What the Southern Agrarians overlooked

The free enterprise system is one of the greatest social inventions, with private business operating in competition and largely free of state control. It led to the highest standard of living in human history and the development of amazing technology, but it could not stop itself from hypertrophying into the rapacious border-less capitalism we have today.

The Southern Agrarians in the 1920's and 1930's tried to prevent this from happening, warning of the social alienation and dehumanization of industrialism and urbanism and advocating localism and individualism, but they could not prevent rapacious border-less capitalism from taking over America.

Industrialism during World War Two gave the fatal boost to rapacious border-less capitalism. It has been argued by a few brave people, like Pat Buchanan, that World War II could have been avoided if the Treaty of Versailles had not been so harsh towards Germany. Buchanan believes that if Churchill had accepted Hitler's peace offer of 1940, the severity of the Holocaust would have been greatly reduced.

The Southern Agrarians missed the social alienation and dehumanization caused in the post-war period by the declaration that natural ethnocentrism is evil, which has been at least as alienating and dehumanizing as the growth of rapacious border-less capitalism. Human nature, as empirically explained by sociobiology, remains kin-centered, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. The Southern Agrarians missed the idea that an ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism.

The development of ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates remains a taboo subject, but it nevertheless needs to be understood and spoken about if we are ever to recover from the social alienation and dehumanization of industrialism and urbanism. Permanent revenge and resentment from WWII is not the behavior of noble people.

Dreams of assimilation don't take into account the biological origin of social behavior

Both Kirkian conservatives and modern liberals made the tragic political mistake in assuming, hoping really, that assimilation would take place between the distinctly different ethnic groups who were allowed to immigrate into America, based on the idea that culture, the British culture, is the main feature of the nation, and the faulty idea that the ethnicity of America is secondary. Later liberals developed the idea of having one multicultural multi-ethnic society where all would supposedly get along well together without all assimilating into one British culture and without all speaking English, as the Kirkian's insisted we do.

The problem with both political approaches is they don't take into account the biological origin of social behavior or that ethnic groups are made up of distinctive genes and genetic pools which develop distinctive cultures to advance those distinctive ethnic genetic pools. In reality it is a zero sum game where the gain of one ethnic group is offset by the loss of another ethnic group; they do not assimilate unless they are close ethnic cousins, even if there is some assimilation from interbreeding around the edges.

Blacks have been in America for several hundred years (forced here in slavery) and billions of dollars continue to be spent helping them assimilate without much success, although some of the lack of success comes from natural resentment at being enslaved. The advent of multicultural multi-ethnic societies only increased and affirmed non-assimilation. Millions of Hispanics too have naturally insisted on keeping their language and culture because ethnic groups are made up of distinctive genes and genetic pools which develop distinctive cultures to advance those distinctive ethnic genetic pools.

The last hope for those who want the whole world to assimilate into one group is to declare that interbreeding will make the whole world coffee-colored where we all get along. But that is not how the world works. Ethnic groups develop distinctive cultures to advance distinctive genetic pools in what becomes mainly a zero sum game of competition and survival.

Better to realize at last that the best way to deal with our deep-seated differences and our  ignorant immigration policies is to affirm a reinvigoration of the Constitutional separation of powers and states, this time in harmony with the growing variety of ethnic groups in America with different genetic pools and different agendas who could develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real human nature... But these vital changes need to be done legally, constitutional, and not by radical revolutionary means which almost never work and cause great biological and cultural harm.

Hollywood lies to the common man and the academic world lies to the educated

Hollywood lies to the common man and the academic world lies to the educated, and we therefore have a culture of lies because Hollywood and the academic world virtually control popular culture.

One example: Movies and television now almost always portray whites as criminals and blacks and other minorities as heroes, which is a lie about real crime statistics. Of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites in 2013, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.

These lies demoralize young whites, anger older whites, and embolden hatred of whites by blacks and minorities, which is what they are designed to do because the lies are the will to power of Hollywood and the academic world who have ridden to power on the backs of blacks and minorities.

The lies in the academic world are the lies of cultural Marxism which include the destruction of family, male against female, class against class, and concentration of power in a culturally Marxist big government. And of course the lies bring more power to Hollywood and the academic world.

The error of the French New Right regarding how to think about Christianity

French New Right philosopher Alain de Benoist made an error regarding how to think about Christianity by undervaluing the conservative predisposition in human nature. I made the same error for a time. It would have been better to take the lead of St. Thomas Aquinas: when Aquinas became aware of the superiority of the pagan Greek philosophers he conservatively and brilliantly synthesized Greek philosophers into Christianity rather than becoming a Greek pagan.

Human nature is fundamentally conservative which can best be explained by the science of sociobiology. Human nature remains basically 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. Even the smallest change in human nature and our DNA structure, for example, in our immune system, took hundreds of thousands of years---although genetic engineering may speed that up.

The revitalized conservatism I write about is, at its deepest point, based in an evolutionary interpretation of Christianity and traditional religions, which sees life evolving in the material and supermaterial world to ever ascending levels of real Godhood. Evolution is brought to Christianity based on the philosophy of theological materialism, which means materialism is unblocked and made sacred, since material evolution leads to Godhood. The God first seen or experienced inwardly as the God or Father Within of traditional religions is a symbolic mirror of the real Godhood which is attained through material evolution. And that Father Within of traditional religions is conservatively retained in the Twofold Path, the Involutionary Inward and Evolutionary Outward Paths, which brings together the old and the new understanding of Godhood. This can help prevent radical religious change in the West, and the negative biological and social consequences which usually happen with radical change.

Without this revitalization of religion the decline of the West will continue, which began way back in the European Renaissance, and may eventually destroy the cultures, societies, and people whom the religion's bonded and defended---although I suppose there could be a few coercive, science-hating, fundamentalist revivals.

Modern science can join religion. Theological materialism can help unblock the Great Spiritual Blockade against evolving to Godhood and provide the West with a solid foundation based in Pagan/Christian instincts, objective truth, and intellectual intuition.

By turning to the Traditionalism of Guenon and Evola, as many in the New Right have done, it just buries them deeper in the Inward Path which includes pagan versions of an anti-material spiritualism, the same spiritualism that has been destroying evolution and blocking the Outward Path of material evolution to real supermaterial Godhood.

From this foundation we can defend America, the West, and the people of the West, including the French.

Balancing the natural tensions between group-selection and individual-selection

The principle of "duty before love" seems to have been more a royal, aristocratic, or leadership principle. I've thought about it from the perspective of group-selection and individual-selection.

Sociobiologist E.O. Wilson has found that there is a co-evolution between group-selection and individual-selection with group-selection paramount in successful human survival and reproduction. It's the balancing between these two that causes the natural tension: “Individual versus group selection results in a mix of altruism and selfishness, of virtue and sin, among the members of a society.” And so, morals and virtues developed.

This behavior seems to have evolved classes and hierarchies, which Georges Dumezil described as tripartite or trifunctional: priests, warriors, and commoners (farmers, tradesmen) corresponding to the three functions of the sacral, martial, and economic---at least among Indo-European's, who developed Western civilization.

From this perspective the king, priest and warrior, or leadership, would tend to put duty before love and favor group-selection, the producer's would favor individual selection but lean toward group-selection, and the commoner's would tend toward individual-selection.

That whole hierarchical class structure allowed for both duty and love. I suppose the royals got around it by living and marrying for duty but then taking on lovers. Effective warriors would need to be more strict about telling the truth. And commoners would get on with having babies. In ethnically homogeneous societies the natural tensions between group-selection and individual-selection would that way balance out.

This may be why totalitarian leaders who try to be all things don't last long, and why communist systems trying to do away with class structures don't work---it takes a whole ethnically homogeneous class structure (although not necessarily monarchies) for successful survival and reproduction over the long term.

Political problems are at root biological problems relating to the biological origin of our social behavior

Political problems are not at root economic problems (Capitalism, Marxism) and are not at root cultural problems (customs, arts, social institutions), political problems are at root biological problems relating to the biological origin of our social behavior. Real tradition, real conservatism, knows this to be true, although it has become politically incorrect to say it, and that taboo, ironically, is itself the result of biological competition, consciously or unconsciously.

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

Even in advanced modern societies where survival is easier, the dangers of Marxism (demanding equality for the unequal), radical feminism (demanding biologically unnatural roles for women), homosexuality (demanding unnatural sexual life styles) and postmodern relativism (demanding an unnatural relativity of values) is behavior that goes against real human nature, which remains basically kin-centered, gender defined, heterosexual, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other traditional things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Given who we are and given what human nature really is, there should by now be politicians advocating ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with the growing variety of ethnic groups in America with different genetic pools and different competing agendas. We could, with the Constitutional separation of powers and states, develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, and we could with a light federalism protect the ethnostates from marauding imperialism and supremacism which always rear their ugly head.

Where are the politicians and intellectuals who should be trying to deal with political problems that are at root biological problems relating to the biological origin of our social behavior? They are not to be seen on Fox News. And the conservative intellectual journals won't affirm the biological origin of our social behavior either; perhaps they are afraid it will upend the idea that political problems are at root religious problems. Or it could simply be the desire not to be crucified professionally and personally by the corrupt Big Media etc., which I suppose almost justifies accepting the taboo. At least the "Alt right" will bravely discuss the subject---when they aren't singing the praises of Aleksandr Dugin and Russia.

Joe Biden's video today announcing his run for president in 2020 indicates what the emphasis will be on both sides of the contest

Biden will declare that President Trump is a racist and Trump will try to prove that he is not a racist, and so the corrupt Big Media will get what it wants, all the candidates falling all over themselves to appeal to minority and liberal votes. Nothing will be said on either side about the racism of minorities, which is every bit as strong as white racism, if not stronger.

Both sides will play dirty using demagoguery, appealing to the desires and prejudices of minorities, which only causes more race hatred, although Trump will appeal more to forgotten whites. No one will have the courage to tell the truth about race hatred: in 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. ("The Color of Crime")

So it looks like nothing much will change, Western culture will continue to decline mainly at the hands of "leaders" who make false claims and promises in order to gain power. But real human nature remains genetically kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, territorial, and even xenophobic, among other mostly conservative things. This being the reality, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates seems like the most humane political structure for all races, but it remains politically incorrect to say so.

A sort of dubious optimism regarding the destruction of America

I often write the line, as the people change the culture changes, and the people who have been most responsible for changing the dominant white American culture we inherited from our founders (who inherited it from white cultures of Athens, Jerusalem, and London) have been militant blacks, radical Jewish academics, "civil rights" advocates, brainwashed media-be-goggled students, the Big Media, Hollywood, border-less capitalists, corrupt politicians bought by special interest lobbyists, and suicidal white limousine liberals so ignorant that they don't even know they are suicidal. These are the people who have pulled down traditional white American culture---they are even demanding that science departments need to be purged because they are too "Eurocentric!."

I suppose this is more or less how all nations fall. I keep thinking it must be overdo time for people to realize that sociology and politics in reality are reduced to biology. Sociobiologist Edward Wilson suggested that we need to biologicize culture and ethics which will challenge other subjects in psychology and philosophy, including political philosophy. But virtually nothing is happening, the subject is blocked by the people mentioned above.

The reality is that cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against human nature---which is fundamentally kin and ethnic-centered---with such experiments as cultural Marxism, the favorite of all our schools, but all cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature (such as ethnostates or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates) and humans then work within and adapt to the environments they find themselves living in. For me that at least offers a sort of dubious optimism regarding the destruction of America.

How the United States could last another several hundred years, at least (reblog from 2015)

Sometimes it's disheartening to realize that even as “Affirmative Action” is slowly being understood to really be reverse discrimination---for example, giving 20 points to underrepresented minorities for admission to various universities, or one fifth of those points needed, regardless of their test scores---we do still nevertheless have the concept of “discrimination” even in the face of many years of evolutionary science, from Darwin to Edward Wilson's sociobiology, showing that human nature is kin-centered, and is ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection.
 

Rather than trying to force assimilation, which rational people can see is not working in the United States (and elsewhere), we should by now be gradually protecting unique ethnic cultures living within their own geographical localities and states. This would seem to mean a gradual acceptance of Black states in the South, Hispanic states in the West, White states in the Midwest, and even mixed states in the East, or some version of these, if any kind of peace and order will take place.
 

But with cultural Marxism now largely---and uncomfortably---in place in the United States, a natural geographical ethnopluralism does seem difficult to bring about. But if we could put this natural political behavior in place, over time, legally, in the United States---which already has a separation of powers and states on paper---we could perhaps last another several hundred years, at least. Perhaps it will happen anyway, given human nature, one way or another. It's what always happens when empires fall.

Fear and resentment led to hatred of the instincts and the material world

Running through traditional religion is the fearful warning that the instincts are evil and we must tame the instincts. Great religious philosophers later tried to put a positive spin on this, but the tone leaned toward calling the instincts as well as the material world "evil" and the spiritual world good. The wilderness too was disorderly and barbarian and needed the order of tamed civilized cities. Survival was far more difficult in the past, the wilderness was far more sinister, and barbarians far more deadly, as we see in fairy tales (although to be nonpartisan nuclear bombs can be rather deadly too).

That extreme fear and resentment led to hatred of the instincts and the material world and eventually led to the complete rejection of the instincts and the material world, which was the path of asceticism in traditional religions, resulting in the apotheosis of the non-material "spiritual" world. Material desires were blocked by ascetics in monasteries and on mountain tops, and that blocking of material desires brought on the peak physical experience of bliss described as seeing the spiritual God within. To the losers was said such things as: "If you cannot restrain your desires, go ahead and marry--it is better to marry than to burn with passion." 1 Corinthians 7:9.

Nietzsche saw this fear and resentment within religions and rebelliously took things in the opposite direction by affirming the instincts, the advancing barbarian, and even disorder and chaos, with virtually no checks or taming of the instincts. While I can agree with the idea that the instincts are not evil, Nietzsche went too far in the opposite direction.

The apotheosis, the highest point in the development of the instincts, the culmination or climax of the instincts is the material evolution to supermaterial Godhood. But that requires the taming or shaping of evolution, it requires aiding, not blocking, the instincts in their drive to evolve toward real Godhood. Materially evolving to ever-ascending levels of Godhood is the highest point in the evolution of the instincts and the genes, and that Godhood is good, and those instincts leading to Godhood are good, not evil.

The biological or genetic origin of social behavior needs to be declared

"If a culture succeeds it may grow into a civilization." Russell Kirk

The Big Media, Hollywood, the public schools, and corrupt politicians will allow us to talk of high or low culture in terms of improvement of the mind, or the living standard of the people, but they will not allow us to define culture as the bonding together of people who share the same gene pool and ethnicity, they will not allow any talk of the biological or genetic origin of our social behavior.

When World War Two ended 75 years ago it also ended all discussion of the biological origin of social behavior, due mainly to the racial supremacism of the losing side. But the Big Media, Hollywood, the public schools, and corrupt politicians threw the biological baby out with the supremacist bath water. They say not that it is too early to talk about it but that the biological or genetic origin of social behavior should never again be mentioned!

Human nature has been affirmed throughout human history to this day as being basically 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 and fascism but cultures are 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.

In our crowded world real kin and ethnic-centered human nature negates supremacism, imperialism, and globalism as unworkable over the long term, but human nature does not negate decentralization toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with the growing variety of ethnic groups with different genetic pools and different agendas. With the Constitutional separation of powers and states we can develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates and regions, protected from marauding imperialists by a light federalism.

Contrary to the Big Media, Hollywood, the public schools, and corrupt politicians who demand that we never again mention the biological or genetic origin of social behavior, it needs to be declared and grow into a renewal of civilization.

The establishment and the elite smugly believe they can handle multicultural multi-ethnic societies

The establishment and the elite smugly believe that they can handle the differences between different ethnic groups by (counter-intuitively) promoting multicultural multi-ethnic societies, with the help of the Big Media, Hollywood, and the public schools, even as they also (incongruously) promote the integration of ethnic groups into one happy coffee-colored world.

The reality of multicultural multi-ethnic societies is that they are a zero sum game where the gain of one ethnic group is offset by the loss of another ethnic group, as we see from the fact that whites are now dying faster than being born while other races are breeding faster than dying.

Why is it a zero sum game? It is the reality because human nature is deeply, genetically, kin-centered and ethnocentric, among other traditional traits, because it has been the best way for us and our genes to survive and reproduce successfully since humans became humans. Culture's grew up around this biological origin of our social behavior.

What do multicultural multi-ethnic societies mean for our future? Social disruptions, sometimes violent, leading to fascism on the right or the left to keep order? Ethnic secessions? The most logical, instinctive, and natural solution, given real human nature, will be to conservatively retain the U. S. Constitutional separation of powers and states but expand the decentralization into allowing the forming of ethnostates, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected from marauding supremacists and imperialists by a light federalism.

Will we choose the most logical, instinctive, and natural solution of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates? Human nature says we will, one way or another, peacefully or unpeacefully...I think it should best be done legally and conservatively.

If we can't name the enemy we are lost

To say it as simply as it can be said, although "politically incorrect," Western civilization and Western culture are falling because the white Western people who built Western civilization are being attacked and are falling.

The relation of the biological type to the cultural type is completely true but rarely mentioned. As the people or ethnic groups change the culture changes. As Western people are biologically attacked Western culture is attacked. The flat fact is, white Western people are now dying faster than being born. Why?

As simply as it can be said, the Big Media, Hollywood, and all the public schools have been incessantly speaking against white Western people and Western civilization and promoting the displacement of white Western people with other ethnic groups who naturally have other agendas and create other cultures which naturally relate their own biological type to the cultural type.

Is it a "conspiracy" against white Western people and Western civilization? Conspiracies are more like several powerful independent groups going in the same direction, but going in the same direction only as long as it serves each individual group. In that sense of the word conspiracy, the biggest conspirators have been the Big Media, Hollywood, and virtually all of our schools who have been brainwashing the public and white Western people themselves to be against white Western people and Western civilization.

Add to this the fact that both political parties more or less support reverse racism, the criminalization of "hate speech," political correctness (cultural Marxism), radical feminism, sexuality as "fluid," gay marriage, abortion on demand, big government, and a predatory version of capitalism, all of which are basically against white Western civilization and Western culture.

Soon it may be against the law everywhere in the West to name the names of those who are destroying us. If we can name the people who run or control these groups, no matter who they are or what ethnic group they belong to, we will know who is responsible for the fall of white Western people and Western civilization. If we can't name the enemy we are lost.

Biology determines reality

Biology determines reality, feelings and reason follow after biology, but the environment works in a co-evolution with biology. Nature and nurture define reality. This means that determining reality is not a subjective thing, it is a product of biology and culture.

That is basically what the evolutionary science of sociobiology tells us, and it is the best view of reality yet in human history, and consciously or unconsciously it determines our civilization.

In addition I believe biology at its deepest is affected by the inward material activation of life to evolve in the material world toward ever ascending levels of supermaterial Godhood, defined as the zenith of survival and reproductive success.  This is the deepest foundation for the present and future renewal of religion and culture.

This worldview can join religion and science but both need to see and affirm that this optimistic pattern and determined goal in evolution exists. We have choices within determined paths of evolution, like a boulder rolling down a mountain, humans then work within and adapt to the environments they find themselves living in.

Where will the renewal come from?

Conservatives blame the social and personal disintegration of America and the West on the "post-Christian world," or the loss of religion. But will renewal come by restoring traditional religion, assuming that can be done ?

I'm not against capitalism, consumerism, or technology, but it has not brought us renewal or the restoration of order, it has brought us mostly crap. And abstract science without religion can't socially bond much of anything.

Religion can rise again to create order and renewal but religions alone don't create order; without homogeneous ethnic groups with similar gene pools there is social and cultural disorder, as we see in our present multicultural, multi-ethnic societies.

Cultures and religions spring from the activation's of life toward survival and reproductive success, all the way to materially evolving to real Godhood, at the zenith of success. That is where the renewal will come from.

Bond kin and ethnic groups in ethnostates and link them with evolutionary religion and then we will redeem the time.

The popularization of legalizing marijuana is only part of the larger movement to promote hedonism and the degeneracy of all standards in the West

It is easy to see how the charge of "conspiracy" develops when you look at such things as the growing popularity of legalizing marijuana in the face of empirical knowledge concerning marijuana, mental illness, and violence. People diagnosed with cannabis use disorder accounted for eleven percent of all cases of psychosis, or a break from reality, in emergency rooms in 2014, and people who use cannabis have a 50 percent chance of becoming violently paranoid, which is four times higher than those with psychosis who didn't use marijuana. And marijuana use continues to increase in America. (see "Marijuana, mental illness, and violence," by Alex Berenson, Imprimis)

The popularization of legalizing marijuana is only part of the larger movement to promote hedonism and the degeneracy of all standards in the West, which went into overdrive in the 1960's. But the conspiracy is more like several powerful independent groups conspiring together, or going in the same direction, but going in the same direction only as long as it serves the individual group.

The biggest conspirators have been the Big Media, Hollywood, and virtually all of our schools, who have been conspiring together, or at least going in the same direction, promoting hedonism and the degeneracy of all standards in the West. Why?

I assume that private power has had control over political institutions more or less for some time. Private fortunes have outstripped public governments, and private corporations provide money to politicians who then represent them.  Acts of immoral deception can be buried in such motto's as "by any means necessary" or "by way of deception." Naive Christian's think, "by golly, those motto's do not mean immoral means." The deceivers and conspirators know that American's tend to cling to the old military idea of moral leadership ("tell the truth and shoot strait.") or the Christian idea that leadership is moral leadership, and this is cunningly exploited.

Meanwhile competition between groups continues. Individual groups with ethnic connections as well as economic connections seem to have stronger bonds and more success than groups with only economic connections. The biggest problems come from imperialism and the supremacy of one group over all the others.

I don't see the individualism of libertarianism as the best way to counter the hedonism and the degeneracy of all standards in the West. Ethics and morals have always been created by the group ethics of mutual love and self-sacrifice, not by individualism. The best solution I see is for people to demand decentralization, small separate states, or better yet ethnostates, with their independence protected by a light federalism. Powerful men as well as the unpowerful need to see that it is in their own best interest to support and protect a decentralized world where hedonism and the degeneracy of all standards are easier to prevent.

Modifying the weakness of democracies

Raymond Cattell had an interesting way of modifying the weakness of democracies, which tend to end up with the legal robbery of haves by have nots.

Cattell, a British and American psychologist known for his psychometric research into intrapersonal psychological structure, put it this way: majorities in democracies can tell you what they want, then an elite selected by comprehensive testing of merit can help you actually get what you want, rather than the ill-informed, greedy, power hungry, corrupt, selection process of most democracies.

The idea is to modify the weakness of democracy with a healthy form of meritocracy. Cattell based the selection of merit on his psychometric research into intrapersonal psychological structure, with such things as his empirical studies of Culture Fair Intelligence Tests to minimize the bias of written language and cultural background in intelligence testing.

The related subject of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates also seeks to conservatively modify the weakness of democracy by advocating a reinvigoration of federalism to deal with the growing variety of ethnic groups in America with different genetic pools and different agendas, by adapting the Constitutional separation of powers and states to develop ethnostates, in harmony with real kin and ethnic-centered human nature.

These ideas, which sometimes seem pie in the sky, conservatively reform what we have now rather than having destructive radical revolution from the left or the right.

Why Marxism, radical feminism, homosexuality, and postmodern relativism eventually lead to biologically and culturally diseased societies

We have to admit that survival success in advanced modern societies is so much easier now than the environments that developed traditional human nature, which evolved because traditional human nature was most successful in survival and reproduction. And so such nontraditional things as Marxism, radical feminism, the promotion of homosexuality, and postmodern relativism can rise with less immediate danger to our survival, at least in the short term.

Human nature as empirically explained by sociobiology remains basically 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. Even the smallest change in human nature and our DNA structure, for example, in our immune system, took hundreds of thousands of years---although genetic engineering may speed that up.

Even in advanced modern societies where survival is easier, the dangers of Marxism (demanding equality for the unequal), radical feminism (demanding biologically unnatural roles for women), homosexuality (demanding unnatural sexual life styles) and postmodern relativism (demanding an unnatural relativity of values) will eventually lead to biologically and culturally diseased societies.

Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against human nature with such experiments as these but the cultures are 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, and very slowly change.

Trump's suicidal idea of flooding sanctuary cities with illegal immigrants

Trump's idea of flooding sanctuary cities with illegal immigrants just to get back at those foolish cities is the kind of short-term thinking of one who is ignorant of the fact that a surfeit of immigrants, legal or illegal, from our southern border will soon change our culture into a southern border culture.  It may not be consciously suicidal, just ignorant, but it is still suicidal. When will we get politicians who understand the biological origin of social behavior? It better be soon or we will lose our nation.

Comparing the political philosophy of Carl Schmitt and Raymond Cattell

Political philosophy is a balancing act in where you place the emphasis of your ideas. German philosopher Carl Schmitt had it almost right in thinking that political actions and motives can be reduced to friends and enemies. But research psychologist Raymond Cattell had it more right in emphasizing evolutionary development. Interestingly, both visionary thinkers were rejected by the establishment yet managed to get a lot of work done over long lives.

Just as feminism is exploited by groups who wish to advance themselves via the feminist call for equality, the friend/enemy dynamic of Schmitt is exploited and hypertrophied by supremacists and imperialists, and those political balancing acts then become more negative than positive. 

 

When the political philosophy is evolutionary, competition is valued but is more controlled and rational. The friend/enemy dynamic remains but means less than evolutionary development. For example, Cattell spent years developing ways to determine social genius from antisocial genius. 

 

After all, if we survive we will evolve beyond the human species to new species and the friend/enemy dynamic will be changing, replaced by evolution versus non-evolution as an ongoing friend/enemy dynamic.

In evolution versus non-evolution the friend/enemy dynamic is seen as often leading to supremacism and imperialism, which more readily makes wars happen, and wars are often more destructive than evolutionary---the refined chess table of controlled and rational evolution is overturned and stopped until order is restored.

When we develop ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in harmony with kin and ethnic-centered human nature, evolution can take place more easily with variety in more natural, less volatile, more harmonious, more homogeneous environments. Federalism can protect the ethnostates from marauding supremacism and imperialism. And sociobiological research centers can objectively aid in helping both friend and enemy to evolve toward Godhood out into the cosmos, which is where the best political philosophy places its emphasis.

 

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be established legally, conservatively, in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states.

What chance do we have to revive if we can't even mentioned that which is destroying us?

Edmund Burke wrote in the 18th century that the civilization of Europe was maintained by two powers: the Christian religion and the spirit of the gentleman. Burke did not mention, as today's thinkers do not mention for different reasons, the genetic or biological origin of the social behavior of the Christian religion and the spirit of the gentleman in Europe.

Before the Christian-gentleman-European were the heroes and priests of the pagan world with a related Indo-European genetic or biological origin who displayed pagan versions of the Christian and the gentleman---think of the ancient Greeks.

Why is the civilization of Europe and America now being destroyed? Whites are dying faster than being born. The answer to who and what is destroying us comes down to that which must not be mentioned: that is, the biological origin of our social behavior and the competition between different groups, usually between ethnic groups, for the survival and reproductive success of different gene pools with different cultures.

First and foremost the Big Media, especially Hollywood, then the leftist-capitalist-globalists, the multinational corporations, the academic teachers, and the multinational banks are virtually dominated by people who are no-longer Christian-gentleman-Europeans and these people are competing for the survival and reproductive success of different gene pools, and blocking knowledge of the biological origin of our social behavior. 

What chance do we have to revive if we can't even mentioned that which is destroying us? The reality is that if we want to survive we need more than the revival of the Christian religion and the spirit of the gentleman; if we want long-term survival and reproductive success we need to affirm ethnostates for all distinct ethnic groups, in harmony with real human nature and the biological origin of our social behavior.

Can we surpass the political philosophy of the ancients?

Can we surpass the political philosophy of the ancients? I don't see why not, as long as we realize that we are standing on their shoulders.

When the Founders of America created the constitutional separation of powers and states they did not think we would become a multicultural multi-ethnic state, they assumed we would remain ethnically and culturally Northern European. If they had known the future they might have provided for ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

They also didn't have Darwin and his grand evolutionary worldview, or the sociobiological discoveries of the biological origin of social behavior.

To accommodate the kin and ethnic-centered heart of basic human nature we can affirm a re-invigoration of federalism, this time in harmony with the growing variety of competing ethnic groups in America with different genetic pools and different agendas. Federalism and the Constitutional separation of powers and states can develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

But this needs to be develop legally, not with civil war, or even with secessions, which could endanger the federal protection needed for all ethnostates in a world that continues to have marauding nations with imperial ambitions.

With only a few amendments we would still be conservatively standing on the shoulders of the Founders, and we would have a more assured future.

True things about human nature that liberals and conservatives object to because they don't conform to their worldviews

  

Liberal's say they support science but they cherry-pick the sciences and only support "sciences" that will lean toward egalitarianism and cultural Marxism. And conservative's don't seem to realize or refuse to see that the biological science of sociobiology supports a view of human nature that more or less affirms conservatism.

When sociobiologist E.O. Wilson writes things which he has scientifically found true like: “hereditary altruists form groups so cooperative and well-organized as to out-compete non-altruists groups," this scientifically helps explain how altruism or concern for the welfare of others developed and was affirmed by religions.

Human nature as defined by sociobiology supports conservatism. For example, sociobiology defines 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.

If we look at that definition of human nature, which has been genetically instilled in us over thousands of years because it was behavior that helped us successfully survive and reproduce, we can then see the things that liberals and conservatives object to apparently because they don't conform to their worldviews. Neither side approves of ethnocentrism or xenophobia, and the liberals don't approve of human nature being gender defined, heterosexual, marriage-making, or hierarchical. Libertarian conservatives would approve of individual selection but not with individual selection being trumped by group selection.

Even the sociobiologists seem to balk at the implications of their view of human behavior. It may be because academics are often from the nerd side of the bench and don't do well on the playground. The biological origin of our social behavior actually ends the intellectual defense of postmodern relativism and the cultural Marxist ideologues, and it takes some of the virtue-signaling away from conservatives.

I think the truth about human nature and human behavior shows that an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the best political configuration for humans beings to live within. 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 or regions to develop into ethnostates, and it need not be done in illegal or radical ways.

In any case, at least our leaders may need to have the balls, or the ovaries, to jump off the three-story platform into the water, because egalitarianism and cultural Marxism are destroying the West. 

Are we wimps and cowards or are we just deluded about our corruption?

We tolerate a corrupt slandering media and schools that brainwash our children in cultural Marxism and general decadence, perhaps because they do it nonviolently, but why do we still tolerate violent gangs like the Crips and Bloods, why are there Mexican gangs and drug lords in the U.S., why is there still a Mafia in the U.S? And why do we tolerate wide open borders for illegal immigrants and other criminals?

How can we defend democracy if its freedom leads to people who destroy us? The police could make these people disappear if we wanted them to, and if the police weren't enough the army could finish the job, and it could be done legally, democratically, without becoming fascists on the right or the left. So why don't we do it? What or who is stopping us? Are we colossal wimps and cowards or are we just deluded about our own corruption?

Is religion lost at the hands of scientific evolution?

Darwin and natural evolution almost reflected what Saint Thomas said, that human law builds on natural law. But evolution did not really affirm natural law building on Gods laws. And with that the importance of natural law increased until it virtually destroyed the idea of Gods law as ruling nature, replacing it with natural laws, even if Darwin himself didn't quite admit it. Religion and belief in God have steadily decreased since then.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident" the truths he referred to were the best reading of the natural laws at the time determined by reason and science, with a little religion thrown in.

Natural and moral laws are more or less the same across all cultures and religions and are based more on human nature than religious edicts, even though religions have claimed them and have helped in bonding the moral laws. As E.O. Wilson put it, “Individual versus group selection results in a mix of altruism and selfishness, of virtue and sin, among the members of a society.” And religions have helped in bonding or balancing this behavior.

Across the world 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.

Is religion lost at the hands of scientific evolution? No, but religion and God are transformed: we evolve toward ascending levels of real Godhood in the material world by applying natural evolutionary laws and building on real human nature and the biological origin of social behavior. This transformation is expanded in the philosophy of theological materialism.

It is not Democratic "identity politics" that is Balkanizing America, it is human nature

Contrary to Republicans and conservatives it is not Democratic "identity politics" that is Balkanizing America, it is human nature, which remains it has always been for thousands of years, kin-centered and ethnocentric---survival and reproductive success from being kin-centered and ethnocentric was genetically decreed as basic human nature.

The flat reality of the circus of American politics right and left is that Democratic programs tend to be racist in favor of minority races, and Republican programs tend to lean toward whites but can also be suicidal toward white identity politics, although both deny this reality mainly from fear of being politically incorrect and therefore having the corrupt culturally Marxist media destroy them.

Why does political behavior in America seem deranged? It seems more like cowardliness in the face of reality, or just ignorance of the will to power behind those who push these programs. Is it not diabolically clever to attack racism as the method to advance your own race?

If we are too stupid to correct ourselves nature will, or the biological origin of our social behavior will eventually correct the lies and cowardliness. That, at least, is good. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates seems very possible in the future, which will be far more equitable for all groups.

Godhood in linear evolutionary time

Why would we want to define God as outside of time, as if there is something wrong with the linear succession of time? It's that same old disparagement of the material world.

The theory of evolution once again upends old religious ideas about time, but need not upend religion. Evolution may repeat itself with variations, but in theological materialism evolution still moves on a linear line from lower to higher forms, usually from the simple to the complex, all the way to ascending levels of Godhood, all the while changing and adapting to the exigencies of natural selection.

Why must "order," which is kind of a religion for conservatives, be thought of as based in a non-material timelessness? Why do we need such a nebulous foundation for order? Why do we have to escape time and the material world? There is nothing evil intrinsically by, of, for, or in itself about material life in real linear time. It's not worth trading time and real material life for the inward experience of the bliss of Godhood, which is in reality a peak material experience developed by ascetics which, contrary to them, is not a spiritual experience.

We are not "bound" by material time which supposedly blocks us from a timeless God, because there is no timelessness, there is only material evolution moving on a more or less linear line all the way to ascending levels of supermaterial Godhood. It is not material time that bounds us, it is our level of intelligence that bounds us, which increases if we can manage to evolve in linear evolutionary time, not outside of time (yes, including the aid of genetic engineering) toward superintelligent Godhood.

The importance of individual and ethnic self-esteem in sports

I'm all for merit, people selected on the basis of their ability, in all fields, but it is now considered politically incorrect or bigoted to even ask the question: what is it doing to the general self esteem of white men in the U.S., especially young white men, when both amateur and professional basketball and football have become an exclusive celebration of black athletes---sports that once featured white athletes? Think of the college football National Championships, the NBA basketball finals, college basketball March Madness ( in the Final Four this weekend), and increasingly the Superbowl.

You might object that the Stanley Cup in hockey, the Indianapolis 500, the Boston Marathon, or the winter Olympic games are mainly celebrations of white athletes, but you know they don't come close to the sports madness and ratings status of the finals in amateur and professional basketball and football. The liberal Media goes all out for these celebrations.

What about white teens who seem to be increasingly reduced to playing geeky computer games, smoking marijuana, and getting fat, while their fathers sit on couches or in sports bars drinking beer and loudly partaking in the exclusive celebration of black athletes? (It doesn't seem to be as prevalent in Europe.)

Do we really need studies like the following to tell us about the importance individual and ethnic self-esteem?: Study Finds That Blacks With Strong Racial Identity Are Happier, or, Ethnic identity gives teens daily happiness boost.

Just saying.

Different ethnic groups create different cultures because they are different. That is good, variety is good, but multicultural-multi-ethnic societies lead to a zero sum game where the gain of one player is offset by the loss of another player. Given kin and ethnic-centered human nature the best way to develop real individual and ethnic self-esteem in sports---or culture in general---is to provide ethnostates for each ethnic group. That is the reality of human nature, politically incorrect or not.

The declared and undeclared battle lines for Western civilization

Traditional or paleoconservatives at least declare that the battle lines for Western civilization are between populist-nationalist-sovereignists and the new coalition of leftist-capitalist-globalists.

The leftist-capitalist-globalists seek to abolish the nation-state mainly to bring money or power to a small elite, and they are greatly helped along by big media producers, the academic teachers, the banks, and the multinational corporations.

Amazingly, democracy has been functioning as the people have been electing populist-nationalist-sovereignists like Donald Trump in spite of the power of the leftist-capitalist-globalists and the big media producers, the academic teachers, the banks, and the multinational corporations.

But the mostly undeclared and politically incorrect reality is that the electoral democratic power of traditional or paleoconservative whites who defend the nation-state is fading fast as the population of nonwhite ethnic groups who support leftist-capitalist-globalists have sharply risen and will soon democratically overtake white citizens in the West. This demographic ethnic changing-of-the-guard has been heavily promoted by the leftist-capitalist-globalists and the big media producers, the academic teachers, the banks and the multinational corporations.

Who will win? If demographic trends continue with whites dying faster than being born, and I don't see the trends changing, the leftist-capitalist-globalists and their minions in democracies will win.

So since the the demographic changes in America look inevitable, especially with the help of suicidal whites on the left and the right, eventually the only realistic way to save white American culture---because different ethnic groups create different cultures---will be to harken back to the natural separation of regions and states enshrined in the Constitution, where ethnostates can become the next home to a variety of ethnic groups in an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. This can be done legally, perhaps with a few amendments to the Constitution, affirmed by the constitutional separation of powers and states.

It looks like that may be the only democratic and civilized way to save white Western civilization.  So how long will it be, and how much trouble will we have to endure, before this solution reaches the public and is presented as a good solution in harmony with real human nature, not just for whites but for all distinctive ethnic groups?

Is the universe favorable or unfavorable to human beings?

"The universe is a machine for making gods." (Bergson)

Science says the universe is not favorable or unfavorable to human beings, it doesn't care either way. I disagree. Where the universe does seem indifferent is in natural selection.  The best in life is attained and eventually Godhood is attained by evolution, that is, the zenith of life, the highest beauty, truth, goodness, intelligence and power is attained by way of natural selection and evolution (but soon genetic selection) and the universe lets that happen---this does seem to indicate that the universe is favorable to it. The universe seems favorable to life in general because somehow it was/is set up for life to seek to evolve toward Godhood.

Human beings therefore can and should show more than indifference to the universe and its evolutionary patterns, we can aid in the evolution of life toward Godhood by voluntarily monitoring the sociobiological process of evolution and the genetic-cultural development of life with objective international research centers, which could lesson the suffering and decline of groups while fostering variety and healthy competition. (see Cattell's "Beyondism.")

Can we do this? Will we do it? We are capable of it. We may need to be capable of it if we are to survive into the future.

The universe is not evil.