Why sociobiology needs to be placed at the foundation of philosophy

In the past philosopher's talked about the influence of culture on the philosopher, and wondered if the philosopher could be "timeless" outside of his culture. This was before postmodernism went wild and decided it could be completely free ("condemned to freedom"---what arrogance) and invent a relativity of truths and values, since all thing were the result of nurture not nature.

Sociobiology changed all that with its empirical studies on the biological origin of social behavior. Philosophers can't escape the implications of sociobiology and almost seem suicidal to want to. Ideas are only as timeless as the biological origin of social behavior relates to ideas (although there is a co-evolution between biology and culture, biology takes the lead.)

So that is why sociobiology needs to be placed at the foundation of philosophy, which will effect the specialties of philosophy, from politics to art. I think sociobiology even relates to ontology and the definition of Being since I believe we evolve to supermaterial Godhood in the material world.

This brings wild postmodernism and its cultural Marxism back to reality as it does the spiritualism of metaphysics, if they can admit it. It also brings Godhood or Being back to reality, rejuvenating them without rejecting them. Conservatism also looks good because it is grounded in the biology of human nature---although conservatism needs to better admit the deep reality of evolution within tradition.

The cancellation of the Roseanne reboot will cause more anger, not prevent it

The vulgar show that finally gave conservatives a chance to vent a little bit was canceled because Roseanne said something bigoted, which minority comedians do every time they go on stage. But the cancellation, which the culturally Marxist liberals wanted even before Roseanne said something bigoted, will only cause more anger, not prevent it. Why?

There is a difference between bigotry and ethnocentrism and Roseanne Barr's statement on Valerie Jarret was bigoted, that is, it showed intolerance toward those who hold different identities from her own (she is Jewish).

But you can prefer your own kin and ethnic group without hating other groups. Ethnocentrism is an extension of being kin-centered, and both of those traits are a basic part of real human nature because they helped humans survive and bond successfully in a dangerous and competitive world.

Minority comedians who have suffered bigotry against them are allowed to vent and attack the majority, which is probably why we have so many angry Black and Jewish comedians, but whites are not allowed to vent anger in that way. That's how dictators rise.

Sociobiology eats the lunch of postmodernism

If we thought of analytical philosophy as the study of nature, rather than the mathematical relations in which the various parts of philosophy fit, and continental philosophy as the study of nurture, rather than how to make whole the complications of analytic philosophers, then it seems to me that the science of of sociobiology would take the place of analytical philosophy, and continental philosophy would study the cultural implications of the biological origin of social behavior.

That is how much I think sociobiology could improve the arcane complications of philosophy. Sociobiology could at least be given an uppermost seat in science and humanities departments in all our colleges and universities, rather than arrogantly condemned or ignored. Sociobiology eats the lunch of postmodernism, which is the presumptuous child of Nietzsche, who I seem to remember writing that if he had it to do over again he would study biology to deepen philosophy.

Recognition of the biological origin of social behavior can lead to the overcoming of alienated individuals and groups in society

Recognition of the biological origin of social behavior can lead to the overcoming of alienated individuals and groups in society. This recognition is now being blocked by cultural Marxism.

But cynical as it is to say, Marxist's who deny biology and push nurture are driven by the same biological origin of their own social behavior and they ride the lies of cultural Marxism to their own biological and cultural advantage, some of them unaware of doing it.

Many people have turned back to closed alienated individualism because they do not feel at home with the social lies of cultural Marxism, which tell us that we are all the same and demand that we all get along living in the same localities showing no preference for anything or anyone other than the egalitarian lies of cultural Marxism.

With the recognition of the biological origin of social behavior people can overcome their alienation and realistically bond with their own groups again and connect with people who share their own biological and cultural traits, which is the only kind of long-term bonding possible given human nature, which continues to prefer kin and ethnic group-bonding.

Empires fall for good reason. The Soviet Union broke into ethnostates because Marxist lies alienated individuals and natural groups in society. The people more or less recognized that the biological origin of social behavior leads to the recognition of ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

The West may fall for the same reasons---and China too. So why not begin the process of dissolving or devolving empires into ethnostates peacefully? As I always suggest, the constitutional separation of powers and states in the U.S. could be legally, not radically, adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, with a federally protective defense against the lies and bogus drives of empires and globalism.

Sacred synthesis

We can have a sacred synthesis in modern times. A healthy culture, tragedy, art, religion and science can conservatively affirm the institutions of society in affirming the evolution of material life toward supermaterial Godhood. That is the ultimate synthesis, the sacred synthesis. Not having that sacred synthesis divides our identity.

Practical material living and ideal material and supermaterial evolution come together in the sacred synthesis---the practical and ideal are usually apart.

As to the will to power and dominion which scare modern man when applied politically, they can be demphasized. Although it is true that you can't have life without protecting and defending life, material and supermaterial evolution are more about mastery, facility, capability, than power or dominion. But the chess table of evolution and future evolution should be protected and not turned over by impatient radicals.

Politically, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates relates well to real kin and ethnic-centered human nature, and that relates in the long term to the practical and the ideal evolution of material life toward supermaterial Godhood. The conditions for evolution work best in smaller ethnostates.

Raymond Cattell's projected international research centers come to mind as to how the work can be organized. I would call them Theoevolutionary Research Centers. TE Research Centers would be where religion, sociobiology, ethnopluralism, genetics, sacred and future evolution, etc. are advanced, along with the more popular religion of theological materialism. 

Will the day ever come when humans stop blocking and denying what they actually are?

Time magazine use to more or less affirm middle-class values, now as it nears its death it promotes feminism and minority grievances. In a recent interview black playwright Lynn Nottage triumphantly declared that: "Trump is the outward manifestation of white male panic."

At least someone is worried about the fall of white men and the fall of Western civilization.  Is the white man supposed to welcome his own death? That would be psychological and biological suicide. 

How about being a little grateful to white men who junked meritocracy to advance minorities, when meritocracy was the thing that made the West fair-minded and great against old world advancement through nepotism and cronyism? Affirmative Action has spent billions of mostly white dollars promoting social programs that advance blacks and minorities (but not Asians) over vastly more qualified candidates, and billions more on welfare programs. Is reverse racism better than old racism?

The answer to that question may shock both the white cuckolds of cultural Marxism and the radical minorities. Being kin-centered and ethnocentric is a basic part of real human nature and has been since humans became humans. Bonding with group-selection preferences was genetically inherited because it allowed us to live and survive successfully in a very dangerous world, and those traits are still very much with all of us today.

Will the day ever come when humans stop blocking and denying what they actually are? Perhaps then we can use the ethnocentrism that is tearing us apart to put us back together again, this time in ethnostates, for all groups. If you want to march for social and racial justice march for that. The U. S. constitutional separation of powers and states could be adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

What we should be teaching in the West

In thinking about the co-evolution of nature and nurture, "we see what we believe" seems to relate more to nurture, and "we believe what we see" seems to relate more to nature.

Both inherited human intelligence and nurtured learning have been mistaught and misused in the West by the ideals of modern liberalism, or cultural Marxism, which virtually denies inherited intelligence and teaches people that we are all the same genetically which they think is good and all our differences are do to what we learn from our environment. On the other extreme are the old style racists who virtually discount nurturing and the environment and believe that all of human nature is inherited.

The inherited material machinery of the eyes and brain are not the same in individuals or species. The machinery of a frog brain is genetically less sophisticated, or differently specialized, than a human brain and they will both see and learn differently. These differences were inherited because they helped the human and the frog successfully survive and reproduce in different environments, and that machinery remains mainly the same today.

An inherited sophisticated brain won't be very useful if the brain is exposed to little but distorted learning. Even a genetically sophisticated brain won't help us much if it is brainwashed or propagandized with mistaken nurturing and learning such as the cultural Marxism we are now taught in the West.

We have gotten far away from knowing about the real human nature we inherited from our ancestors and we need to go back to a healthy expression of who we are. 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, group-selection and even ethnocentrism. If a culture proposes to not include these things the culture does not last long and it will always return to these things. These traits also happen to be at the core of classical conservatism, whereas many of these things are missing in communism, modern liberalism, and post-modernism.

Real life strongly suggests that real human nature leads naturally to the cultural expression of regionalism, localism, and even ethnostates, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected by some sort of federalism. Given who we are this appears to be the best way we can optimize the gene expression we all inherited from our human ancestors, and that is what we should be teaching in the West. The East could be teaching it too. This would bring a long-lasting natural order to our increasing modern chaos.

Why can't modern liberals think outside the box of political correctness and cultural Marxism?

"This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper:" T S Eliot

Why can't modern liberals think outside the box of political correctness and cultural Marxism? I think it's more a lack of courage than the fact that they were taught that nonsense from grade school through grad school. The lack of courage seems also to be based in a lack of physical courage, caused by a sedentary life full of technical gadgets and passive viewing of a pervasive liberal media.

Many liberals were intimidated or saw others humiliated by more knowledgeable teachers and professors for thinking outside the liberal box. Real truths about human nature are not even taught in our schools, for example, the synthesizing science of sociobiology is left out of the humanities, or is belittled when it is rarely mentioned.

Sports can teach courage but even our sports have been increasingly invaded by passive liberals who seem to prefer losers to winners, at least on the surface.  And of course the military is the traditional way to teach courageous behavior.

Being poor can teach courage in order to survive, but it can also teach lying, cheating, and criminal behavior.

I suppose courage can still be taught in the family even if the culture does not teach it. We can reward our children for showing both physical and intellectual courage---but showing courage in an amiable way, if possible.

When the masculine or feminine traits of real human nature are taken to their extremes

When the masculine or feminine traits of real human nature are taken to their extremes (and there are definite genetically-derived gender differences) the inclusionary nurturing qualities of females can help lead to egalitarian Marxism, and the exclusionary defensive qualities of males can help lead to racial supremacism. Either of these extremes of gender differences applied politically can end up damaging survival and reproduction in the long term. Extreme female nurturing can result in the breakdown of the protection of the people and the culture, and extreme male defensiveness can result in unnecessary and damaging wars. What we need in our social philosophy is a healthy balance between the gender traits of human nature.

Traditional conservatism creates a better more natural gender balance than modern liberalism which has feminized Western culture with cultural Marxism and broken down the protective masculine qualities of Western people, which is leading to being overwhelmed and even replaced by non-western people. But even traditional conservatism has failed to emphasize the natural human tendency to create protective states based on real kin and ethnic-centered, or group-selecting, human nature. A healthy balance between the gender traits of human nature, as well as kin and ethnic-centered human nature, suggests an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, for all groups. If we wish to save our homelands and what we are as men and women, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates should eventually be a future adaption of the constitutional separation of powers and states in the U. S..

What I Affirm ( from 2006)

For the historical, traditionally-understood God, I affirm Traditional Christianity, and the Involutionary Inward Path, for the same, evolving, but futuristically-understood God, I affirm the Evolutionary Outward Path.

I affirm two ways to understand Godhood: Traditionalist, looking back to God, and Futurist, looking forward toward evolution to Godhood; the micro–back, the macro-forward, affirming the same God, although the Theoevolutionary Church (TC) says that Godhood must be evolved to.

I affirm the conservative social philosophy which harmonizes with subsidiarity, agrarianism (including serious ecological concerns), separatism and a strictly interpreted “federalism” of the American variety, i.e. strong states rights, and above all local rights.

“Small is beautiful” is affirmed for conservative and sociobiological reasons, e.g. Beyondism; evolution seems to work best within the biological variety of a natural, conservatism. This can harmonize science and religion.

The Traditional Church is affirmed, for spiritual, conservative, and sociobiological reasons, with the important and vital addition of evolution, and with the "expanded" definition of Godhood defined as that which must be evolved to, a Godhood which was virtually, and blissfully “seen” or “experienced” inwardly by the great religious founders and sages. We see now that we evolve to Godhood.

The royal marriage and sanctification of modern liberalism

I suppose Harry and Meghan are not responsible for their royal marriage being a sanctification of the ideology of modern liberalism or cultural Marxism, they were taught the same ideology of equality, integration, and involution as the rest of the Western world. I wish the happy royal couple well, but the sanctification of equality, integration, and involution will not bring the peace and order we all hope for.

The irony, or tragedy, is that the modern liberalism or cultural Marxism celebrated in this marriage will probably eventually lead to strongmen from the far left or far right taking over and blocking the freedoms of modern liberalism---often called for by the people---in order to create peace and order out of the social chaos caused by the attempts at the integration of distinctly different people in the same living space.  Harry's own London is becoming a violent cultural zoo.

Why does this happen? Real human nature remains genetically kin and ethnic-centered and cultures are still created around that natural behavior. When we try to integrate distinctly different people in the same living space we end up with ethnic competitions that lead to social chaos, no matter how many ways we sanctify modern liberalism, even with love.

Real humanitarian people, real compassionate people, would develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates where each distinctive group and culture could proudly celebrate who they are and what they are, without damaging or corrupting other groups and cultures.

Affirmative Action is part of the imperialistic and supremacist mind-set

Affirmative Action, the effort to improve the lives of minority groups, is in reality part of the imperialistic and supremacist mind-set in advancing racial minorities not by merit but by racial grouping. It's not as bad as slavery but we can see as time goes by that the "equality" of Affirmative Action has been a front for imperialism and supremacism. We also see that Affirmative Action has been mainly directed by other more successful ethnic minorities who are disguising their own ethnic wills to power beneath the calls for equality, which sometimes makes poor ethnic groups only cannon fodder.

But before we get too upset by this we should realize that the drive toward group and ethnic selection is the primary selection choice in basic human nature because it has been the best means to successful survival and reproduction since humans became humans. And so the natural game goes on.

Rather than continuing the same see-saw or cyclic battles between distinctly different ethnic groups within our societies, which in reality is due to group-selection preferences in real human nature, and rather than slavery, imperialism, with unfair and corrupt social engineering programs like Affirmative Action (which only sets up resentment, anger and more ethnic revolutions), it would be far more natural and ethical to affirm an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

So who is keeping an ethnopluralism of ethnostates from naturally, and sanely, happening, which could at least in the U.S. be legally adapted from the constitutional separation of powers and states? In most cases it is ethnic groups and corporations who selfishly benefit, at least in the short-term, from slavery, supremacism, and imperialism, which they disguise with such things as "equality" and Affirmative Action---some without even knowing they are doing it.  It may be cunning but it's stupid.

Has Trump been out-chutzpahed?

Is President Trump America First or Israel First? He seems to be both, which makes him a dual loyalist, like his enemies the neoconservatives. Now that is a convoluted mix. But it seems to be the price of doing politics in America.

But Trump is now playing in a larger and more dangerous playground than his usual New York City real estate zoo. Trump's dual loyalty has gotten him into a real mess in the Middle East. Trump has agreed to moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. And he has supported Israel in its deadly competition with Iran.

This means the U.S. will have to militarily support Israel in a probable war with Iran. Iran may then be supported by Russia, with China as usual wisely staying out of it all. A very dangerous involvement. None of it is good for America.

The next conservative populist leader who rises through the dirty ranks of politics needs to really be only for America First....I suppose we could say that President Trump at least led the opening volley toward saving America.

Equality which acknowledges that we are different?

In a recent interview venerable British actress Glenda Jackson asked the interesting question, how do you create a society in which there is genuine equality which acknowledges that we are different?

The word "society" suggests people associated together for common ends, common interests, common goals. But since "genuine" equality does not really exist, and in reality different ethnic groups are genetically and culturally distinctively different, this suggests that an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the best political way to create homogeneous societies in which there is an equality that acknowledges that we are different. Trying to jam distinctly different ethnic groups together in the same society obviously is not working well in England or in the U.S. regardless of how much we are preached to about equality. Violence increases.

Although she does seem to have courage, I doubt Ms. Jackson would like this answer---too bad, she could sell it better than I do.

It's more a slaying of the West than a suicide

Led by depraved Academia, gender and race quotas in the U.S. have now made James Burnham's term on the liberal "suicide of the West" too broad to define what is now the "slaying of the West."

Even communist China has not fallen for bogus gender and race quotas and is proudly pushing a meritocratic system of schooling. They are also promoting genetic engineering and even positive eugenics to increase the intelligence of the already intelligent Chinese people.

How long will healthy and sane people in the West put up with selecting less qualified people for everything?! Perhaps old greed in hiring will save the day if reason and instinct cannot. Or those who have not been indoctrinated in the academic world will naturally choose by merit rather than quotas and will therefore be far more successful---assuming they can escape the quota police.

That could also continue the populist conservative rise in the West. The "deplorables," not the halls of ivy, might just save the West!

I don't think I'm alone in wanting to see civilization return in both high and low culture

An article by Taki on the "gentleman" (Chronicles, May 2018) reminded me of past thoughts I've had on the gentleman.

If hip hop and and rap culture had their own independent state I doubt if I would have much to say about it, but they have been widely promoted in the whole country by the big and small media and have taken over popular culture the way Europe was taken over by barbarians in the Dark Ages. It then took over a thousand years to turn the barbarians back into European gentlemen.

When I say "gentleman" I'm not talking about a simpering over-civilized fop, I am talking about the old gentry, with good manners and a fighting spirit, a balance between the warrior and a cultured gentleman---which they still might teach in some out of the way school in the South. Taki reminds us that good manners are not a superficial thing, they serve a moral purpose, they illustrate that one is willing to put others first---which not only harmonizes with religion but with the preference for group-selection in real human nature for successful survival and reproduction.

But it's not just rap and hip hop. I don't affirm empires at all, but compare the gentlemen who ran the British empire with the neoconservatives who run the American empire. The Neos prefer cunning to courage, dual loyalties take the place of patriotism, making money is more important than morals principles, and the code of an eye for an eye is preferred to the code of the gentleman. Or think of modern country music stars, most of them act the exact opposite of the Southern gentleman, full of swaggering arrogance, glorifying drunkenness and promiscuity, frankly, acting like Black rappers.

What happened? The Big Media happened, promoting constant attacks against the traditional American people and traditional American culture in music, movies, television, portraying the gentleman as a fool or even as evil. Most of the producers of this junk are from New York or Los Angeles and could care less about the rest of the county.

I don't think I'm alone in wanting to see civilization return in both high and low culture. But distinctive people or ethnic groups make distinctive cultures, and for that I'm politically incorrect enough to say an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is necessary. Otherwise we continue to fall like the Roman and British Empires.

Is centralization ever a good thing?

Conservatives can legitimately criticize white nationalists for their attempts to centralize large diverse nations, but not for pointing out the importance of ethnocentrism. Open-border cultural Marxists are also mistaken centralizers and haters of real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature.

The other last hold out of conservatives (and libertarians) against the importance of group-selection or ethnocentrism comes in defining individualism or individual selection as more important than group selection. But as the great sociobiologist E.O. Wilson put it : "within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

Large countries are now virtually made up of ethnostates, whether they are allowed to be called that or not. Countries the size of the U. S., Russia, China, and continental Europe are made up of many ethnic groups usually located in virtual ethnostates.

All the forms of centralizing haven't prevented ethnopluralism from developing because group selection has always been the best means of successful survival and reproduction, which ends ends up forming ethnostates. The main thing centralizing is good for is protecting an ethnopluralism of ethnostates from marauding empires.

The constitutional separation of powers and states in the U.S. could be legally, not radically, adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates against all centralization, accept for a federally protective defense against empires and globalism. This may happen anyway, by one means or another, because it is natural human behavior---better to do it consciously and rationally, not violently.

Conservative's could learn from the downfall of the swine due to the courage of feminists and liberals

Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, Woody Allen, Jeremy Piven, James Levine, Steve Wynn, Louis C.K., James Franco, etc., and just recently Eric Schneiderman---but also non-Jewish men such as Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore, Garrison Keillor, Bill Cosby, and of course Bill Clinton. All treated women like shiksa's, the politically incorrect Yiddish word for blemished abominable non-Jewish women and therefore fair game to be abused.

And amazingly, it was women of the liberal feminist Me Too movement who had the balls to expose the swine, not conservative men or women who, as usual, worried about being accused of all sorts of politically incorrect things if they spoke out. That same fear didn't stop the feminists. Maybe it also had to due with the fact that many of the Me Too feminists were wealthy actresses who could at least survive if blackballed by Hollywood.

In any case, I would not have predicted the downfall of the swine due to the courage of feminists and liberals...Conservative's could learn from them.

Empires and Ethnostates

If you want an empire then Trump's new national security adviser John Bolton is your man. Bolton constantly advocates the use of force to advance the American empire, which is the main way empires advance.

But intelligent and courageous people do not want an empire, they want ethnostates, or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, because ethnostates are in harmony with real human nature, which remains as it has always been, kin-centered, local, and ethnocentric. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could even be established legally in the United States adapted from our constitutional separation of powers and states.

Why courageous? Because courage is needed to go against the prevailing globalism and cultural Marxism which rules the West. Courage is often more important than intelligence in finding the truth.

People don't bond with empires, empires are too far removed from people for natural altruism to work. But the exploiters and marauders of the earth prefer empires, which they selfishly dominate, and, irony of ironies, they often pursue for ethnocentric reasons.

Empires always fall apart and reform into ethnostates, or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, as an honest reading of history shows us. But any ethnopluralism needs to be strongly protected and defended from marauding empires with some version of federalism. That is where a Bolton might come in handy, but he would have to first learn that force is only used to back up diplomacy. That is also what gangbangers need to learn.

The dragon as good not evil

Contrary to religious mystics, and general art depictions, the dragon defined as "matter" should not be defined as an evil that must be slain by a spiritual hero, the only way to reach Godhood is through material, not spiritual, evolution.

The universe of matter is not the "underworld" of evil, it is matter which is transformed into Godhood by way of material evolution.

Consciousness depends on material form, not the other way around. Forms cannot be non-material spiritual  "forms," forms can only be material or supermaterial, and it is the same with Godhood.

God is not lost when the spiritual form of god is rejected or redefined, the spiritual view of god is transformed by the supermaterial definition of Godhood attained through material evolution.

This is the real "transvaluation" back to religious/philosophical reality that is needed, and not a rejection of religion or Godhood.

Was it evil to destroy white middle-class values for the purpose of people gaining power who are not of the white middle class?

The elites of the Big Media, the academic world, the deep state, etc. have been destroying white middle-class values and morals at least since the 1960's.

They have been attacking marriage, patriotism, religion, gender differences, and on and on, until there is virtually nothing left of white middle-class values and morals. And they have come to power with the destruction.

Can the white middle class recover? James Kalb said it wasn't the white middle class who led the way up after the fall of the Roman Empire, it was religious gurus and kings. What would they be called today? One hopes they would be conservative and promote a democratic republic adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real human nature, and not totalitarian dictators on the left or the right. Who knows for sure.

So to answer the question above: was it evil to destroy white middle-class values for the purpose of people gaining power who are not of the white middle class? It is natural. Human beings are kin-centered, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. People rise and fall according to this classic behavior, or the lack of it.