton

Conservative's contrast “ideology” with “conservatism,” defining ideology as the secular attempt to create a social utopia on earth, which was called “immanentizing the eschaton” (Eric Voegelin), or trying to bring about the eschaton, the final, heaven-like stage of history in the immanent material world, on earth. Whereas conservative's believe that the world is controlled by God, who is beyond the material-secular world, and that man cannot create social utopias on earth without God's help, because humanity is flawed and incomplete, containing original sin caused by attempting to act contrary to God at the beginning of mankind. One might think this would better make the comparison between ideology and religious philosophy, but it is assumed that conservatism contains these sacred elements in its political programs---or perhaps it looked too volatile to suggest a battle between religion and ideology.

How is theological materialism defined regarding ideology and conservatism? Theological materialism biologizes the eschaton in the evolution of material and supermaterial life to Godhood. But Godhood is not seen as a social utopia on earth, theological materialism promises Godhood beyond the earth, but unlike traditional religion, Godhood is reached through the formerly “secular” world of material and supermaterial evolution. God was first understood or seen by ascetics in the symbolic experience of the Inward Path to the God or Father Within, but in theological materialism this symbolic God is attained through material/supermaterial evolution to real Godhood, beginning on earth and then evolving out into the cosmos, applying such things as sociobiology and even voluntary eugenics.  “Salvation” comes through material and supermaterial evolution. This is not an “armed doctrine” (Burke) of radical revolution, this is an outward conservative transformation of the undeveloped traditional inward definitions of God.

Is this ideology or religion? Biologizing the eschaton toward evolving to Godhood is religious philosophy, not merely ideology. But why get upset by the the term ideology? The material and supermaterial world includes  ideology and religion as the means by which we evolve to Godhood.  This could even help heal the great divide between ideology and religion.

What are we really, and is there a first cause?

We devise logic ourselves and then use it to define the truth, which seems to mean that the truth is biased, based on what we are, and by our senses. This seems to be how we have defined our world. It seems to have been done to help us in our various purposes, survival and reproduction, and more deeply our evolution toward Godhood. In this way we arrived at defining God as something not affected by Becoming or evolution. But everything is affected by Becoming or evolution---they didn't know this when they first began to define God. Even knowledge is changed by evolution---we know more than a frog knows and we will know more than we know now if we evolve.

To expand Nietzsche's epistemology my way, we assume that there is a first cause because the logic we create seems to need a first cause, which is saying there should be a first cause, and that is not necessarily the “truth.” Why can't things go on endlessly without a first cause? And why can't evolution go on endlessly to higher and higher levels of Godhood? I think that is the way it is.

We are our biological instinct, or the Super-Id, or the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood, which sees things as useful to Its needs and goals, and even directs things this way in our minds. We are biased this way, but it is not really a bias because this is what we are. But deeper than the biological instinct toward survival and reproductive success is the essential cause of this drive, and that is the activation of the super-biological instinct, which is the Spirit-Will activating life to evolve to Godhood, toward the zenith of success in survival and reproduction, shaped by outside evolution and selection. We forget these deeper drives, or never know them, because it seems that it was not essential that we know them. This means we often create social and cultural forms that don't relate well to what we really are or where we are going.

This is necessarily a course or reductionist way to see many different forces as one---that's what logic tends to do---but refinement seems to develop in the social and cultural forms we create to relate more closely to what we really are, and where we are going, it seems, endlessly.  The one constant seems to be the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood.