The dangerous mistake libertarians make regarding individualism and altruism and accepting the old in the new (from the archive

 I had been thinking about how conservatism needs to be added to poetry, art and music when we speak of “making things new” over time, the old included with the new, when I watched an interview with Glenn Greenwald, the gay reporter and promoter of the NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden. It occurred to me that there is a connection here with the philosophical (and now scientific) mistake libertarians make regarding individualism and altruism.

E. O. Wilson the great innovator in sociobiology, has recently affirmed group-selection as the primary unit of selection. This does not mean that kin-selection and individual selection are not important, but our basic survival affirms group-selection first, which is embedded in human nature.

What is missing or deemphasized by individualism is the biological foundation of altruism at the base of social behavior and at the foundation of morality itself. Some libertarians even admit the natural pull of group morality but then tend to see this as something innovative people need to fight against. They are in good company, even Nietzsche made this mistake.

That way of thinking is too easily applied to anti-social hedonism, which easily walks through the open door of individualism, where anti-social deviations and even criminal behavior justify themselves by alluding to the sacredness of individualism.

But conservatism also needs to find better ways of making things new. I am not talking about progressivism, I'm talking about having a way within the system for innovators and whistle-blowers to make the old new. Otherwise we lose creativity and we stagnate, and stagnation is not conservative. But innovators and whistle-blowers also need to acknowledge the vital importance of altruism and group morality, even above individual morality.

Personally, I empathize with the problems of innovators, I have been developing a new religious philosophy, which includes the old in the new, and I am an outsider. But I am a patriotic and conservative outsider refusing to affirm anti-social or radical revolution. I think it is vital to be able to tell the difference between social and antisocial innovations, which is of course not always easy. Social psychology, psychometrics, has been developing ways, tests, etc. (see Cattell) to help us do this.

The silent white majority is beginning to wake up to the racial scam of “wokeness”

 “When a small minority of any country’s population becomes a threat to the majority, the minority’s future is uncertain.” William Lind

Blacks are about 13% of the U.S. population and the silent white majority is beginning to wake up to the fact that the Black Lives Matter Movement is really a racist black power movement. At the same time the pandemic is beginning to wake up white parents to the fact that the Critical Race Theory being taught to our children in all our schools is designed to destroy traditional white society and Western culture.

But Americans are not awake enough yet to affirm the biological origin of social behavior. The problem largely stems from a tragic misreading of real human nature which has been and remains genetically ethnocentric, even xenophobic, as well as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection, followed by individual-selection. You can't build a lasting multicultural and multiracial nation with real human nature.

If whites in the future want to avoid sedition, discord, and racial civil war they will honor the biological origin of social behavior and advocate the creation of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red, in harmony with real human nature. Then protect each ethnostate from marauding imperialists, global businesses, supremacists, chosenists, Marxists, etc. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established, legally, in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states...Then we will be fully politically awake and ready to continue evolving.

Here is the best I've seen to date on the origin of the races

from “The Races of Humanity” by Richard McCulloch, revised August, 2019  

http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html

It is generally agreed that there were at least three major migrations or expansions of the genus Homo out of east Africa into Eurasia, either crossing the Sinai peninsula from Egypt into the Levant (the coast of what is now Israel, Lebanon and Syria), or crossing the southern entrance of the Red Sea (the Bab el Mandeb) from Djibouti in Africa to Yemen in Asia, from where they spread throughout most of Eurasia and developed into a variety of regional "archaic" human populations. The first of these major expansions out of east Africa into Eurasia was about 1.8 million years ago, the second about 600,000 years ago (associated with the spread of the Acheulean culture), and the last shortly after 100,000 years ago. Beginning in 1987, based on genetic studies showing that the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Y-chromosome of all living humans is derived from the last of these major expansions, the common view expressed in the popular press (called "Out-of-Africa") has been that the modern humans of the final migration completely replaced the regional archaic human populations from the first two major expansions. But beginning in 2002 studies of other genes by Alan Templeton and others have increasingly supported the view (called "Out-of-Africa-Again-and-Again") that although all our surviving mtDNA and Y-chromosome lineages as well as the majority of our other genes derive from the most recent expansion, a significant minority of our other genes have much older "coalescence" dates and must therefore derive from the regional archaic human populations of the first two major expansions. These studies indicate that some genes from the regional populations of the first expansion were assimilated and perpetuated by the populations of the second expansion, and that some of the genes of both of the first two (archaic) expansions were assimilated by the modern humans of the final expansion.

The first dispersal of modern humans probably began soon after the emergence of Homo sapiens idaltu in east Africa about 195,000 years ago, with some populations heading west into the tropical forest of the Congo basin where they evolved into the Congoid subspecies (possibly with the assimilation of some local archaic elements), others remaining in east Africa where they evolved into the Capoid or Khoisanid (San-Bushmen) subspecies, and others moving north to the shores of the Red Sea, where they became the progenitors of the population that eventually migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the world, possibly assimilating some of the regional archaic human populations they encountered in varying degrees, and evolving into the Australoid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid subspecies. By 130,000 years ago there were perhaps 10,000 modern humans living in different populations in different regions of Africa. About 120,000 years ago one of these modern human populations that had expanded up the Nile valley crossed the Sinai peninsula out of Africa into the Levant but got no further, and by 90,000 years ago its members had either returned to Africa or died out.

The following account of the final major expansion out of east Africa into Eurasia, that of the modern humans shortly after 100,000 years ago, is based largely on the work of Stephen Oppenheimer as detailed in his book Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World (2004) which was also the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary titled The Real Eve.

The migrating modern human population, probably numbering only a few hundred people at the beginning, crossed from Africa to Asia at the southern entrance of the Red Sea. From there they followed a beachcombing trek that took them along the coastline of the Arabian Sea. The descendants of this population gradually expanded and dispersed, with the initial expansion being along the southern coast of Asia. The where and when of these early human migrations was largely determined by geography, especially changes in climate and sea level. The first main split or division in the expansion occurred on the Iranian coast of the Persian Gulf, with some groups continuing to move east while others remained in southern Iran between the Zagros Mountains and the sea. The second main branching or division probably occurred in southeast Asia, with one group continuing to move eastward, reaching China by 68,000 years ago, and another group remaining in the Burma-Thailand region where it evolved into a proto-Australoid population and then expanded south through Malaysia and Indonesia, reaching New Guinea by 77,000 years ago and Australia by 65,000 years ago.

The eruption, or explosion, of the Toba super-volcano in northern Sumatra circa 74,000 years ago, the largest such explosion in the last two million years, perhaps 100 times larger than the Krakatoa event off southern Sumatra in 1883, covered the entire Indian sub-continent in several meters of ash, probably destroying almost all life, including the early human population in the area. The populations to the east and south of the eruption were spared its catastrophic effects, but the population in southern Iran, and to a lesser extent the population in east Africa, probably suffered severe climate effects. The population in west Africa, protected by mountains to the east, was not as seriously effected. Within a few thousand years India was repopulated from the east by proto-Australoids.

By 50,000 years ago the population that had remained in southern Iran had evolved into proto-Caucasoids and began to expand -- to the east into Pakistan and northern India; to the northwest up the Tigris-Euphrates valley to the Levant by 45,000 years ago; and to the northeast through Central Asia to Russia and the steppes of western Siberia, also by 45,000 years ago. From the Levant they expanded north into Anatolia, from there entering Europe through the Balkans and spreading the Aurignacian culture across southern Europe by 43,000 years ago. From Russia they moved westward into Europe, spreading the Gravettian culture, about 33,500 years ago. Shortly after this another Caucasoid group expanded from the Levant across North Africa. In this same time frame the population in Indochina and southern China had evolved into proto-Mongoloids and expanded northwards into the steppes of eastern Siberia, branching into southern and northern Mongoloid groups. Some northern Mongoloids migrated northeast to Berengia, a vast land between Siberia and Alaska that is now underwater, from where they subsequently moved south into the Americas.

By 30,000 years ago the divergent evolutionary branching or dividing of the human species had produced five main lines or subspecies which are still extant -- the Congoid of West Africa; the Capoid of East and South Africa (later replaced in East Africa by the Congoid); the Australoid of India, Burma, Malaya, Indonesia, New Guinea and Australia; the Mongoloid of East Asia (later expanding to the southwest into Burma, Malaya and Indonesia, largely replacing the indigenous Australoids) and the Caucasoid of Europe, North Africa and West Asia (partly replacing the Mongoloids in the Americas after A.D. 1492 and the Australoids in Australia after A.D. 1788). These subspecies branched or divided in turn into separate races, and these races branched in their turn into subraces, as part of the continuing process of divergent evolution.

Beginning about 20,000 years ago, when the global human population was perhaps a million, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) pushed the population of northern Europe south to refuge areas in southern France, northern Spain, the Balkans and Ukraine, while the now fully-developed northern Mongoloid population in Siberia was also forced south to eastern and southern China. Both populations were greatly reduced in number during this period. (The expansion of the southern Mongoloids into Malaya and Indonesia, partly replacing and partly assimilating the native Australoids, probably occurred during this period.) When the Last Glacial Maximum began to recede about 15,000 years ago (13,000 B.C.) the survivors of these populations expanded northward again from their refuge areas, with Scandinavia being occupied by humans for the first time about 10,000 years ago, by which time the global human population had risen to about 10 million. Agriculture and the Neolithic period also began about 10,000 years ago in both the Middle East and China. The genetic ancestry of the native European population as a whole is about 80% from the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants who survived the 5,000 years of the Last Glacial Maximum in southern refuge areas and then re-expanded and repopulated the central and northern regions of the continent, and 20% from the Neolithic farmers who expanded from Anatolia into Europe starting about 8,000 years ago, with the latter element concentrated primarily in the Mediterranean lands of southern Europe, indicating that the initial spread of agriculture into central and northern Europe was a process of cultural diffusion rather than a movement of people.

The different races are often popularly defined and named (often inaccurately) by skin color, but as this system is based on only one genetic phenotypic difference, when hundreds are involved, it tends to distort the reality of race and racial differences. In the system of racial classification outlined below the names assigned to the various subspecies and races are, with a few exceptions, based on geographical regions where they are the native type.

Thoughts on the natural instinct toward religion and art ­(from the archive)

If the “classical” can be seen as not only ideal but scientific, relating to evolving material objects, and if the “romantic” can be seen as aesthetic and holistic, then theological materialism leans in the direction of the classical world, but it soars toward the romantic beauty of life evolving toward Godhood.

Romanticism was, among other things, a revolt against the constraining rationalism of the scientific Enlightenment, but then romanticism constrained rationalism too much, which was understandable because science tends to think something does not exist until it is proven to exist.

But we seem to need it all, intuition, religion, reason, science, art, because the truth and reality are found somewhere in the mix of these fields. We seem to have an instinct or a need to know what goodness, truth and beauty are, but more than to know, we need to experience these things, somehow physically.

With this instinct we create worldviews that affirm goodness, truth and beauty, and we want them to be real, we believe they are real. Why do we do this? Why do we need this? We seem to sense instinctively that the goal of our life goes beyond what we are. It is then that we begin to see the goal of our instincts as leading to Godhood, which also defines for us the zenith of goodness, truth and beauty, which we seem to both mentally and physically desire---this is seen in our preferences for beautiful people, places and things. We bring this romantic vision back to classical physical reality, back to nature, when Godhood is understood also as supreme success in natural survival.

We create a religious/philosophical narrative as a system of images and ideas useful in our instinctive transformation toward Godhood, that is, the sacred narrative of our material/supermaterial evolution to Godhood. It is a transformation away from the nihilism and hedonism of the secular age, but this time it is a naturalistic sacred narrative, related to the successful survival of life and beauty, not merely as an opiate of the people. It is real.

This religious narrative, or instinct, satisfies our natural instinct toward religion and art, and what seems to be an inborn, and sacred, desire to know and experience, goodness, truth, beauty and Godhood.

Are we one united people? No

“Do we still meet in any way the designation and description of us as the "one united people" that John Jay rendered in The Federalist Papers: Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs." (Patrick J. Buchanan)

Multi-ethnic societies are a zero sum game where the gain of one ethnic group is offset by the loss of another ethnic group, with much cruel social discord in the process. Reason and common sense suggest that real human nature, which remains ethnocentric and kin-centered, leads naturally to regionalism, localism, and eventually to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. Decentralization into small separate ethnostates, with their independence protected by a defensive federalism is the best political and moral solution to this serious political problem of being ununited. 

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established in America largely within the traditional American cultural framework of our separation of powers and states. We need to honor the biological origin of social behavior and advocate the creation of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red. That is political morality in harmony with real human nature and human nature in harmony with political morality.

We are going to have to face the reality that the IQ's of different races are different

We are going to have to face the reality that the IQ's of different races are different and genetically derived as well as being environmentally caused, and we have to think of this reality as being just differences rather than inferior/superior. When we admit this then we will have a chance to try to create a realistic way out of our increasing race problems.

In 1917 soldiers drafted into the Army were tested for intelligence, and “it was found that the black average was 83 compared to the white average of 100. This result has been confirmed in many hundreds of later studies, with black-white IQ differences typically between 15 and 17 points.” (American Renaissance, June 2010)... “So why has the gap not been reduced...with the achievement of higher living standards, better health care, integrated schooling, full civil rights, and affirmative action for blacks?...Perhaps Professors Rushton and Jensen may have underestimated the genetic contribution to the black-white IQ gap when they put it at 80 percent.?”

jenab6 of the live journal wrote of how “the United States is a First World country in which most of the best jobs are mentally challenging jobs, purely free-market hiring practices will exclude a demographically disproportionately high fraction of low-average-IQ races from those jobs... A focus on merit is a good thing. It is in conflict with diversity and inclusion. Therefore, diversity and inclusion are bad ideas, and to focus on them, instead of on merit, is harmful.”

The best moral political solution to our racial problems I can see is to develop small separate states, or ethnostates where the races can be proud of their differences, with their independence protected by a defensive federalism. We need to honor the biological origin of social behavior and advocate the creation of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established in America largely within the traditional American cultural framework of our separation of powers and states. That is political morality in harmony with real human nature which remains genetically ethnocentric, even xenophobic, as well as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection, followed by individual-selection.

Evolutionary conservatism defines survival and reproductive success in evolution as the prime element of conservatism

Evolutionary conservatism defines survival and reproductive success in evolution as the prime element of conservatism, as defined by the science of sociobiology and the biological origin of social behavior. That is, maintaining and handing on the gene pool and the conserving the ethnic groups which largely create the ancient traditions, while affirming that the expressions of the genes are continually developing, embodied in new improved ways, all the way to materially evolving to ascending levels of real Godhood.

Conservatism will need to stretch quite a bit, but that is better than dying. Evolutionary conservatism conserves conservatism, religion, and God in perhaps the best way that they can include ongoing science. God, religion, and cultural traditions can harmonize with the biological origin of social behavior. Most importantly we conserve the gene pool and the ethnic groups which largely create the traditions as we evolve, we maintain an ancient script by embodying it in new ways.

As I've said before, as an evolutionary conservative I prefer to build on the past rather than destroy it. I did not erect theological materialism on the ruins of Christianity, as modern thinkers did with science and the humanities, I wanted to renew the building, not tear it down. This rebirth is seen in the Twofold Path where the God-Within, the Father-Within, is seen as the first glimpse, or the mirror of the real Godhood reached through  ascending levels of material and supermaterial evolution.

The biological origin of social behavior, and kin and ethnic centered human nature, lead naturally to regionalism, localism, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected from marauding imperialists and supremacists by some sort of defensive federalism. All groups can then get on with the natural business of our evolution to real Godhood, aided by the religious philosophy of theological materialism.

Real leadership is moral leadership: Political morality in harmony with real human nature and human nature in harmony with political morality

I think it was a Marine Corps defense leader who said that morality is the main source of real leadership decisions. Real leadership is moral leadership. "Style" comes in how you present your moral decisions. That applies to the leader of a Marine Corps platoon all the way to the president. Maybe its inherent, or best instilled early in life.

Traditionally, religion, culture, and education helped develop the morality with which leaders would later make decisions. But we have been dominated by postmodernism in our cultural institutions which teach a relativity of all values. Demagogues tend to be all show seeking selfish power by simulating morality.

We now have libertarian capitalists and non-judgmental progressive liberals as leaders, and both have no real morality other than believing in a relativity of values, therefore they offer no real moral leadership. The moral relativity of so-called high-culture elites is copied by the moral relativity of pop culture, and then promoted by a powerful and corrupt Media, which has its own selfish agenda.

Unlike many conservatives 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. Human nature has been and remains genetically ethnocentric, even xenophobic, as well as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection, followed by individual-selection.

Decentralization is the best moral political solution I see, small separate states, or ethnostates, with their independence protected by a defensive 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 can be better prevented.

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established in America largely within the traditional American cultural framework of our separation of powers and states. We need to honor the biological origin of social behavior and advocate the creation of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red. That is political morality in harmony with real human nature and human nature in harmony with political morality.

Evolutionary conservatism and the religious philosophy of theological materialism and the political philosophy of ethnostatism

Evolutionary conservatism believes the changes and innovations it makes in religion, politics, and culture nevertheless should be applied as much as possible to the traditional conservative view of life.

The biggest and most important change is the emphasis on the biological origin of social behavior, which does give a definition of human nature that largely harmonizes with conservatism: human nature has been and remains genetically ethnocentric, even xenophobic, as well as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection, followed by individual-selection.

The biological origin of social behavior, and kin and ethnic centered human nature, lead naturally to regionalism, localism, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected from marauding imperialists and supremacists by federalism. This suggests the creation of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red, in accord with real human nature. Then we will need to protect each ethnostate from the inevitable marauding imperialists, global businesses, supremacists, chosenists, Marxists, etc. The good news of evolutionary conservatism is that an ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established, legally, in the United States with our existing constitutional separation of powers and states. This is the way we can avoid radical revolution and yet adapt to the increasingly combative racial and cultural differences in America.

We have been having a gradual takeover of religion by science since the Enlightenment with a few attempts to synthesize the two by erecting science on the ruins of churches, as the Christian's had built churches on the ruins of pagan temples, but for the most part it was a slow rout by Christianity over the pagans, as well as a slow rout by science over religion.

As an evolutionary conservative I prefer to build on the past rather than destroy it. I did not erect theological materialism on the ruins of Christianity, as modern thinkers did with science and the humanities, I wanted to renew the building, not tear it down. This rebirth is seen in the Twofold Path where the God-Within, the Father-Within, is seen as the first glimpse, or the mirror of the real Godhood reached through  ascending levels of material and supermaterial evolution.

The biological origin of social behavior, and kin and ethnic centered human nature, lead naturally to regionalism, localism, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected from marauding imperialists and supremacists by some sort of federalism. All groups can then get on with the natural business of our evolution to real Godhood, aided by the religious philosophy of theological materialism and the political philosophy of ethnostatism.

Pretentiousness, sublimation, and higher civilization (from the archive)

I have never liked sliding away from the truth in mannerisms, speech and gestures, pretentiousness, phoniness, it always seems somehow weaker... And yet, and yet, I understand that we must sublimate aggression and even the sex drive if we want higher civilization--- those people who cannot sublimate, often remain primitive, violent, and live short lives. We need to evolve far beyond the beast and this often seems to require more than the straight talk and the real behavior that we prefer.

It seems to me that unpretentious people are stronger than pretentious people, just in face to face connections, but it also seems to be true that often unpretentious people are less successful than pretentious people. Pretentious people perhaps have a larger variety of behaviors, roles that they can play, in a complicated society, they sublimate the aggressive instincts. Some just may be inauthentic or bad actors, and pretentiousness seems to be stronger with the striving middle class and less so in the more aristocratic classes. But the skilled worker on weekends with his dogs and his gun acts not unlike the lord of the estate with his dogs and his gun. Also there is no doubt that genetic connections are involved in the ability to sublimate the instincts (see Raymond Cattell's "Beyondism".)

If we let mammalian drives, instincts (ergs), go as they go without sublimation we may end up not moving beyond the primitive level of communication, which may be okay for some roles but not for most roles in higher civilization. We don't want to create opposition between the instincts and intelligence, nevertheless some instincts need to be checked and sublimated, not blocked---sex and aggression are certainly sublimated in the higher religious and aesthetic pursuits...This all adds up to the natural often conflicted behavior of human beings.

That being said, we don't want to move too far away from basic real human nature, and we may not even be able to do so successfully, which includes such good things as kin selection, marriage-making, religious-making, among other things, with group-selection, even ethnocentrism, as the primary unit of selection. I consider the material spirit or will, which activates within material life like a Super-Id, as the zenith of all these instincts, it is leading us to evolve in the material world toward Godhood, shaped by the outside forces of evolution and selection. That is one instinct that is already sublime in its unpretentious primitive state.