Both modern liberalism and conservatism have a problem in “letting people be who they are”

To modern liberals there is no inherent human nature, men act only the way nurture or culture---usually in the form of cultural Marxism---teaches them to act. And the religious conservative idea of “original sin” means that real human nature contains things we do not want to totally return to.

The healthy way to let people be who they are, and return to real human nature, is to let people be kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection. That defines real human nature.

When we follow real human nature then conservatism looks better than the cultural Marxism of modern liberalism. This also suggests that ethnopluralism looks like the best way to let people be who they are. But ethnic preferences, which tend naturally to be group-selecting and not universal, are often seen as part of original sin and selfishness.

Ethnopluralism basically means regions and states work most harmoniously and according to real human nature when regions and states are set aside for ethnic cultures, and protected by federalism. For American conservatives this might even mean that the constitutional separation of powers and states could accommodate ethnopluralism.

The demographic cold wars we are seeing today across the globe, and more and more in the U.S., with people seeking to break from globalism and live in their own ethnic regions, is the predicable action of real human nature, and should be welcomed rather than blocked.

This suggests that both modern liberalism and conservatism need a bit of retooling. Religion does not need to be rejected but transformed, as is done in theological materialism, which unblocks the great spiritual blockade against real human nature and the material world, and more deeply unblocks the material evolution to real Godhood.