Worse than talking about Mika's face lift Trump has not done what he said he was going to do to get elected

So the "Morning Joe" television gabble about face lifts etc. shows us that we have a barbarian or at least a vulgarian in the White House. I don't think the people who voted for Trump would mind that much if Trump did what he said he was going to do to get elected. But Trump has been a bit of a demagogue.

But worse than appealing to the emotions and prejudices of people to get elected, Trump has been swayed (a barbarian would not have been swayed) by the greatest influence dealers in Washington, the Wall Street lobby, the fossil fuel lobby, and the Israeli and Saudi lobbyists.

All this needed to be curbed if we are to save ourselves. We needed a leader more like Pat Buchanan who was strong enough but also smart enough not to be swayed by the corrupt global elite---I suppose we could have lived with his barbarian disbelief in the cultural importance of biological evolution.

We no longer defend our borders, we no longer procreate, we live only for immediate pleasures, and so any talk of our leaders being barbarians or vulgarisms, or of trying to refine them, pales with the constant successful push by the postmodern global elite to create and control "one-world" by destroying diversity and individual nations.

Can we protect the democratic republic as the nation falls into the postmodern swamp?

Men with good intentions but not much patience may not be able to protect the democratic republic as the nation falls into the postmodern swamp. They will think that patience only makes things worse, and they will be almost right.

When the leftists are rioting in the streets and shutting down the ability to object to the dying of your culture and your people, the impatient instinct wants to riot against the rioters. Is that what will happen?

Standing up for legality and a constitutional means of fighting back will be difficult to support while in the middle of a cultural or literal war zone. The tendency is to move toward a radicalism that tears down the good with the bad, and that is where conservatives hold the line against radicalism.

But conservatism will conserve nothing if we can't find conservatives with real power and leadership. I believe if conservatives want to capture one of the strong concerns of the rising younger people on the right, who are the impatient ones, then conservatives will need to deepen conservatism by including (re-including?) the biological origin of much of our social behavior, and that includes the preference for kin and ethnic group, which has been suppressed by postmodernism.

Redefining altruism in the natural order of conservatism

In the natural order, human nature is primarily kin and group-centered (ethnocentric ) and to demand otherwise goes against the natural order. Yes we have to care about the wider world but that caring exists at the farther end of the natural order of altruism. The way Christ's commandment that we should love our neighbor as ourselves can be defined as within the natural order is if it is defined as loving our real neighbor. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity---a central authority should perform only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level, Wikipedia---has to take into account this sociobiological definition of human nature.

The wise constitutional separation of powers and states in the U. S. is harmonious with altruism in the natural order. But to deepen our commitment to acting within the natural order, those powers and states need to, gradually, become ethnostates within an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. Subsidiarity and solidarity need to work within the parameters of real human nature which is 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 selection.

When Catholics and other religions miss this natural sociobiological view of altruism they tend to make big mistakes. Real conservatism, deep conservatism, needs to include Darwin, who was in effect ejected from conservatism by William Buckley and others, and soon conservatism degenerated into neoconservatism, which was/is almost as far outside the natural order as Marxism.

Avoiding authoritarian healing

Authoritarians seems to rise when basic national and cultural health is seen as greatly suffering and the powers that be are doing nothing about it or are even encouraging the destruction. The authoritarian and his fellow travelers see this happening and decide to do something about it, that is, the authoritarian says he knows what the nation and culture need and he does not want to merely give the people what think they need, as demagogues might do.

The authoritarian thinks that the powers that be are not mending the dying culture but making it worse. But why would people want to make the culture worse rather than better? The perpetuaters of the destruction often gain personal power for themselves or their groups by destroying or nearly destroying everyone else. The authoritarian usually thinks that democracy is too slow and is too easily manipulated or exploited, and so no improvements are happening with democracy.

This is why in times of great disorder deep conservatism falls back on tradition, that is, on the return, or at least the partial return, to what has worked in the past to make a civilization relatively healthy. Traditions last long because they are based in real 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, localism, ethnocentrism, and even xenophobia. If a culture proposes to not include these things, the culture does not last long and will always, eventually, return to these things.  Most of these values also happen to be at the core of conservatism and tradition, whereas many of these traits are missing in, say, communism and post-modernism.

So if the authoritarian---or the advocate of democratic republics for that matter---are politically and culturally healthy they will not say they are going to "make it new" but say that they will "make it better." Change is best made within conservative traditions that follow basic human nature, which is conservative.

As I say here often, the least we should do is reaffirm our original democratic republic, where ultimate power rests in citizens who are entitled to vote to elect representatives to wield that power, whereas in direct democracies, which we have drifted into, people vote on policy directly. Democratic republics are probably as close as we can come in the modern world to aristocracies, that is, rule by the best, ideally chosen from merit. 

Then we can work on creating an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in America, more in line with real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature, which the Founders didn't anticipate, not foreseeing the now violent competitions between distinctly different ethnic groups within the nation. All this can be done conservatively and legally by affirming, but adapting, the constitutional separation of powers and states.

Otherwise democracy will fade simply because it no longer works, and the natural need for order which is required to live healthy lives could choose authoritarian undemocratic Marxism, or fascism.

Using postmodernism to dismantle postmodernism

While reading a Jon Cassidy review in the June 2017 "Chronicles" (Scandalous Education) it occurred to me that those who oppose postmodernism, critical theory and cultural Marxism, which now dominate our universities, can use the same phony philosophy against them.

Agreeing with the postmodernists, for the sake of the argument, that whites or white males oppressed other groups, this has changed and now whites (and Asians?) are being oppressed by the postmodernists. Whites are blocked in humanities departments, but also remember the recent campus lectures forcefully stopped through rioting?

The just and rational way to deal with these oppressions of one group by another is to agree that culture is a superstructure created not by evil oppressors, as Marx said, but by the natural biological origin of most of our social behavior, which seeks survival and reproductive success for various distinctively different groups, including minorities, gays, females, and yes even whites.

You solve this competitive problem not by trying to force human nature to be what it is not, as the Marxism of postmodernism does in demanding absolute equality, but by allowing each group its own region, state and locality where it can pursue its own distinctive superstructure of culture. This can bring whatever real harmony is possible given human nature.

Conservatives in the U. S. can be assuaged by accomplishing this through the adaptation of the constitutional separation of powers and states.

A slightly optimistic view of the future

I suppose it's rational to say that people and governments aren't rational. We can't seem to change or even improve Big Government programs, say, health care, until the programs fall apart because we can't borrow any more money to run them.

The same goes for most actions to change Big Government, say, giving power back to the states as the constitution originally intended.

And the deepest improvement, of gradually, constitutionally, inclining the states toward being ethnostates, to harmonize with kin-centered and ethnocentric real human nature, is also not happening as it rationally could, and this most likely will not happen until the nation nearly falls apart with civil and ethnic strife.

This does not seem like an optimistic view of human behavior, but it is if you stretch the definition a bit and see that human history has always moved from natural ethnostates and ethnopluralism to big empires which naturally fall apart and then move back to ethnostates.

The drawback to this fatalist view is that it can cause people to wait for the inevitable and do nothing. But a new structure needs to be mostly built and in place when the old structure falls, so continuing work is needed.

That doesn't quite satisfy, but it's realistic.

Here is a fictional excerpt from Trollope on the Big newspaper of his day

Big Media Gods of today? Here is a fictional excerpt from Trollope on the Big newspaper of his day. 

"The Warden" by Anthony Trollope,1855 from chapter 14 Mount Olympus

..."He next thought of the newspapers.  The case had been taken up by more than one; and he was well aware that the keynote had been sounded by
The Jupiter...  

 Who has not heard of Mount Olympus,--that high abode of all the powersof type, that favoured seat of the great goddess Pica, that wondroushabitation of gods and devils, from whence, with ceaseless hum ofsteam and never-ending flow of Castalian ink, issue forth fiftythousand nightly edicts for the governance of a subject nation?
Velvet and gilding do not make a throne, nor gold and jewels a
sceptre.  It is a throne because the most exalted one sits there,--and
a sceptre because the most mighty one wields it.  So it is with Mount
Olympus.  Should a stranger make his way thither at dull noonday, or
during the sleepy hours of the silent afternoon, he would find no
acknowledged temple of power and beauty, no fitting fane for the
great Thunderer, no proud façades and pillared roofs to support
the dignity of this greatest of earthly potentates.  To the
outward and uninitiated eye, Mount Olympus is a somewhat humble
spot,--undistinguished, unadorned,--nay, almost mean.  It stands
alone, as it were, in a mighty city, close to the densest throng
of men, but partaking neither of the noise nor the crowd; a small
secluded, dreary spot, tenanted, one would say, by quite unambitious
people at the easiest rents.  "Is this Mount Olympus?" asks the
unbelieving stranger.  "Is it from these small, dark, dingy buildings
that those infallible laws proceed which cabinets are called upon to
obey; by which bishops are to be guided, lords and commons controlled,
judges instructed in law, generals in strategy, admirals in naval
tactics, and orange-women in the management of their barrows?"
"Yes, my friend--from these walls.  From here issue the only known
infallible bulls for the guidance of British souls and bodies.
This little court is the Vatican of England.  Here reigns a
pope, self-nominated, self-consecrated,--ay, and much stranger
too,--self-believing!--a pope whom, if you cannot obey him, I would
advise you to disobey as silently as possible; a pope hitherto afraid
of no Luther; a pope who manages his own inquisition, who punishes
unbelievers as no most skilful inquisitor of Spain ever dreamt of
doing;--one who can excommunicate thoroughly, fearfully, radically;
put you beyond the pale of men's charity; make you odious to your
dearest friends, and turn you into a monster to be pointed at by the
finger!"  Oh heavens! and this is Mount Olympus!

It is a fact amazing to ordinary mortals that _The Jupiter_ is never
wrong.  With what endless care, with what unsparing labour, do we not
strive to get together for our great national council the men most
fitting to compose it.  And how we fail! Parliament is always wrong:
look at _The Jupiter_, and see how futile are their meetings, how vain
their council, how needless all their trouble!  With what pride do we
regard our chief ministers, the great servants of state, the oligarchs
of the nation on whose wisdom we lean, to whom we look for guidance in
our difficulties!  But what are they to the writers of _The Jupiter_?
They hold council together and with anxious thought painfully
elaborate their country's good; but when all is done, _The Jupiter_
declares that all is naught.  Why should we look to Lord John
Russell;--why should we regard Palmerston and Gladstone, when Tom
Towers without a struggle can put us right?  Look at our generals,
what faults they make; at our admirals, how inactive they are.  What
money, honesty, and science can do, is done; and yet how badly are our
troops brought together, fed, conveyed, clothed, armed, and managed.
The most excellent of our good men do their best to man our ships,
with the assistance of all possible external appliances; but in vain.
All, all is wrong--alas! alas!  Tom Towers, and he alone, knows all
about it.  Why, oh why, ye earthly ministers, why have ye not followed
more closely this heaven-sent messenger that is among us?

Were it not well for us in our ignorance that we confided all things
to _The Jupiter_?  Would it not be wise in us to abandon useless
talking, idle thinking, and profitless labour?  Away with majorities
in the House of Commons, with verdicts from judicial bench given after
much delay, with doubtful laws, and the fallible attempts of humanity!
Does not _The Jupiter_, coming forth daily with fifty thousand
impressions full of unerring decision on every mortal subject, set all
matters sufficiently at rest?  Is not Tom Towers here, able to guide
us and willing?

Yes indeed, able and willing to guide all men in all things, so
long as he is obeyed as autocrat should be obeyed,--with undoubting
submission: only let not ungrateful ministers seek other colleagues
than those whom Tom Towers may approve; let church and state, law and
physic, commerce and agriculture, the arts of war, and the arts of
peace, all listen and obey, and all will be made perfect.  Has not Tom
Towers an all-seeing eye?  From the diggings of Australia to those of
California, right round the habitable globe, does he not know, watch,
and chronicle the doings of everyone?  From a bishopric in New Zealand
to an unfortunate director of a North-west passage, is he not the only
fit judge of capability?  From the sewers of London to the Central
Railway of India,--from the palaces of St Petersburg to the cabins of
Connaught, nothing can escape him.  Britons have but to read, to obey,
and be blessed.  None but the fools doubt the wisdom of _The Jupiter_;
none but the mad dispute its facts.

No established religion has ever been without its unbelievers, even
in the country where it is the most firmly fixed; no creed has been
without scoffers; no church has so prospered as to free itself
entirely from dissent.  There are those who doubt _The Jupiter_!
They live and breathe the upper air, walking here unscathed, though
scorned,--men, born of British mothers and nursed on English milk, who
scruple not to say that Mount Olympus has its price, that Tom Towers
can be bought for gold!

Such is Mount Olympus, the mouthpiece of all the wisdom of this great
country.  It may probably be said that no place in this 19th century
is more worthy of notice.  No treasury mandate armed with the
signatures of all the government has half the power of one of those
broad sheets, which fly forth from hence so abundantly, armed with no
signature at all.

Some great man, some mighty peer,--we'll say a noble duke,--retires to
rest feared and honoured by all his countrymen,--fearless himself; if
not a good man, at any rate a mighty man,--too mighty to care much
what men may say about his want of virtue.  He rises in the morning
degraded, mean, and miserable; an object of men's scorn, anxious only
to retire as quickly as may be to some German obscurity, some unseen
Italian privacy, or indeed, anywhere out of sight.  What has made this
awful change? what has so afflicted him?  An article has appeared in
_The Jupiter_; some fifty lines of a narrow column have destroyed all
his grace's equanimity, and banished him for ever from the world.
No man knows who wrote the bitter words; the clubs talk confusedly of
the matter, whispering to each other this and that name; while Tom
Towers walks quietly along Pall Mall, with his coat buttoned close
against the east wind, as though he were a mortal man, and not a god
dispensing thunderbolts from Mount Olympus..."

The default political unit is ethnostates, not empire

I think it was Chronicles magazine which suggested that the default political unit is empire. I disagree. The default political unit is ethnostates or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, perhaps with some sort of federalism keeping the peace.

Historians debate about this, but when real human nature is included in the debate, which includes the biological origin of much of our social behavior, then ethnostates and ethnopluralism can be seen as the natural default political unit.

Human nature remains kin-centered, ethnocentric, and locally grounded, and these traits evolved within human nature even before we became humans and remain with us today, even if this definition is buried. As E.O. Wilson said, it's as if we are on a leash of human nature which always pulls us back to what we really are.

This perspective on history is mainly denied, or not even mentioned, especially since the battles with fascism of WWII, after which real human nature was buried by the politically correctness of a relativistic cultural Marxism and amoral global capitalism, who opposed one another but not on empire---and both were against the viability of ethnostates.

And so whether historians agree or not, this is where the decadent empires of today are headed, one way or another. I say we should be prepared to welcome it.  In the U. S. we can even conservatively adapt the constitutionally separation of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Economists won, Darwin lost

Modern culture brought us Darwin and laissez-faire economics, but Darwin was ejected from the culture, especially following WWII. Darwin might have been somewhere in the DNA of modern economics (see "A Faith Misplaced," Chronicles June 2017) but contrary to that review, Darwin was quickly buried by libertarian economists--that is, the notion of there being a biological origin to social behavior was made taboo.

Global libertarian economists were co-opted by amoral global capitalists. Real conservatism, deep conservatism, which included Darwin, was ejected from conservatism by William Buckley and others, and soon conservatism degenerated into neoconservatism, which was also co-opted by the global capitalists. This led to the decadence, degeneration, and corruption of Western culture which we see today.

We wait for economists to again include Darwin and the biological origin of much of our social behavior. This might instinctively and logically lead to examining the ethnopluralism hypothesis and the development of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which could be conservatively adapted by the American constitutional separation of powers and states---and real human nature could be affirmed.

This could not only bring economics and Darwin back together, and it might even harmonize science and religion (once the material evolution to Godhood is affirmed)...I can't be alone in seeing this perspective as conservatism in action, can I?  If so than the radical far right or far left will inherit it, and conservatism will suffer.

Which future will we choose?

Whether or not the Russians interfered in our last presidential election, the fact that this can be done with cyber technology certainly undermines faith in democratic systems, which have enough problems working anyway. 

The least we should do is reaffirm our original democratic republic, where ultimate power rests in citizens who are entitled to vote to elect representatives to wield that power, whereas in direct democracies, which we have drifted into, people vote on policy directly. Democratic republics are probably as close as we can come in the modern world to aristocracies, that is, rule by the best, ideally chosen from merit. 
  

After we restore the democratic republic that our Founders preferred, we can work on creating an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in America, more in line with real ethnocentric human nature, which the Founders didn't anticipate, not foreseeing the now violent competitions between distinctly different ethnic groups within the nation. All this can be done conservatively and legally by affirming, but adapting, the constitutional separation of powers and states.

   

Otherwise democracy will fade simply because it no longer works, and the natural need for order which is required to live healthy lives could choose an undemocratic Marxism or fascism. Which future will we choose?

Distinctly different models of beauty

"Beauty" can be defined as the best model of the particular species or subspecies, beauty is not "universal," not equal, and not noncompetitive. It's the "idea" of beauty among philosophers that takes off on its own away from the realm of reality.

Like most of modern culture our beauty contests are drunk with the unreality of equality, universalism, and non-competition, based on the false utopian idea that we are all the same.

Beneath the charade of people and groups demanding equality is the truth that groups are really demanding not equality but superiority. And here is the politically incorrect news: it reflects basic human nature to seek superiority not equality. But this reality does not call for a politics and culture of supremacy with one group lording it over another, if anything it calls for the natural separations of ethnopluralism.

When blacks hold beauty contests for blacks-only they are following the natural track of seeking the best real models of beauty for their specific ethnic group, or subspecies. This would be courageous and refreshing if blacks allowed the subspecies of whites to do the same thing without negatively calling them "racist."

"Multiculturalism" was the ridiculous attempt to get distinctly different ethnic groups to live in the same space under the Utopian universal ideas of cultural Marxism. And so we now have such things as absurd beauty contests between apples and oranges. This has clearly not worked as our cities increasingly erupt with racially motivated disruptions.

The challenge is to find a way to allow real beauty to be defined relating to distinctly different models of beauty. This is where developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates comes in, which in the U.S. could be conservatively developed from the foundation of the constitutional separation of powers and states.

If there is anything universal it is the inside activation of life to evolve toward Godhood in the material world, working along with outside evolutionary selection---and evolution works best with variety.

It is not enough for conservatives to say that our social problems may not have political solutions

Many if not most of our social and cultural problems come from the biological origin of much of our social behavior, whether the left or the right controls government, so it is not enough for traditional conservatives to say that our social problems may not have only political solutions without mentioning the biological differences between people, ethnic groups, or races.

Conservative religion alone will not save us if that religion denies the importance of biological differences in our social behavior. I think conservatism is held back by the universalism of its religious values, which amounts to an ideology, yes ideology, as potent as any ideological Marxist heaven. The belief in the spiritual, not material, advance of life toward non-material Godhood dampens deep thought regarding real material life and evolution. The foundation of religion, which is vital, also needs to adapt to the reality of a Godhood reached through material evolution, which then can concentrate the mind on the biological origin of much of our social behavior and its problems.

It is understandable why the conservatives don't talk about biological and genetic differences leading to social problems because they know they will be crucified by the cultural Marxism that now controls our culture, which believes that there is no biological basis to human nature, and indeed does not even think there is a biological and genetic human nature, because all behavior is culturally created.

This is why I think the real conservative solution to the fall of the American republic (which is supposed to be more aristocratic than democratic) is to adapt the wise constitutional separation of powers and states toward developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates within America. This would finally address the fact that 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.

The main problem with leadership today

I think it was a Marine defense leader who said that morality is the main source of real leadership decisions. "Style" comes in as how you present your moral decisions.

Demagogues seem to be all style and no morality seeking selfish power by simulating morality.

Religion, culture, education traditionally helped develop the morality with which leaders would later make decisions. But we have been dominated by postmodernism in our cultural institutions which teach a relativity of all values.

We now have libertarian capitalists and non-judgmental progressive liberals, and both have no real morality other than believing in a a relativity of values, therefore they are not real moral leaders.

And so we have the great mess of modern Western culture. The moral relativity of so-called high-culture elites is copied by the moral relativity of pop culture, and then promoted by a powerful and corrupt Media, which has its own selfish agenda.

This decay may doom us, but in any case it needs to change if the West is to rise again.

Watching misfits and freaks march by on their way to shutting down a major freeway

Watching misfits and freaks march by on their way to shutting down a major freeway in response to a policeman being acquitted by a jury for shooting and killing a black man, I recalled Chilton Williamson's estimate that 50 percent of the American population who make up the Democratic Party are represented by those freaks and misfits. 50 percent! I suppose that would include the limousine liberals who were brainwashed in elite colleges to talk like modern liberals but actually live conservatively.

How did we get into this big mess? It was the result of the Big Media, the Academic world, and Big Government liberals who propagandized and brainwashed the public, after they had marched through all of our social institutions. But of course it was the few chosen elite who led this march who benefited most, not the freaks, misfits, or the rest of the healthier population.

The temptation of course is to mount a radical undemocratic counter revolution to take back our institutions by force, but if we are conservatives we see the longer-term wisdom of using only legal and constitutional means of change.

But we do need a new approach within conservatism, a deeper conservatism, based on adapting the constitutional separation of powers and states to include an ethnopluralism of regions and ethnostates. The nation will most likely break apart into this natural configuration in any case, either chaotically or rationally, since real human nature supports it, and real human nature always historically leads to traditional kin-centered, and yes, ethnocentric states and regions reforming out of decayed empires...I don't believe there is a better way to save America.

We do not meditate or pray our way to Godhood

I am unable to use either the realist or nominalist arguments in ontology or epistemology, they are all mixed up together, half right and half wrong.

Godhood, truth, beauty, goodness, do exist outside of the mind, they do not exist in the mind only, but they are not spirituals or universals.

We do not meditate or pray our way to Godhood, which is only a blissful experience in the mind only, we evolve in the outside material world to supermaterial Godhood, if we are lucky.

Godhood, truth, beauty, goodness are the attributes and attainments of living things evolved to in the real outside material world---objects are far more important than the definitions of objects.

This is also the way we can bring religion and science together, that is, under the philosophical naturalism as seen in theological materialism, although we do not yet admit this because naturalists are also lost in mere words regarding truth and Godhood, but less so than theologians or philosophers.

The way of real conservatism in the future

Conservatives are too liberal in what they center on conserving. Living people need to be conserved if we wish to conserve the cultures people create.

Both conservatives and liberals center on conserving cultural ideas more than people, even though conservatives claim to be against ideology.

The ideology of multiculturalism has jammed together different people with different cultures in the same space and told them all to get along by following the same politically correct multicultural ideology. This has increasingly led to social disruptions.

It has been politically incorrect on the left and the right to even speak of conserving specific people or specific ethnic groups who in fact create specific cultures.

Is there a way out of this political mess, which has been good (in the short term) for a few specific people and groups at the expense of everyone else?

Conservatives have the political tool in the constitutional separation of powers and states, which has been increasingly losing to the growth of Big Government and globalist control.

The constitutional separation of powers and states needs not only to be fought for but legally expanded toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates within the regions and states of America, balanced by federalism and subsidiary.

That is the way to actually conserve people and therefore conserve the cultures people create.

Theological materialism restores religion in society and stops the false duality between spiritualism and materialism

Humans have expended much energy throughout history trying to reconcile and mingle religion with civil society, when they are flatly irreconcilable based on the basic call for non-materialism of all the religious founders.

Religion and society created this problem for itself based on a great metaphysical error. The great spiritual blockade against materialism blocked the only means to attain Godhood by way of material evolution to supermaterial Godhood.

As a consequence of this false metaphysical duality, religion has clearly been losing to cultural Marxism, unrestrained capitalism, atheism, post modernism, etc. Islam dealt with this metaphysical duality by creating a militant, material, warrior spiritualism, which is contradictory to say the least.

Theological materialism restores religion in society and stops the false duality between spiritualism and materialism by affirming that the only means to attain Godhood is by way of material evolution to supermaterial Godhood.

But the philosophy of conservative is so true and natural that we need to conservatively include the old non-material Inward Path first experience of God, but transformed in the Outward Path of material evolution to real Godhood.

There is not the two cities of God and man, which was Augustine's way of trying to reconcile materialism and spiritualism, there is only the "philosophical naturalism” of theological materialism, with the difference being that philosophical naturalism is generally irreligious, and theological materialism is certainly religious in seeing Godhood as the goal of evolution and of man, first mirrored in the Father-Within of traditional religion.

Real conservatives will keep the best of the past while allowing and helping material evolution to transform us

Synthesizing reaction and revolution we get conservatism. Change is reality, but so is retaining the best of the past. That is the way the real reality of evolution works.

The human body and brain evolved by retaining the fish, reptilian and mammalian brain. That is conservatism in action.

So when conservatives reject or ignore an ethnopluralism of ethnostates as the culmination of modern conservatism they are being reactionary. Revolutionaries reject this also in the name of attacking the traditional ethnocentrism of real human nature.

Human beings are wholly animal and to say we are not is to demean nature, which religion has often done in the name of being against materialism. But we are not permanently human and will, or can, evolve beyond the human while retaining much of what is human. Real conservatives will keep the best of the past while allowing and helping material evolution to transform us.

This is the conservative path to real Godhood, which is evolved to in the material world.

Some challenges in developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates

It is the affirmation of the sociobiological view of human nature that leads almost naturally to seeing the good sense in developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. That is, as often repeated in this blog, human nature remains gender different, age-graded, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, religion-making, group-selecting, and other typically traditional traits. Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this human nature, with such experiments as Marxism, but culture is always eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature.

There are of course challenges in developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates within the U.S., but the constitutional separation of powers and states, created by our Founders, can lend itself well to ethnostates, perhaps with a few amendments---I doubt if the Founders thought our nation would be multicultural and multiracial. One of the challenges will be the ethnic enclaves that have developed within large cities, which are distinctly different ethnically and racially from the majority living outside the enclaves, brought on by the failed experiment of multicultural cities. Multicultural cities didn't fail because of evil racists, they failed because they did not reflect the human nature mentioned above. Ethnostates would have worked better. We always fall back on trusted kinship and ethnic groups in any case no matter what the philosophers tell us.

Migration of minority ethnic groups to ethnostates better reflecting their own group would be the first choice. Incentives could be offered, but this wouldn't be as difficult as it may sound since people do prefer to live with their own kind. The second choice would be to devolve power to the ethnic enclaves within cities, making them ethnostates with great autonomy. Federalism and subsidiary could protect the whole, inside and outside, independence would be affirmed... But we need to be open to new ideas in dealing with the challenges of developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Perhaps it is time, as someone wisely said, to let the ethnic differences which have torn us apart, put us back together again.

More on the conservative/sociobiological fusion

The fusion of nature (tradition, precedent) and nurture (reason) in sociobiology, may be a clearer  way to view the fusion of libertarianism and conservatism. The twin studies were an ingenious way to tell the difference between nature and nurture by studying twins separated at birth living in different environments. Our social behavior is far more genetically determined than both the left and right have thought.

Conservatism and sociobiology have suggested to me that the realistic way to find unity within divisions is by upgrading the constitutional separation of powers and states envisioned by our wise Founders to include an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, where real human nature can flourish. We remain kin-centered, ethnocentric, marriage-making, gender-defined, and other traditional norms, which can be fused with the reason of sciences such as sociobiology. 

The philosophy of the left looks selfish and short-sighted in comparison.

Toward the next tripartite conservative fusionist hierarchy

If Trump and his administration fall I don't think the new Alt-right wing will go away as it did in the 1950's when Buckley and others decided they wanted only two wings to their fusion of conservatism, individual freedom plus the norms and traditions. Norms and traditions have since been updated by the evolutionary science of sociobiology, which affirms the biological origin of much of our social behavior.

I think the next conservative fusionist hierarchy should lead with sociobiology, followed by the norms and traditions, and lastly individual freedom. Sociobiology has shown us that group-selection is, and has been, the primary unit of successful human life (see Wilson). Individualism is of course important, but it takes place always monitored by the success of the group. At times I have thought that the libertarian/individualism wing of conservatism was a cunning way to undermine norms and traditions. The latest conservatives policed themselves and ejected sociobiology from the movement, as they did in the 1950's.

I think the tripartite structure of conservatism, that is, sociobiology, followed by the norms and traditions, and lastly individual freedom, is healthier than the duality we have had, and is the best way to fulfill the next fusionism of conservatism. This time the fusion needs to include an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, affirmed by the constitutional separation of powers and states, and protected by federalism and subsidiarity. Will conservatives go there? If they do not the conservative duality will break apart, opening the ground for dictatorial cultural Marxism, or supremacist fascism, reminding us of pre-World War Two Germany.

Bob Dylan's Nobel Prize speech

Where did Bob Dylan pick up that black hipster accent, he was born and raised in northern Minnesota---and why? One would think authenticity would be important to him. But the man and his songs have always been a phony act, even though he managed to write a few simple good songs within that ridiculous black hipster act---when he started out it was more of a bad hillbilly accent.

In his speech (here) he attempts to link his song-writing to Moby Dick and the Odyssey. Why do people let him get away with this crap? I suppose the relativity of values which rules does not concern itself with the truth or falsehood of Bob Dylan, his songs, or his lefty politics---and phony Dylan knows how to ride that phony train.

And they gave him the Nobel Prize in Literature! That must be the end of that award meaning anything of value.

How words like "universal," "perfection," and "God" have been definitions only

Words like "universal" and "perfection" are only aids to understanding larger connections between real things. God has been defined in that "universal" way. God has not been defined as a particular, supreme, living, material/supermaterial object, or objects. But this metaphysical mistake does not point toward atheism, it points toward a material or supermaterial Godhood. The mistake of religion and philosophy has been to focus on the universal as spiritual.

This is where idealistic thinkers begin to go wrong and say such things as, our true loyalties are with all humanity (and not our own groups or nations), or that our real citizenship is beyond this material world. We need to include science in religion and in the humanities, especially the sciences of human nature, such as sociobiology, which give us a better view of the biological origin of much of our social behavior.

The idea that we are "fallen" or full of "original sin" derives from those definitions of universal perfection, which are definitions telling us that we cannot ever be perfect as long as we are material. This conception has blocked us from evolving toward real Godhood in the material, not spiritual, world. Defining perfection does not derive from comparing ourselves to a non-existent, spiritual, universal idea. We are imperfect not because we are full of original sin but because we are unevolved creatures.

The activation toward real Godhood is within nature and within human nature, probably within every cell of the body, and works within the structures and strictures of natural evolution and selection---two steps up, one back, or sometimes two steps back, one up. This is how we move toward perfection, although we may not ever get there---but not because getting there is spiritual and beyond material evolution, but because getting there is probably endless material and supermaterial evolution.

Lost in the wisdom of Rock

Of course it's nice to give a benefit concert for the victims of the Islamic terrorists in London, but if  you think about it, that's like satanists giving a benefit concert for Christian martyrs. What is more decadent and degenerate than the world of Rock?

The West is so far gone it doesn't even realize this. And of course the corrupt Big Media across the Western world have no intention of telling the people how inept they are at defending themselves.

Do they want a Western police state of cultural Marxism? It seems so. If the West would have gotten the hell out of the hell of the middle east it would have solved most of these problems. Who is keeping us there? Who benefits?

The people of the United States voted for Donald Trump because he endlessly said he would bring the troops home, protect our borders, and renew America. We are still waiting for that to begin.  So we put our discs on and get lost in the wisdom of Rock.

The terrorists have opened our eyes when our politicians could not

It often seems like the truth and reality are permanently buried. The eyes of the West are being opened now, but not by our professors, not by our journalists, not by our politicians, but by the continuing attacks of the Islamic terrorists.

The truth is being revealed that the West has been too passive, too liberal, too politically correct, too effeminate, to defend itself against the terrorists.

Our decadent and passive leaders, and a brainwashed public, still cannot rise even to stop the immigration of terrorists into the West.

What happens next? Will populist/nationalism continue to rise? Will militant Marxism reappear? Will dictatorial fascism come again? Will Western imperialism continue?  Will Eastern imperialism rise? Populist/nationalism in the West seems to be the favorite at this point. 

President Trump at least seemed like he was going in that direction, with big enemies against him, but he has been looking neoconservative and globalist lately, so where he is going is not coherent.

The main reason why conservatives are more ideological than than say they are

The main reason why I have been saying that conservatives are more ideological than than say they are is because they did not emphasize conserving the biological and genetic heritage of the West but emphasized conserving the Western humanists tradition from Socrates to Tocqueville; this was perhaps based in the non-material emphasis of religion.

Conserving the best of the Western humanist tradition is important but not as important as conserving the best of the biological and genetic heritage from which Western civilization derived. The essence of a living thing is not ideology, it is the material/biological/genetic activation within life to successfully evolve toward real Godhood. 

The evolutionary sciences leading up the the sociobiology of the great E.O.Wilson have been largely missing from the conservative mind, with only a few exceptions (I think of Samuel Francis and Thomas Fleming). William Buckley and others read the ethnocentrism of real human nature out of the conservative movement, along with rejecting Pat Buchanan who barely even believes in evolution.

This preference toward ideology over biology has almost doomed conservatism, which is why I believe the refinement of conservatism is now necessary. Revolution is not necessary. It won't be easy because conserving the biological and genetic heritage of distinctly different ethnic groups now competing within America and the West means that the constitutional separation of powers and states will eventually need to  include an ethnopluralism of ethnostates---if we don't want the West to break apart in chaos.

Redefining Conservatism

There are mental, religious, philosophical, moral, scientific, and artistic patterns that point toward a redefining of conservatism, related to seeing and defining human nature as remaining 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 selection.

Conservatism in general needs to move toward deepening and channeling this instinctive and rational definition of human nature. Conservatism can affirm cultural patterns that support this more realistic and still very much conservative view of man. We have been going in the opposite direction. The Marxist utopia, which preaches materialism, is as spiritual and ideological as the religious end-goal of non-material spiritual Godhood. Godhood itself needs to be transformed and understood as being attained through the material evolution of life toward supermaterial Godhood.

This view of reality points toward a religious/cultural/political conservative transformation---not revolution---which can eventually bring a natural ethnopluralism of ethnostates, where different, now competing, ethnic groups can politically and culturally conduct themselves the way they want to in their own states or regions, even within our democratic republic, perhaps with only a few amendments to the constitutional separation of powers and states. We would need to retain federalism and subsidiarity because we need the geopolitical heft of a large nation to defend ourselves in the big world.

This redefines a deeper conservatism and the social structures most in harmony with real human nature. I believe this is the political future, whether we get here purposely or chaotically.