Connecting and not connecting with the political right

I think it was the clear strong paleoconservative writings of Russell Kirk and Pat Buchanan, which was an American version of the older classical conservatism of family, race, rank, aristocracy, and continuity, that caused me to include conservatism in my philosophy. I had to accept the practical side of paleoconservative continuity, bringing the new into the old, the way the evolution of the human brain retained the old reptilian and mammalian brain as it evolved the cerebral cortex on top of them all. We need to work within the system to transform it, as evolution does. But the paleos do not like me using evolution as a comparison because they are skeptical of evolution mainly due to their religious perspective---astoundingly Buchanan seems be unsure that evolution is even real. Which is why I couldn't connect with the paleoconservatives.

My view of the absolute importance of human evolution kept me away from the brilliant seduction of the traditionalist school too, which is where the Alt-right turned from their old racial nationalism. Many on the far right have now gone over to the traditionalist school of Guenon, Evola, and the Russian Dugin, and embraced a non-populist, old spiritual religious, imperialist, hierarchy of rule, and have downplayed or even rejected the idea of evolutionary progress. So I couldn't connect with the traditionalist school.

I drove myself further away from those on the right (and the left) who do affirm evolution as I gradually developed the religious philosophy of theological materialism, which sees a selector in natural selection, a direction, a driving intention in evolution, with evolution moving inevitably in a pattern, even though it has its random elements, toward ever-ascending levels of Godhood, in spite of instances of stagnation and retreat. This has been a bit further than the conventionally science-minded want to go. And the fact that I conservatively insist on the inclusion of the old inward spiritual religion transformed in the outward evolutionary path of theological materialism does not bring the paleoconservatives back my way on this either.

I never liked supremacism or imperialism on the right, it is not necessary to hate other races to love your own; this has caused the most problems for the right---the hatred is gleefully exploited by the corrupt left. It is antiquated human strategy to promote the supremacy or imperialism of one group against all others as exclusively superior, even if this sociobiological tactic enhanced survival in hunter-gatherer times, this behavior now only brings the overpopulated world together to destroy the supremacist imperialist group.

I wait for the day when forced multiculturalism will give way to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in line with real kin and ethnic-centered human nature. Wilmot Robertson brilliantly suggested this years ago.  I think the real debate should be over how we can conservatively adapt the Constitutional separation of of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. Cooperative competition between small ethnostates and regions, protected internally and externally by some sort of federalism, can bring the variety and creativity that evolution prefers, as we all evolve toward Godhood.

The right remains divided or rejects these things, and the left just thinks the biological origin of social behavior is evil.