Expanding conservatism to include an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, or deep-conservatism

I would like to see the conservatism of Russell Kirk and George Kennan expanded to include an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which I call deep-conservatism.

Kirk and Kennan were against nation-building while not seeking to replace Soviet communism with Western economic globalism. (see essay by Chilton Williamson Jr. in the May 2017 "Chronicles")

Kirk and Kennan were for preserving diversity and economic independence, but they did not directly expand that wisdom to the deep conservatism of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Even with the ruling civic and political propaganda of cultural Marxism, modern liberalism and global neoconservative, human nature remains as it has always been, kin-centered, ethnocentric and group-selecting.

This naturally points conservatism toward and ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which could be harmonized with the conservative constitutional separation of powers and states, at least in the U.S., protected by deeper versions of  federalism and subsidiarity.

Perhaps the universalism inherent in Christian conservatism keeps conservatives from including ethnostates within conservatism---ethnostates may have diverse religions.

I think theological materialism works well with deep-conservatism because traditional religions are maintained but their inward paths to the symbolic God Within are updated and transformed in the outward path of material evolution to real supermaterial Godhood.

Expanding conservatism to include an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, or deep-conservatism, would work harmoniously with this sacred evolutionary mission. Religion, materialism, science and politics could finally come together.

Avoiding Spengler's cycles by affirming real human nature

Basic human nature has not really changed biologically or genetically since hunter-gatherer times, but the ease of survival has changed, and that has much to do with the idiotic cultural changes we see today, such as the cultural Marxism of the academic world, feminism, gay rights, transgenderism, etc., which any honest person will admit have been tearing down Western culture, piece by piece.

The same applies to globalism and all the other rights popping up everywhere, which have had the luxury of denying real human nature because survival has been so easy. Easy survival has not much required the normal territorial protection inherent in men, or the nurturing inherent in women, which is conservative, and so we get people like the truly degenerate Kardashians.

It doesn't bother me to see women gain more power, but I do have a problem when feminism virtually ignores the biological and genetic origin of more than half of our social behavior. Real human nature remains 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, followed by individual selection.

It's the lies, the hypocrisy, the disharmony, the cultural foolishness of it all that bothers me. But then I always remember human history and how the natural structure, or leash, of real human nature eventually pulls us back to real human nature when tough times come. Why not keep and culturally promote real human nature and the social structures it naturally engenders even when survival is easy? We might then actually avoid Spengler's predicted cycles and spend our time rising in long-term evolution. Can we be that rational? I say yes, because it is both rational and instinctive behavior, Dionysus harmonized with, not fighting, Apollo.

The sacred goal

Schopenhauer thought the will was not designed for purposeless imagination but the intellect was. I disagree with the direction of that valuation. The will (highest instincts) supersedes the definition of the so-called spirit, and activates all life including the intellect and imagination, that is, brain, body, and all the elements of life, including mathematical perception and artistic imagination. The question is why? The material will activates material life to evolve toward supermaterial Godhood, that is the goal.

Schopenhauer was wrong in thinking that the intellect needs to free itself from the will to see objectively. The religious mystics made the same metaphysical error. The intellect is a tool of the will (which I once called the Super-Id) and rides along with the will as the will struggles to harmonize with outside natural evolution in the quest of life to evolve toward Godhood. Human culture then needs to harmonize with that sacred goal, it is even written deeply within human nature, and within the workings of the cosmos.

The good part of the fall of our empire

Like all empires the American empire has grown too big and diverse to function at all. So now we slowly sink, like a big ship with unfixable leaks. The fall can be prolonged by people like Donald Trump, or worse, who demagogue their way to power and make a few cosmetic fixes, but then end up corrupt or corrupted, and the empire remains too big and too diverse to save. There could also be invasions from other nations who kick down an already rotten door, which happened with the Romans.

But we could fall or break down in a healthy way if we would embrace the natural political configuration of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which could even be conservatively done by adapting the constitutional separation of powers and states. Ethnostates are naturally homogeneous and therefore are more orderly social structures, because real human nature remains kin-centered, ethnocentric and primarily group-selecting. That would be the sane and rational way to deal with the fall of our empire. But the Soviet Empire, for a recent example, broke into ethnostates without planning to, and we may also be too diverse, too big, and too corrupt to do it the rational way.

Nevertheless true leadership would provide reassurances during the fall that things will be better as we work toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which could be planned out and ready to go, protected by a federalism and subsidiarity that could work even in democratic republics.

Lean into the what?

In trying to help Sheryl Sandberg deal with the great grief of losing her husband, her Rabbi told her to "lean into the suck." Try giving that advice to the Israel Defense Forces who like all good warriors must be stoic in victory or in defeat. With the founding of Israel the Jews finally learned that being arrogant in victory and cringing in defeat is dangerous for survival (although they seem to make an exception in endlessly moaning about the Holocaust). And the Rabbi must be a liberal---there is the typical clunky vulgarity of leaning into the suck which resembles the clunky vulgarity of modern poetry. And of course there is the standard sexual reference.

Well, leaning into the suck seems to have helped Sandberg individualistically cope, and I suppose that's good. But her book on the experience will influence millions. The gentleman's code, which was basically stoic, as Philip Mason put it, was a sub-Christian warrior chivalrous code without theology but derived from the ethics of Christianity and was merciful but not bewailing. Western civilization was not built on leaning into the suck, and it falls when it does.

A columnist emasculates her son

A recent Time magazine columnist featured a mother emasculating her son in the process of emotionally praising his graduation from college. This is the same magazine that many years ago featured a mostly positive article on sociobiology and the biological origin of much of social behavior. The mag now has a feminist editor who has increased its downward trend toward cultural Marxism, which fewer and fewer people read.

The columnist tells us about the time her "skinny" son sat crying because he lost his school supplies the day before his first day at middle school. Or how he would crawl into her bed and say "let's hold hands." Then she sentimentally recalls how she taught her son to water a plant, write a thank-you note, and iron a shirt. Did she not have even a twinge that she was emasculating her son? Or has her feminism gone so far as to believe that it is only moral to emasculate your sons? Unfortunately she seems to be a typical modern single parent---if she has a husband he does not appear to be much involved with his son, or his wife.

She tells us, and of course her son, that she hopes he will never die for his country. I think of those Spartan mothers who told their sons to come home victorious or come home dead on their shields. And I think of how all failing empires end up hiring mercenaries to protect a population too emasculated to protect themselves. We do it now, hiring super-masculine SEALs etc. The bitter irony is that modern liberal feminists secretly find the mercenaries sexier than their husbands and sons, who they have emasculated.

Can irresponsible libertarianism be restrained?

I am thinking here of the libertarianism of billionaire philanthropists, globalism, the Big Media, and the academic world.

Aside from the damage done by globalism to the health and sovereignty of nations, we have billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg giving millions to their preferred causes, and the money is often tax deductible. They can then shape policy far more than the ordinary citizen can. And the policies they pursue are almost always irresponsibly libertarian, which is at bottom nihilistic, amoral, and superindividualistic, with a leaning toward limousine liberalism. Can't you just hear the always unmodulated voice of Gates, or the pipsqueaking of Zuckerberg as they preach to us?

Then their is the influence of the Big Media directing our culture far more than school or religion. Awhile back they promoted the wisdom of Bob Dylan and now it's people like Kanye West, who the kids quote because nothing else is presented to them. Shakespeare and Burke are out. And this stupidity is backed by the the academic world who have rejected Anglo-American classical culture and replaced it with the nihilism and relativism of libertarianism leaning toward cultural Marxism.

Was this cultural destruction purposefully destructive or just plain stupid? It's both. As I say here often, it is not enough to dismantle the "bureaucratic, managerial, corporatist, and globalist state" as real conservatives want to do (and as we thought President Trump would try to do). But assuming these things can be done, what then? We have to allow real human nature to adjust the American constitutional separation of powers and states toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. Real culture will then return for all groups and not merely for billionaire philanthropists, globalism, the Big Media, and the academic world, who have destroyed Western culture.

One step forward for ruling globalism, on step back for wannabe nationalism

The main competition today is between ruling globalism and wannabe nationalism. That's what  Brexit, Trump and Le pen are about. And that explains why Russia, Iran, Syria and even North Korea are the big enemies: they refuse to bow to the globalists.

But Putin acts like a nationalist and probably dreams of imperialism (his intellectuals like Dugin do). Iran wants worldwide Islam, and North Korea has the old Communist world utopia in mind, so they aren't real nationalists. President Trump has been openly morphing from a nationalist into a globalist, but giving symbolic nods to try to retain the nationalists who elected him.

To those of us (few) who see populist nationalism as but the first step toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates---in harmony with the constitutional separation of powers and states----these are steps backward. Is this best we can expect? It seems so---but the competition will continue. We do have real human nature on our side which instinctively and rationally seeks nationalism, ethnostates, and localism.

Happy Easter

There is no real duality between the subject and object

The great metaphysical error began when the spiritual was separated from the material, which caused all the other false dualities. The religious gurus and then Plato saw God and truth as a non-material Idea and not as a living material object, or objects.

The conceptions of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" grew out of this false duality, with objectivity being seen as a non-material thing superior to subjectivity and the subject.

I would rather just take the old practical non-intellectual definition of object and subject, with the object defined as the thing seen and touched, and the subject as the thing examined by an object.

The subject is in the mind of the object and there is no duality here. Things and Godhood are only secondarily represented by ideas, ideas are not God or things.

The object needs to come out from under the shadow of the subject, not as an airy spiritual nothing but as a real material thing.

Godhood and truth are not a non-material Idea, they are a living object, or objects, evolved to in the material and supermaterial world, as described in theological materialism.

Religiously overcoming the negative bias in religion

There is a large negative bias in religion and philosophy right up to the time of Schopenhauer and beyond, where suffering is thought to be more powerful than happiness. This metaphysical error resulted in advocating the total will-less state, or the desireless state, where both happiness and suffering will vanish, and where supposedly the most "objective " knowledge can be found.

Reality is the opposite, but does not reject religion. Human life is only secondarily activated to be successful in survival and reproduction or happy. We are activated from within to materially evolve toward supermaterial Godhood, defined as the zenith of success at the zenith of evolution. The sooner we fully understand our fate, and the sacred goal of life, the sooner we can work with and not against life itself and the sacred goal of Godhood.

We can even conservatively retain the old negative ascetic view of the inward God or Father as the first glimpse of the real Godhood reached through material evolution in the Outward Path. Even science can join religion.

Trump's amazing new level of chutzpah

It's almost unbelievable to see how the corrupt liberal media loves Trump now as he bombs away. The paleoconservatism, nationalism, and populism of his friend Steve Banner---as well as the people who elected Trump---have been backhanded and we return to the global imperialism that ruined America and the West in the first place. Has such an open betrayal of friend and country ever been before? Even Trump's huckster buddies in New York City must be amazed.

But paleoconservatism never carried things deep enough anyway. Paleoconservatives, as well as Trump and his buddies, don't have the balls to see or say that we require an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in America, which can harmonize with the constitutional separation of powers and states. We can trade with the world as long as the world doesn't mess with us. We can protect the whole with an unbeatable military. That is the way paleoconservatism, nationalism, and populism will actually work along with real human nature over the long term.

The Great Old British Aristocracy

I am a patriotic American, I am of Swedish and German ancestry, I much appreciate Edmund Burke, but I am very much against empires in general, and I don't at all condone the condition of the poor during the time of the British feudal aristocracy. But like other Americans I am impressed with the great old British aristocracy. They had the time, the power, and the wealth to develop superior genetic qualities, a superior taste for the best quality clothing, and really great looking homes. These are the elements of the empire that interest me now, even if what is left of the aristocracy is sort of goofy.  American WASPS are goofy now too. 

 

The great old British aristocracy began with the Henry Tudor court. As Charles Spencer pointed out, "at its peak in the late 1870s, 80 percent of the country’s acreage was owned by 7,000 families, principally those of the 431 hereditary members of the House of Lords—the dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons of the United Kingdom. " And they all bred together.

"At its height of power, this empire controlled 35.5 million square km of land, which is almost a quarter of the earth’s landmass, and had more than 500 million people under its rule, which is about a quarter of the world’s population at that time." This aristocracy was the upper-class representation of Edmund Burke, who described the social contract as, “a partnership, not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those that are yet to be born. This was the aristocratic code of conduct." What could be more conservative than that?

The first world war was disastrous for the British aristocracy. While one in eight British soldiers perished during the four-year conflict, the ratio was one in five for the nobility. But beginning back in the 1880s, "the export of grain from the Americas, followed by the arrival in Europe of refrigerated meat, halved the agricultural income of the aristocracy in Britain. Then taxation increased at the same time. Death duties were introduced in 1894 at 8 percent. By 1939 these had reached 60 percent. In 1948 they were levied at 75 percent on estates worth more than £1 million." During the years between the World Wars, roughly 230 mansions were destroyed. (I almost said that was worse than losing the aristocrats.)

The WASPS in America copied the British in more than politics. The genetics, the clothing, the great homes of the British aristocrats interested generations of Americans. During the war the upper class British officer was four inches taller than the lower class soldier, and his IQ showed an even greater disparity. And it was not all due to better nutrition or better schooling, it was biological, it was genetic. The most successful dynasties "were those that read the code, accepted its terms, and fused it into their DNA." And we don't need empires to do that.

An age when reality is unreality

It is astounding to see the present power of the enemies of the biological origin of differences in humans: cultural Marxism and feminism come first to mind. Yes, culture is important in human behavior but biology isn't even mentioned.

It is astounding to me how this unreality came to dominate America and the West. It shows that humans are either very stupid or the media and the academic world are very powerful---or both. In Europe it is even illegal to say that there are biological differences between humans!

This means that if we want to bring reality back from the unreality of the West we have to go strongly against the media and the academic world. That is the front to watch to see real change---no movement there, no change.

For a short time it looked like President Trump would go directly against the media and the academic world, but not now. Trump has apparently turned into another person from the Trump who campaigned for president, moving from populist-nationalism back to the global imperialism that ruined the West in the first place (minus some of the evil trade deals)...It's good to see Putin of Russia taken down a bit, he is more imperialist than nationalist and he has always hated the West, but to do so the way Trump did it, by lying to Putin and the world about his political philosophy to get elected was nasty and ignoble---(this assumes he had a discernible political philosophy.)

So what is to be done after being Trumped?

It appears that even President Trump doesn't know what Trump will do next, but for now he has turned directly against the foreign policy that he constantly demagogued about to get elected. The right, that is, both the bourgeois right and the alt-right, were Trumped. So what is to be done?

The far right is like a general who will not retreat in the face of defeat. And the bourgeois right has accommodated and yielded to the resentment of minorities by allowing cultural Marxism to prevail almost as much as the modern liberals. Trump has accommodated and yielded too, and probably became wealthy in doing so.

Nietzsche thought that resentment drove religious and cultural behavior among minorities, especially if they were once enslaved. We see it in the Jewish people and with the American Blacks. The far right has never really understood that a people who were once enslaved are ever after hypersensitive to any kind of dominance or criticism.

Hateful racial smears against Jews and Blacks by the alt-right plays right into the hands of people who in fact largely control the cultural ethos, including the big media. Shouting about creating another imperial one-race empire never works, the rest of the world gangs up on whoever tries. In any case, all empires devolve back to ethnostates.

The reality is that an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the realistic way to deal with all racial and ethnic differences, and it has to be constitutional, legal, and without racial hatred or defamation against any racial group. All races deserve their own ethnostate. Good fences make good neighbors because human nature remains primarily group and ethnic selecting, which is the real source of all altruism.

We don't have to fear the future

Utopia's can be impractical or unrealistic schemes of perfection, but dystopia's can be just as unrealistic in seeing only human misery, oppression and disease. I think we can have continued human evolution without Huxley's "Brave new World" of totalitarianism. Marx and Hitler are not the future if we understand and affirm real human nature and its political implications.

Equality has to be a suspicious concept if not defined as distinctly different groups and states having an equal chance to evolve, ideally with aid from strictly objective international research centers regarding human evolution. Group-selection and ethnic selection remain the central unit of survival and reproductive success, and are deeply contained within real human nature, even if the prevailing cultural Marxism blocks this knowledge. 

Human evolution in the past took place within an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in harmony with real human nature, and can again. Federalism and subsidiarity can protect the whole, in nations and even in democratic republics. If we want to continue evolving toward real Godhood some things have to be preferred to other things, in that sense we have to "discriminate." But that does not require a Brave New World of totalitarianism, it requires an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

As to the wisdom of conservatism, in America we can conservatively retain the constitutional separation of powers and states updated to an ethnopluralism of regions and states, to better harmonize with real human nature, and better provide for our material evolution toward Godhood.

Let's see a few novels on this future, more realistic than the utopian/dystopian novels we have seen so far.

Basic deep-conservatism

It is not enough to dismantle the "bureaucratic, managerial, corporatist, and globalist state" as real conservatives want to do (and as we thought President Trump would try to do). But assuming these things can be done, what then? We have to allow real human nature to adjust the American constitutional separation of powers and states toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

But there are even deeper elements in deep-conservatism. Life is evolving in the material world toward supermaterial Godhood, proceeding forward, backward, sideways, yet ever upward, and this is the religious and political base of deep-conservatism.

Intuition and reason tell me that this will be the future, even though it is religiously and politically "incorrect" to even mention it today. We can have faith that this will happen because real human nature remains primarily family-oriented, kin-centered, and group-selecting or ethnic selecting, and the deepest activation within life is to evolve toward Godhood. 

But ideas alone, though vital, are indifferent, it all depends on what we do with them.

When priests and artists are neurotic

It is hedonistic when ascetic gurus and aesthetic artists (eg. Buddha and Schopenhauer) try to cease "willing" due to the see/saw consequences of pleasure and suffering. Their goal is to end suffering by ending both the pleasure and suffering of life, which in effect kills the natural drives of life.

It is healthier to fulfill the drives, goals, and desires of life, which requires success in survival and reproduction. Refusing to play at all is at least neurotic.

Godhood is not rejected but is attained through successful and rational material evolution, and not through the rejection of life or settling into a stoic but hedonistic religious or artistic bliss.

The discovery of life as it is

Theological materialism means to correct an old metaphysical error by putting Vedic, Platonic and Christian metaphysics on their feet, after standing on their head for thousands of years.

Where traditional conservatism falls down is in its religious metaphysics of de-legitimizing material life in general and excluding the evolution of material life to supermaterial Godhood in particular.

What Herve Juvin called the "rediscovery of life as it is" requires a small yet big transformation. Religion and culture need to define human nature as sociobiology defines human nature, and then cultural life can follow human nature.

Traditional conservatism is in harmony, for the most part, with sociobiology in defining human nature as consisting of gender differences, marriage-making, hierarchy, religion-making, group altruism (that is ethnocentrism), and other traditional things.

We see that cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against real human nature, with such experiments as Marxism, but cultures are always eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature.

From these religio-philosophical errors arise the airy nothings of modern liberalism, the dream of equality, and the fantasies of a non-material spiritual life, which in the most serious religious natures bans material desires.

In this trans-valued metaphysics the very means to attain Godhood by way of material evolution is banned. Reproduction and successful survival are downplayed and only grudgingly included.

The good news is that conservatives can retain the old symbolic god or father as the first inward glimpse of the real Godhood reached in the Outward Path of material evolution to supermaterial Godhood.

This affirmation of life as it is, and human nature as it is, can then reveal such practical things as populist nationalism, and eventually an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, as the healthy way to find harmony with nature and, if we are civilized, continue the evolution toward Godhood of all groups, not just one group.

Impenetrable things?

Things are often impenetrable when penetration is punished. If religion and poetry are only airy words who needs them?

Obscurities are often set in place for the purpose of maintaining power, or to impress rather than illuminate.

The truth is more material than spiritual, in reality there is no spiritual---but there is still supermaterial Godhood reached through material evolution.

To call evil the result of "the Fall" is just stupid. The real fall was when the Godhood evolved to in the material world was abandoned for the spiritual God of only words.

Neoconservatives celebrating the end of Trump's populist nationalism

Chemical bombs? Beheadings? That's the way they do things in the middle east, it's none of our business. The sound of American bombs falling in Syria yesterday was followed by the sound of the neoconservatives celebrating the end of Trump's populist nationalism. Who benefits? The military industrial complex? Israel? It seems that Trump is what he always seemed to be, a blowhard demagogue talking populist nationalism only to get elected.

The false idea of human bias in thinking

The false idea comes from thinking that material instincts get in the way of unbiased knowledge. The error comes from thinking that higher truth is beyond the material object and exists in abstract ideas, words, or spiritual things.

It is the abstractions that are biased, the truth is grounded in the material world. Even Godhood when seen as the highest truth is based in the material or supermaterial world, which is evolved to in the material world.

Real material life and human life do not get in the way of truth, real material and supermaterial life are the truth.

In the beginning was the great spiritual blockade

Declaring that "in the beginning was the word" was the beginning of the great spiritual blockade. In the beginning was not the word and not God, it was the primal material which could then evolve in the material world to become supermaterial Godhood.

Can we go there? Religion will continue to die if we do not, and we need the long-term sacredness of religion to evolve to Godhood. Traditional religion is not rejected, the abstract word is transformed into the material objects of material and supermaterial evolution, as described in the Twofold Path.

Red-faced priests and cross-legged gurus who disagree are being all too human in holding on to personal power. But material evolution will eventuality move beyond the human toward real Godhood.

What would happen if we told all parties in the middle-east that we want nothing more to do with any of them?

As we all again react to the latest chemical bombing atrocity in Syria, I ask the question: What would happen if we told all parties in the middle-east that we want nothing more to do with any of you?

Would Iran take over the middle-east all the way to Syria? Would Israel then bomb the hell out of Iran? Would Russia come in on the side of Iran? Israel would of course demand that the U.S. come in on their side.  But we would just say to all parties in the middle-east, "figure it out among yourselves who is going to sell us the oil and we will buy it, meanwhile we want nothing more to do with any of you." If we were a friend to Russia we would urge them not to get trapped in the havoc of  middle-east.

We might then begin to pursue the foreign policy suggested by Srdja Trifkovic: "Now is the time to effect a pan-European entente that embraces the whole of the Northern Hemisphere, from the British Isles to Vladivostok to the Americas.  Trump has (had? ed.) an historic opportunity to pave the way for a genuine Northern Alliance of Russia, Europe, and the United States, as all three are facing similar existential demographic and ideological (primarily jihadist) threats in the decades ahead.  In an uncertain and ever more brutal world, the Northerners must find a way of banding together, lest they be defeated separately.."" (Dismantling the Empire," from "Chronicles," January 2017)

Meanwhile at home we could expand the constitutional separation of powers and states and begin to create an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in line with regions and states. There is even a way for the old Christian idea of subsidiarity (localism is more efficient and beautiful) and the Alt-Right to join forces in developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. Then we can protect the whole in no uncertain military terms. In trading with the world we could pursue economic nationalism.

Some version of this always happens anyway, given human nature.

More Material

"Culture" is the manifestation of evolution in man and through man, and it is evolution that is divine. "Manifestation" is not merely an inward glowing of enlightenment. And it's all material.

Radical not conservative? I think not. The Inward Path of traditional religion, which settles for that inward glow of enlightenment, is included but transformed in the Outward Path of material evolution to supermaterial Godhood.

If you want to speak of the essence of the divine in man, it is the material activation of material life to evolve toward Godhood, which is defined here as the material activation of the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood.

This is the "boundary-drawing" force of religion and politics. It is material culture identified with the divine, and even with the utilitarianism of daily life, because culture is seen as trying to understand the best way to evolve in the material world to supermaterial Godhood.

This pursuit does not lead to multicultural empires, where evolution is paused, it leads to the decentralization of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

( A response to "Ut Plures Sint" by Anthony Esolen in Chronicles April 2017)

The opposite means of attaining Godhood in theological materialism

Traditional religious founders defined the soul and god as the absence of gross material desires, what Schopenhauer called the absence of willing, a state not connected to desiring material life. This was a deeply negative worldview and definition of god. The religious founders (Schopenhauer and Kant too) also linked this state of no-desire to the most "objective" kind of knowing.

That ascetic inward path is the opposite means of attaining Godhood from theological materialism, which brings life back to religion, and does not do so grudgingly, as St. Paul did, saying to a follower, in effect, "well, if you must get married than I suppose that is better than rejecting religion entirely."

The "essence" in theological materialism is called the Spirit-Will---although it is a material drive within material life---and it activates the desires of material life to evolve toward the highest success in survival and reproduction, defined as Godhood, working within whatever the natural environment may be, at any given time in the cosmos.

Unlike the views of the religious founders, and unlike Schopenhauer and Kant, the blocking of the will and the secession of all desires---and thereby the sucession, at least temporarily, of both desire and suffering---can only be seen as a symbolic glimpse of what it is like to fulfill sacred desires. But then, there appears to be no end to evolving life, no end to higher evolution, and so there are always gods arising and evolving in the cosmos, which has no end, and probably no beginning.

This is a worthy positive view of reality, fit for man and gods.

Denying Nature

Nature can be ignored by the ruling liberal establishment, and nature can be ignored by the right---although many of the traditions of conservatism are in harmony with real nature and real human nature---but nature cannot be denied. The central mission of the liberals and cultural Marxists who now rule has been to try to free man from nature. How else can this be defined other than as a delusional or even psychotic culture?

One example: recently a girl wrestler was given testosterone treatments because she thinks she is a boy, and she then went on to win the state girls wrestling tournament (as reported by Aaron Wolf in Chronicles.) And this was sanctioned by the schools, state and federal government, the Media, and both political parties.

The universalist Marxist utopia of equality is as non-materially grounded as the universal heaven of traditional religion. Even the right, the bourgeois right, dare not speak of real human nature, which remains 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, followed by individual selection. This points toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates and not toward universal empires of jammed-together multiculturalism.

But the "Alt-Right" will speak of real human nature, which is also reflected in the growing populist movement, and this is why they have been advancing. This is also why President Trump was elected, which seems to be a fading purpose.