Where did conservatism go wrong?

Pat Buchanan, Taki Theodoracopulos, and Russell Kirk are probably my favorite paleoconservative writers, they have the courage not to be silenced by the dragon of politically correctness and cultural Marxism. Taki is Pat Buchanan with humor, but Buchanan seems more willing to mention the importance of ethnic bonds. However, when writing of human nature or human behavior these men stay away from the biological origin of social behavior. Why?

It could be because they know they will be professionally destroyed if they affirm the biological origin of social behavior---but these are tough guys and its probably their religious philosophy that keeps them from affirming the biological origin of social behavior.

Conservatism has not gotten past its dislike and even hatred of the evolutionary sciences, perhaps due mainly to the religious demand for universal altruism, which is based in non-materialism or spiritualism. But altruism has always been based in kin and group-selection and ethnocentrism, leading to localism and ethnopluralism, and not leading to religious or political forms of universalism.

Where did conservatism go wrong? Way back around the 1950's, at the beginning of the modern conservative movement, the foundation of real conservatism was purged from "conservatism" by people like William Buckley. That is, the largely biological origin of much of human social behavior, from which real conservatism rises, was defined as politically incorrect, bigoted, and even evil. Modern conservatism began to die even as it was beginning. But the conservative biologically or genetic origin of human nature remains kin-centered, gender-defined, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, group-selecting, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection followed by individual selection---and as nationalistic as it has always been. But the sociobiological way to justify and save conservatism was not and is not mentioned by conservatives or by liberals, other than as something evil.

The consequences of drumming the modern sociobiological sciences out of the conservative movement has been damaging and has given conservatism a bias against our deep history, and against science, which has kept so many good people away from the conservative movement; this could be the one thing that eventually dooms the conservative movement in the West.

The reality of real human nature points toward a deeply conservative political/cultural solution which could bring about an ethnopluralism of ethnostates within our democratic republic, perhaps with only a few amendments to the constitutional separation of powers and states. Different ethnic groups can then politically and culturally conduct themselves the way they want to in their own regions and ethnostates. We would retain federalism and subsidiarity to balance the states together, because we need the geopolitical heft of a large nation to defend ourselves in the big world.

That is the authentically conservative, evolutionary conservative, way to live healthy lives.