Until all the fields place culture on a biological basis we will be lost

For centuries humans have been rushing to claim that we are beyond the animals, even in effect denying that we are animals, and they have overlooked or ignored the biological origin of social behavior.

Especially since World War Two where one side pushed a selfish version of the biological origin of social behavior we have been dominated by resentment and revenge against the idea. The Gentleman Culture of Europe which could show benevolence and goodwill toward past enemies---influenced by the warrior ethos---has been nowhere to be seen among the cads of politically correctness and cultural Marxism who driven by resentment and revenge now rule our culture.

The subject is blocked mainly because it reveals the hidden motive of the biological will to power activating those who block the subject. Nietzsche was one of first to have the courage to suggest that psychology needs to be biologized, anticipating sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

Until all the fields place culture on a biological basis, from religion and philosophy to science and art, we will be lost in the over-complication or oversimplification that leads to motley alienation and the decay of modern men and women.

The countermarch through the institutions

As Scott Richert of Chronicles aptly put it we need a "countermarch" through the institutions to offset the takeover of the arts, music, film, television, book publishing etc. to counter the cultural Marxism that has deformed (not formed) our culture. But the leftist vultures are not solely responsible for the cultural mess.

Libertarianism among conservative businessmen shares much of the blame because concentrating almost exclusively on making a god of individualism and the freedom to make money came back to bite them when the Hollywood moguls and leftist publishers and producers of New York, as well as the academic world, exploited American freedom and deformed a formerly conservative culture to fit their leftist cultural agendas; they found that they could make big money but also change culture in a culturally Marxist direction. They marched through the institutions and they won the cultural war. It was brilliant.

Now what? Burke and Kirk's "moral imagination" among artists now portrays only the political correctness of cultural Marxism. I guess that countermarch through the institutions has to begin with the first steps. So where are the marchers? Perhaps some of those otherwise conservative businessmen who were hoodwinked by making a god of individualism and money will finance the recovery (there's even money to be made in it). That could redeem them.

Why is modern culture so stupid?

One of the stupid and dangerous things modern culture does is foment against real human nature by incessantly demanding in the media and schools that since people are all equal they must live together in the same living space, which ends up causing more social problems than it helps. People, ethnic groups, races, are certainly not the same, they naturally compete against each other, often causing social disruption which can even lead to civil war.

So why is modern culture so stupid? It is mainly do to the brainwashing of cultural Marxism in the media and in all our schools, but it also has to do with the fact that some individuals gain advantage, at least in the short-term, by pushing the lies. For example, creating "no borders" is the product of global corporations and governments whose leaders become obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of the population. The charge of racism and bigotry is hurled at anyone who dares to disagree with the sham of politically correct cultural Marxism, which is even made a crime in many countries

Then there are the intellectuals who affirm such things as libertarianism, which makes a god of individualism, ignorant of, or ignoring, the natural altruism inherent in human nature which genetically favors the group above the individual, without rejecting individual competition within the group, for successful survival.

Modern culture has been swimming up-stream against the strong current of real human nature. Group-selection was the natural way for individuals to successfully survive, and so altruism, or being for others, was naturally limited mainly to kin and ethnic group because they shared the same genes that constantly strive for successful survival. Trying to rid human nature and culture of the deep-seated biological preference for kin and ethnic group is like trying to rid human beings of being human, and that is cruel.

We need to overcome the obstacles that prevent the natural flow of real human nature toward the natural decentralization which favors an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Well, I've survived half the holiday season

Well, I've survived half the holiday season and as usual I could not negotiate a rational discussion with leftist relatives. They believe only in the political correctness they have thoroughly absorbed from the corrupt media and the corrupted culture.

So I move closer to misanthropy, without wanting to go there. What other choice is there living in a world of the multiculturalism of all values, where godhood is defined as the equality of everything? I pull back, think, write, and try to develop thicker skin. But we are genetically kin and group-centered so it's not a comfortable fit.

I know I'm not alone in this dilemma and I feel sympathy for others facing the same thing. Does that means I can avoid misanthropy? I do know that fighting back against the destruction of Western people and adapting old tradition to new sociobiology sustains me.

Speaking the same language it is not enough to create harmony in the land

Everyone in the country speaking English is advocated by conservatives as a remedy for many of our social problems, but if "everyone" consists of distinctly different ethnic groups speaking the same language that is not enough to create harmony in the land.

Yes, speaking the same language is important, but that shouldn't be used as shell game hiding the importance of biological, genetic, and cultural differences between ethnic groups or races.

Ethnic differences are more disrupting to the nation than not speaking the same language. This is only common sense which cannot be spoken because it moves outside the boundaries of the preference for jamming distinctly different ethnic groups together into the same space and telling them that, since they are all equal, they must get along.

This deceptive culturally Marxist social game---also promoted by the international capitalists---will only work for a time before the whole mishmash naturally splits into an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. How much better it would be if that could be done consciously, legally, and peacefully...Have we evolved enough to be that civilized?

Let merit rule and have the balls to affirm the social results

Men and women have undeniable different body structures, sexual systems, and biological responses and processes which for many thousand of years naturally separated the functions and roles of men and women---even modern technology which made the independence of women easier has not changed those biological differences.

The main problem with the neo-feminists is their call (really demand) for gender equality when the call should be for MERIT no matter what the gender. The feminist tend to disguise what amounts to a call for female supremacy perhaps so they won't be accused of bigotry against the male gender, which feminism often displays (someone called them feminazis do to their methods of censorship and propaganda). This behavior helps no one.

The same thing applies to Affirmative Action which chooses by race rather then merit. Let merit rule and have the balls to affirm the social results. That is how we make healthy creative societies.

Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against real human nature, with such experiments as feminism and Marxism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature (eg. an ethnopluralism of ethnostates), and humans then work within and adapt to the environments they find themselves living in.

How the body is ultimately wiser than the mind

There are those who say that the mind and thoughts rule and those who say the body rules. Important as the mind is, the mind is part of the body and so the biology and genetics of of body rule the mind.

All the cells of the body seek to successfully survive and reproduce and that primal motivation activates and influences the mind, even as the mind deals with surviving in the minute to minute environment it finds itself living in.

The body uses the mind as an aid in its survival, reproduction, evolution, and cultural creations. This doesn't diminish the mind it just doesn't overestimate the mind or underestimate the body.

And this doesn't "limit" the mind to the body when it is understood that the zenith of the success of the body is to materially evolve to Godhood. The body is therefore ultimately wiser than the mind.

But wisest of all is the combined force within the body activating the body (Tirips) to materially evolve to the ultimate success of Godhood, while working with natural selection and evolution in whatever outside environment the body is living in.

Denying reality in our schools and culture

As Boyd Cathey put it, we teach---really brainwash---"racial oppression by the white race of black and brown people, and sexual oppression by men of women. Thus, reading our history and literature to discover deeply embedded examples of “racism” and “white supremacy,” and of “male exploitation” and the “oppression of women,” has become the central characteristic of the college-classroom experience...Cultural Marxist ideologues inculcate the theories of “critical race theory” and the “feminization of history,” to students who have already, in most cases, endured years of poor education and early indoctrination in our public schools. They have been “softened up” for this process..." (Chronicles, Nov 2018.)

Then from a 2016 study there is the reality that along with this culturally Marxist indoctrination "Only 32 percent of white students scored at or above proficient in math, and just 7 percent of black students did. Forty-six percent of white test takers scored proficient in reading, and 17 percent of blacks did... 34 percent of whites who took the ACT were deemed college-ready in all four areas—English, mathematics, reading and science. For blacks, it was only 6 percent."

Here is the problem in interpreting those real statistics: human nature IS ethnocentric or racialist and has been since humans became humans. Group-selection was the only way for individuals to successfully survive, so altruism, or being for others, was naturally limited mainly to kin and ethnic group because they shared the same genes which strive for survival. Trying to rid human nature and culture of the deep-seated preference for kin and ethnic group, which is attempted by both Marxists and many conservatives, is like trying to rid human beings of being human. That is inhumane and cruel.

The reality is that human nature 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 successful selection, followed by individual selection. Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this human nature, with such experiments as Marxism, but culture is eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature, and humans then work within and adapt to the environments they find themselves living in.

So what does that suggest?  It is more humane to admit that the cultural Marxist ideologues have it right when they say that people have been and remain ethnocentric and racialist, but they have it very wrong when they try to create cruel totalitarian systems to rid the world of real human nature, which never works. The reality points toward the political/cultural solution of the ethnopluralism hypothesis, often written about here. It is a conservative transformation---not revolution---that is coming, eventually, which will bring about an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. This is the sociopolitical or political/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature, which developed many thousands of years ago. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism. It may require a few constitutional amendments to give more power to the states.

The biological origin of our social behavior actually ends the intellectual defense of postmodern relativism and the cultural Marxist ideologues. But it also takes some of the virtue-signaling away from conservatives.

Plot/determinism, character/free will, and the primary force of life

If we compare free will and genetic determinism to the way Aristotle thought of the subordination of character to plot in tragedies, the extreme free will/character folks tend to block the determinist/plot folks, and the determinist/plot folks tend to block the free will/character folks. We don't want to see plot destroy character or character destroy plot or we end up with a drama that doesn't congeal.

The challenge is to define which is primary and which is secondary when, as E. O. Wilson said, there is a co-evolution.

Since genetic determinism/plot is the final arbiter, which keeps human nature on a biological leash, I say determinism/plot is primary and free will/character is secondary. We cannot block either out no matter how intellectually clever we are.

Even so, I think Nietzsche chose a secondary force when he made the will to power the primary force of his later philosophy. Darwin was closer in making survival and reproduction his primary force.

I think the material activation within material life (Tirips) that seeks the zenith of success in survival and reproduction, which defines Godhood, is the deeper primary force activating those other forces that seek power and survival for the primary ultimate purpose of attaining Godhood, while working along with outside natural selection and evolution.

The pleasures of eating and sex are not end-goals but means to survival and reproductive success, and survival and reproductive success is not the end-goal but the means to the primary goal of evolving toward the zenith of those drives, which is Godhood.

This definition can exhume and transform religion as primary, while certainly including science. It gives a goal to Nietzsche's relativistic power drive, and creates values for value-free science.

A biologistic reading of culture

We can't legitimately say "I will," but we can say "the" will. In civilizing the beast it would have been more truthful to say that we can be better animals than to say that we are not animals, as much of religion and philosophy said for centuries. It takes strength to admit limitations.

We have free will but it is limited to choices within the determined path of life and evolution, like a loosened boulder rolling down a craggy mountain. The activation to live, survive, and reproduce can only be pseudo-denied with such things as ascetic discipline, because the will or activation (Tirips) is a vital part of being alive in every cell of the body, only death can really stop it---which explains part of the importance of reproduction.

Given the activation to live, survive, and reproduce which puts our will on a loose-fitting biological leash, we can legitimately try to harmonize with what we are, with the life force within us, and aid rather than hinder our material evolution toward the zenith of biological success, which is supermaterial Godhood.

That brings forward the biologistic reading of culture, which rises from the same biological source.

Power to the Populists and Ethnopluralists

It does seem true that various kinds of empires always rule, but they also always fall, and we appear to be seeing the potential fall of the current global empire, which Nicholas Farrell (Chronicles Nov 2018) defined as the global corporatist right (neoconservatives) united with the "humanitarian" globalist left (George Soros).

Leaders like President Donald Trump and Italy's Matteo Salvini are attempting to stand against the globalists on immigration, borders, free trade, and nationalism. It's a vitally important competition which will decide the fate of the United States and Europe. The globalist's firmly believe "nations are only an obstacle to profit" and have been trying to get rid of nations, borders, and ethnic groups.

Americans and Europeans have been rising against the European Union and the greedy centralized states controlled by the globalists. Populists in the U.S. and Europe seem finally willing to vote and protest against the globalist's who have been driving the Western world into the ground for personal profit and power, even colluding with China to ruin the West.

President Donald Trump has had the bold personalty (some call it narcissism) to stand up in the face of constant attacks by the Big Media and stabs in the back by his own party, although he now seems to be gradually sliding toward the neoconservatives who are like rats who won't be trapped. But I suppose we shouldn't count Trump out yet.

The next logical, instinctive, and natural stage is for populism to develop into an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. That is developing too.  So, things look good, though hazardous.

Is the universe orderly or disorderly?

Nietzsche thought that eternal chaos and disorder define the universe, as Eliot Jurist pointed out. That probably explains Nietzsche's will to power, which has no real goal other than relativistic Dionysian power. I don't see the universe that way.

I see life in the universe as always activated to evolve toward Godhood, defined as the zenith of success in the eternal drive for successful survival and reproduction. Was it Bergson who said the universe was designed for evolving Gods? That is not a universe of eternal chaos and disorder.

This may sound like an anthropomorphic bias in defining the universe, but until humans evolve much higher and get a fuller picture of the universe, we can define the universe as life always trying to evolve toward the zenith of success in survival and reproduction, which is Godhood. That is an evolutionary universe of order with occasional chaos.  If we can't realistically fight against the great dynamics of the universe we may as well try to harmonize with it---call it the tao of theological materialism.

Hyperboreans?

There exists an obscure history or prehistory of "Hyperboreans" which is now supposedly only talked about by "cranks," yet some of it seems real. It almost makes one believe that there are conspiracies against it.

In any case, following a real cataclysm brought on by various cycles of the last ice age, the Hyperboreans and their prehistorical perennial "pagan" religion were eventually passed down culturally and genetically in great migrations to all points south, later somehow developing into the Germanic, Latin, Celtic, Baltic, Vedic, Iranian, Sumerian, Egyptian, and even to South American civilizations, all of which have legends of the Hyperboreans. In the legend, "Atlantis" was one of the main stopping off points of the Hyperborean migration. 
 
Could it at least be hypothetically possible that Hyperboreans, living around the Arctic Circle on top of the world, were in contact with extraterrestrial cultures, as suggested by some? Could there have been interbreeding? I doubt that part of the legend; evolution could certainly have accounted for the Hyperboreans.

In any case, my crackpot prediction is that the great discovery of material evolution will eventually transform all religions, perennial, pagan, traditionalists, Hindu, Christian, and otherwise (but need not reject them ) in a great new "migration," by reconstructing a supermaterial, not spiritual, Godhood as evolved to in the material and supermaterial world, as described in the philosophy of "theological materialism."

Defining the real return to nature and culture

Rousseau's virtue-signaling led to a call for "the return to nature," but his noble, egalitarian, proto-communist savage did not return to real nature or real human nature which remains kin-centered, gender defined, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

But before religion and science become too smug about Rousseau's utopian virtue-signaling, religion makes the error of not affirming the deeper dynamics of material evolution and science makes the error or rejecting an inherent goal/direction in material evolution.

In addition to the standard natural selection and evolution of material life, which science says is entirely random and religion usually does not even acknowledge, exists the force within every cell of the body that activates or strives for the greatest possible success in survival and reproduction, which ultimately leads to and defines Godhood.

This sacred activation then also activates the evolution of life from the simple to the complex and from unconsciousness to consciousness, and eventually to super-consciousness, working with the standard natural selection and evolution of material life.

That is the leap---and not merely a leap of faith---which leads to a great synthesis of religion and science, and includes every other field. The material/supermaterial evolution to Godhood is the long-term perfecting of nature and human culture.

Politics, art, etc, can protect and affirm the variety of evolving groups, for example, by developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, and religiously and scientifically researching the evolution toward Godhood.

That defines the real return to nature and culture.

Why ethnostates always return

The word culture "is derived from the Latin "coloere" (meaning plowing) and "cultura" (agriculture) and derived from the Greek "boukolos" (herdsman), says philosopher Eliot Jurist.

I believe culture is not derived from the "overcoming" of nature as many have suggested on the left, which is where the definition goes into the boonies. The loony left then goes as far as to say that virtually all of human nature is created by culture with the biological or genetic origin of social behavior having little or nothing to do with it.

Why does the left ignore or tell lies about human nature and culture? It is their will to power which apparently seeks power at any cost or by any means.

Culture follows biology, but there is a sort of co-evolution, as some have called it, between nature and nurture which allowed greater flexibility of behavior during the difficult time when human's became humans.

But the left, which includes old and new Marxism, radical feminism, and postmodernism, over-invents itself and so their bogus culture is pulled back---sometimes radically yanked back---by the biological leash attached to social behavior, which naturally defines human nature as---you guessed it---kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other mainly conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

That is why ethnostates always return. It can't happen soon enough for me.

The price we pay for the long-sought-for realistic synthesis of the fields

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates to, and the more extended its range of applicability.” Einstein

I think sociobiology supersedes philosophy, but also every other field. Nietzsche thought psychology supplanted philosophy, but now sociobiology supplants psychology---the term "evolutionary psychology" seems redundant.

But I think religion can take back the king/queen position by way of the philosophy of theological materialism, which affirms and expands the biological origin of social behavior with the material evolution to supermaterial Godhood. This long-sought-for extensive synthesis requires seeing evolution moving inevitably in a pattern, which virtually every scientist (and religionist) rejects. Even though it has its random elements, the pattern of evolution has a discernible direction, in spite of instances of stagnation and retreat, toward higher and higher more effective living forms.

Scientist Francis Heylighen wrote that "it is assumed that evolution is largely unpredictable and contingent on a host of uncontrollable factors, which may steer its course in any of an infinite number of directions. However, it is noted that directions in which complexity increases are generally preferred...The net effect will tend to be that the new ecosystem, formed by environment together with the newly added system (parasite, cave fish, aquatic mammal, etc.) will become more complex than it was before the appearance of the simplified system... ("The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution”)

The goal of evolving to Godhood need not deprive us of either science or religion. Defining the inward material activation of life (Tirips) as evolving toward higher and higher forms and eventually to Godhood, while always being shaped by natural outside evolution, seems to be a bit further than most people want to go, but I go there. Affirming this drive and direction is the price we pay for a long sought-for realistic synthesis of the fields.

How the future can be good (from September, 2014)

It's not absurd to compare the Ancient Greek culture of always striving to compete in all things to the competitive free enterprise system. Constant contests of all kinds helped to make the Greeks great. America needs to revive the freedom of competition, not only in business but in all of our culture.

And the high value of merit needs to be revived, which means that crony capitalism and monopolies need to be broken up so that real competition can resume.

The West had a head start in this, the idea of the separation of powers and small states was the original idea of America, with cooperative competition between states, protected internally and externally by a light federalism---perhaps more Jeffersonian than Hamiltonian, but keeping some form of economic nationalism to protect us. Ethnopluralistic states, the virtual ethnostate idea, which is often mentioned here, can help to even better bond the states. Given our increasing unassimilating diversity, better things can come with the variety and competition of small distinct states, especially when the more sacred mission of the upward evolution of man, all men, is valued.

The prospect for regionalism and small states looks good. Regional government is now seen by rational people as better able to take care of the environment, climate change, and just about every thing else. Communities can and will become increasingly self-sufficient, with such things as permaculture, where people can grow their own food, and with smart homes that convert waste to gas, etc. The need to commute from suburbs etc. can fade as wireless is everywhere, with such things as video conferencing.

We do not need to become cyborgs or robots, and we don't need to embrace transhuman neurochips as the answer to all our problems, these things can aid in our evolution without us becoming computers. We need to insist on natural evolution, authenticity will become important, the question will be, is it real or is it artificial? But genetic engineering may eventually be useful. The boundaries between man and man-made need to be maintained.

The present contains the seeds of the future as the cliche goes but the choice of our future scenarios depends on our purposes. The central purpose here is to continue to evolve toward Godhood, and local, national and global choices relate to that purpose. Nature is the driver, with man working within nature, but nature and human nature need to be defined realistically. Human nature remains deeply kin-centered and group-centered, and this needs to be affirmed in our future cultures.

A denial of reality defines the left

The left believes that human nature is naturally equal and universally altruistic and they believe it is only conservatives, white men, and the military who are evil.

That error in defining human nature is obvious to those who are not indoctrinated in the would view of the left. Human nature remains as it has always been: 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.

Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against real human nature, with such experiments as Marxism and radical feminism, but culture is eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature, and humans can then work within and adapt to the environments they find themselves living in.

So it is a denial of reality that defines the left. Lies rule, even if many on the left don't know their worldview is based on lies. And the entire Big Media promotes the lies 24/7, and so does the public school system in America, the left has narrow-mindedly marched through all our institutions.

I don't want to go back to the age of aristocrats and kings (where most of our as high culture was developed) but I do want to go back to affirming real human nature, where the natural social structures that rise from the biological origin of social behavior can exist. I want to build on what the Founders of America developed and adapt the decentralizing constitutional separation of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real human nature and human traditions. That is how we will best secure a healthy future for America and human life on earth.

Can we come to terms with ethnocentrism?

The divide I see, which of course is rarely talked about because it's politically incorrect, is between groups who are ethnocentric for their own group but don't allow the same ethnocentrism for other groups, and those who are ethnocentric for their own group but allow the same ethnocentrism for other groups. The last mentioned ethnopluralistic group is far smaller in number than the ethno-supremacist group.

Much of this is unconscious in people because they have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the evils of being ethnocentric, even though ethnocentrism is as deeply rooted genetically in human nature as being kin-centered---it was central to our successful survival and so it was carried on genetically in human nature. It seems to me that people have different abilities to be objective about ethnocentrism, which itself may be due to genetic traits.

So there we have the underground or subterranean dynamic of the biological origin of much of our social behavior, which needs to be spoken about, because if we don't come to terms with our inherent ethnocentrism we will have constant civil disturbances and even civil war.

That is why I promote an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which can be adapted from the constitutional decentralizing separation of powers and states. We tend to go that way anyway as empires break down, most recently seen in the Soviet Union in 1991 which returned to its earlier ethnostates, although they now seem to want their empire back.

Tantra misunderstandings

Combining erotic and ascetic techniques in some branches of the tantra of Hinduism and Buddhism should not surprise us in the West, that is what all the spiritual religions do, one way or another, in their misunderstanding of what god or godhood is.

Sex and reproduction is used and abused at the upper levels of religious practitioners in all the revealed religions, where sex and reproduction are usually blocked and used as a "spiritual" force in order to attain the blissful bodily experience of "God," which is misunderstood as being non-material.

Stealing the force of sex in these practices only leads to a secondary material experience of bliss because sex is itself a secondary reaction to the sacred activation within life (Tirips) to materially evolve toward Godhood within the outside world of natural selection, where sex and reproduction are employed as the real method to evolve toward real Godhood, a goal well beyond the immediate bliss of individual reproduction or sex.

Future species can attain material/supermaterial Godhood and that requires natural sex and reproduction directed toward evolving to Godhood, which now can include eugenics. The material world of evolution is is not evil, it is the only means to attain Godhood....Theological spiritualism can be adapted to theological materialism (not destroyed) in the Twofold Path.

Regarding Kevin Hart: do the politically correct gatekeepers prefer homosexuals to blacks?

Does forcing Kevin Hart to drop out of hosting the Oscars for past jokes about homosexuals mean that the politically correct gatekeepers prefer homosexuals to blacks? If they aren't careful the gatekeepers are going to lose the blacks, who they formerly used as cannon fodder disguising their own nefarious ends. There are hints of this happening already as more blacks, feeling used by the politically correct liberals, are supporting President Trump.

Decentralization as the best solution, including all categories

How are we going to dislodge political correctness (cultural Marxism) when Hollywood, television, the Media, and the schools, have incessantly promoted it, censoring anyone who does not agree with it? Decentralizing these behemoths would be a start, but that is barely even hinted at. They have complete control and dominance over us, and they did not do it honorable in open conflict, they did it stealthily and nefariously.

President Trump has been going against the lying media, almost alone, but the media has gotten worse, no-longer even lying about being evenhanded. Will the entire West have to collapse before healthy change can happen? People are leaving the big cities which have become cesspools of violence and crime. Animosity between the races is increasing faster than ever.

I see decentralization as the best solution, including all categories, decentralization from Hollywood, television, the Media, and the schools, and decentralization of the government itself. That is, decentralization and separation into ethnostates in line with kin and ethnic-centered human nature---the Soviet Union did in 1991. The decentralization and separation needs to be done legally and non-violently or it will be stopped before it begins....Who can predict how and when it will happen, but human nature says it will happen.  All humans groups will then have a chance for a future.

As unique and vital as reason is there is a deeper activation to truth and beauty

Reason is of course good, but it can be as "biased" as the abilities or limitations of Homo sapiens; objective thinking is circumscribed by the same abilities or limitations. So attaining truth depends on the abilities or limitations of Homo sapiens. Scientific instruments, like electronic microscopes or artificial intelligence, can extend human abilities and knowledge, but humans (and future species) will need to materially evolve higher to attain the highest reason and truth.

Human reason alone doesn't represent the transition from the individual to the "universal," as Hegel liked to say. As unique and vital as reason is, the deeper activation to truth and beauty is the constant will or activation (Tirips) to successfully evolve in every life-cell of the body to the highest survival and reproductive success, which is Godhood, where the highest degrees of reasoning and truth can be reached.

But it is not an evolution from the material to the spiritual, it is a material and supermaterial evolution, naturally or materially accomplished (and now perhaps aided by genetic engineering.) So spiritualism can adapt to theological materialism if we are to reach real Godhood.

How very rare real Godhood is, or will be

We have had at least five mass extinctions on earth where we lost almost all life on earth (eg. 85-90 percent), and many smaller extinctions, perhaps usually having to do with great climate change or disasters.  It would seem that given this pattern there will be more extinctions to come. Add to that the possibility of life destroying itself with war, greed, or  whatever.  As some have suggested, if we assume life on other planets would have gone through similar extinctions and destructions, that could help explain why we seem to have not been contacted, at least openly, by extraterrestrial intelligent life. Few if any species would have evolved far enough to escape from their own planetary extinctions or would have had time to evolve space travel.

So we see how difficult it will be to advance the deepest promise of life evolving to Godhood, and how very rare real Godhood is, or will be. But life will always try for it as the zenith of the success of life, because that activation defines what life is in its essence.

The glut of low quality films and movie series to fit the huge demand

The glut of entertainment production companies like Netflix and Prime, and the glut of cable stations like HBO and Showtime, along with the rest of cable stations and the streaming services, and of course the movies at the Malls, have been demanding and producing a glut of low quality films and movie series to fit the huge demand.

It must be that a person with no talent but a desire to cash in on the great need for new material has an uncle in Hollywood who lets them make a movie or TV series. The nephew probably can't recognize how untalented he is and the uncle could care less as he makes the rounds with a Shiksa or would-be actress on his arm looking for more low quality scripts to produce.

How lousy our popular culture has become. And our so-called high culture is a ruined postmodern fraud. I don't really ask for much, I don't demand greatness every evening, just a little escape, so I try many of these films and movie series but I last about ten minutes before I have to get away because the acting, directing, and writing is so groaningly-bad.

So I type things like this instead.

The mediation between individualism and socialization

Philosophers and psychologists have continual disputes about the mediation between individualism and socialization but few see the science and art of sociobiology as the key to the mediation. Instead they get lost in fastidious displays of learning.  Most of science has distanced us from the self within the folds of cold objectivism, and religion has distanced us from reality with a fantasy-non-materialism as the goal of life. 

The science and art of sociobiology mediates between individualism and socialization realistically.  As E. O. Wilson put it "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals....Hereditary altruists form groups so cooperative and well-organized as to out-compete non-altruists groups.” That concisely explains the mediation between individualism and socialization. Group-selection is the primary unit of successful selection, followed or tracked by individual selection.

But we don't need to lose either religion or science. Sociobiology suggests that real kin and ethnic-centered human nature leads naturally to the social expression of regionalism, localism, and politically leads toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, if we have the courage to admit it. Given who we are this appears to be the best way we all can optimize the gene expression we inherited from our human ancestors. 

Then to ground this worldview as deeply as possible we need a religious philosophy to express the material evolution of life to supermaterial Godhood, which is seen in the philosophy of theological materialism.

We were warned

Perhaps optimism about the future is inherent in humans because being pessimistic dampens energy needed to survive in a difficult world. Then too there are always those who think they benefit culturally and genetically by blocking or slandering warnings about coming social disorder.

We have been warned for years by people who were deemed undesirable outsiders that as the people change the culture changes, and that is happening in America and in Europe. Europeans and Americans are becoming a minority in their own lands as a result of open immigration and also due to the march through the cultural institutions by minorities, who are soon to be majorities.

It's an unheeded rule of human nature that cultures change, no matter what the environment, according to the genetic traits of those who create or dominate the culture. And that bumps up against what seems like another rule that people don't heed the warnings until social disaster actually happens which causes them to change, due to both that optimism mentioned above and due to the slandering by the Big Media, etc. against those who warn us of the coming social disorder.

So why warn if the warnings aren't heeded? Why not wait until the reaction inevitably takes place? I suppose warnings help us be more prepared for how we might deal with the future. For example, distinctly different ethnic groups create distinctly different cultures wherever they settle, even in multicultural societies, which usually break up into ethnic enclaves. So we can prepare for that by advocating and planning for an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, for everyone. That can bring as much social harmony as is possible for human beings, if the ethnostates are protected from marauding imperialists and globalists.

What to do about racial discrimination

The great difficulty of figuring out what to do about racial discrimination is that it does take place but it does so as a result of human nature actually being kin and ethnic-centered, and becoming so genetically because ethnocentrism was the most successful way for individuals within groups to survive and reproduce successfully in a very difficult and competitive world. That same human nature is still solidly with us in our gene pools today, and so we have racial discrimination, although it has become politically incorrect to mention it.

Ironically ethnocentrism was at the origin of the altruism (being for others) promoted in religion and social philosophies, but that altruism was hypertrophied into a universalism that is not in harmony with its genetic kin and ethnic-centered origin, therefore the attempts to stop all racial discrimination have not been successful.

It was the outcast historian Wilmot Robertson who made the succinct suggestion that it was time to try to turn the socially destructive forces of racial discrimination into socially constructive forces, by forming ourselves into ethnostates.  That is the realistic way to look at it: as solving the socially destructive problem of racial discrimination, given that human nature remains kin and ethnic-centered.

Look to who benefits most from promoting an unworkable universalism which jam-packs distinctly different people together in the same space and demands universal equality from them, which does not take place and ends up causing social disruptions, while blocking a natural ethnopluralism of ethnostates from forming.

For the sake of social harmony, let's have some courage and finally admit this reality.

The term "great politics" has scared our thinkers since World War Two

The term "great politics" has scared our thinkers since World War Two, although they do face the damaging wrath of the guardians of political correctness if they stray from the global party line. A great politics is not only desirable it is rational, humane, and moral; but is opposite the centralization of the fascists, communists, trendy leftists, and global corporations.

We can have great politics when we decentralize into an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature, and then guard and protect the ethnostates from marauding imperial centralists---in the U. S. the constitutional separation of powers and states could adjust to it.

It is affirming the biological origin of most of our social behavior that will lead to great politics. It means going against the elite globalists who are the ones who benefit most from promoting no borders and multiculturalism, which really doesn't work because it has little or no resemblance to what human beings are or how they actually behave; but of course the globalist's could care less as long as they get theirs, or ours.

The difficulty is, great politics probably requires great leaders, and they are rare.

The George H. W. Bush creed of moral leadership

I chose the politics of Pat Buchanan over George H. W. Bush's politics, but the thing I liked about Bush was his personal conviction that real leadership is moral leadership. That applies to the leader of a Marine Corps platoon to the president. President Trump, who affirms most of Buchanan's political philosophy, could use the George H. W. Bush creed of moral leadership...But maybe it's inherent, or instilled early in life.