Nietzsche's wild man as a misreading of nature

“Everything returns to its natural condition, man cannot denature nature.” (Nietzsche)

But man can aid in the evolution of man in nature, which means harmonizing with the deepest sacred nature. Nietzsche claims (the Will To Power) to love nature and the return to nature, but he sees the undomesticated “wild” man as a correction, a cure, a recovery for man, and he does not give much value to the group or to human altruism.

This was a misreading of human nature. In every human culture ever studied, human nature included, among other things, kin-selection preferences, incest taboos, marriage, hierarchy, division of labor, gender differentiation, religion making, localism, ethnocentrism, even xenophobic, and with group-selection as the primary unit of selection, which means altruism as well. If the culture proposes to not include these things, the culture does not last long and it always returns to these things. These values also happen to be at the core of conservatism and tradition, whereas many of these traits are missing in, say, the cultural Marxism of modern liberalism, and missing in Nietzsche-influenced post-modernism, and missing even in the hyper-individualism of modern libertarianism.

The “domestication” most vital is to aid in the inward-activated evolution of man toward Godhood, affirmed by culture, which means far more than the unleashing of the wild man, which fascinated Nietzsche. The evolution of man toward Godhood is the most sacred element in the return to real nature and it requires long-term selection as well as harmony between the individual and the group, which includes the altruism that Nietzsche finds “degenerate.” Our evolution toward Godhood is the real civilizing of the beast, the real return to nature, the real and sacred return to human nature.