So now how do we define high culture?

The old way of defining high culture was having knowledge of art and philosophy. It was aristocratic, perhaps necessarily elitist. Then science began to enter the mix with such overarching fields as the evolutionary science of sociobiology, pointing out the biological origin of social behavior, which virtually subsumes the humanities, including art and philosophy, if we are honest about it.

So now how do we define high culture? It has to be a broader synthesis of art, philosophy and science. The biological origin of social behavior brings all fields back to earth---although doing research science seems to be a high I.Q. aristocracy, chosen by merit. But aristocracies are more than test scores.

Affirmative Action has shown us that rejecting merit in choosing various positions is not the only problem. Even if test scores merit the choice (and they usually don't) there are clashes simply due to ethnic differences. For example, what seems like over-defensiveness to one group may be normal behavior to another. Social harmony comes easier when both nature (genes) and nurture (culture) are homogeneous, that is, when aristocrats and commoners are composed of elements that are mainly of the same kind. That is simple common sense.

Some readers may guess what I'm going to say next: high culture can develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature, where meritocracies can create more harmonious "aristocrats" and "commoners." Some sort of federalism can protect but not rule the whole. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be legally adapted in the United States from our constitutional separation of powers and states, so this future can be conservative and is not too Utopian.