Developing a healthier world compatible with what we actually are as human beings

I don't know exactly where I would create the dividing line between what I call the Age of Warriors and the Age of Nurturing in the West, because the "warrior" remains biologically and genetically the central feature of men, and "nurturing " remains the central feature of women, no matter how much communism, feminism and postmodernism deny this biologically-derived definition of gender differences. Of course men can be nurturing and women can be warriors but that is not the specialty of the genders.

If we begin the Age of Warriors in hunter/gatherer times when deep human nature was evolved, say, a million years ago, give or take, and follow it up to, say, the fall of the Roman Empire around 476, or the end of the Viking age in 1066 AD, that could be called the long orthodox or formal Age of Warriors in the West occupying at least 90 percent of human history. But as I said, since the warrior and the nurturer remain biologically and genetically the central feature of men and women even today, the Age of Warriors never really ended, it was just buried or sublimated by modern culture, especially in the West---with the exception of the voluntary military men who defend the West, in spite of women being inserted into the military.

So does this mean we should go back to an age of tooth and claw and demand ancient wide differences between men and women, or declare one supreme noble or chosen people over all others? In our increasingly crowded world it would bring survival and reproductive disaster to a people who declared such intentions as the rest of the world would gang up on them and destroy them.

What we do need to do is affirm real human nature and the biological origin of our social behavior. The science of sociobiology recently affirmed biologically-derived human nature as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

This suggests that we should reject (I wanted to say shitcan) the communists/socialists/liberals, feminists, and postmodernists for being against real human nature and therefore harmful to life itself. Then we can get on with developing a healthier world compatible with what we actually are as human beings, for example, developing the ethnopluralism of ethnostates often written about in this blog, which is about as equitable as human beings can be given human nature.