The melting pot society went against the biological origin of social behavior and basic human nature

Edward Wilson supplied an increasingly precise basic definition of human nature. Human nature has been affirmed throughout human history, at least since paleolithic times (from 2.6 million years ago to the present) as being basically kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group or ethnic selection as the primary unit of successful selection. Trying to overcome this basic human nature has been impossible. We need a system where citizens of different ethnic groups and races can work together for the common good with ethnostates and an ethnopluralism. We need a system of ethnostates and ethnopluralism where differences and self-interest can be appreciated. Everyone can share the same cause, the same realistic pluralism. It wont be easy but the whole business of the melting pot society went against the biological origin of social behavior and basic human nature.

A realistic pluralism based on the biological origin of social behavior

Political realism should be first based on the biological origin of social behavior, and secondarily on the realistic assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action for all peoples, whether in the domestic or international arena. The main problem of the ethnocentrism of the 20^th century remains today and the politically realistic way to deal with ethnocentrism is through a common pluralism of ethnostates where self interest is seen in having ethnostates in common.

For this realism to take place we must accept that human nature evolved to be genetically kin-centered and ethnic-centered, even xenophobic, with group-selection and ethnic selection having been the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

This is a realistic pluralism, the most realistic way for the different people, different races, different cultures to get along together.

Theological materialism, short definition

“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”  John 4-24

Wrong: there is no real spirit, God or Godhood is a supermaterial, super-evolved living object or objects, Godhood is the goal of the primary drive within life and evolution, the material drive-force which is wrongly called spirit. This is the next direction which religion will take, called theological materialism.

Falling into a suicidal universalism

“...Historically, Christians understood that while they had duties to outsiders, their principal duties were to those closest to them. No sane person would trust a mother who claimed to love all the children in the world as much as she loves her own. Nor should anyone trust a politician who claims to love all the people of the world as much as he loves his own...

Tribal behavior is what makes human beings human. Take it away from “man” or “humankind” and what you get is not “pure man” or “liberated man” but dehumanization and, from that, tyranny.

If Europe and the United States were simply to let in everyone who wanted to come, as the Biden administration is more or less doing along the United States’ open southern border, both places would soon be populated primarily by recent arrivals from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The United States and Europe would thus be completely unrecognizable to the great geniuses who made Western civilization the envy of the world, as well as the generations of ordinary Europeans and Americans who naturally imbibed what those geniuses created...…....

If American politicians still knew that their primary responsibility was the welfare of their fellow Americans, not the global economy.”

Tom Piatak (Chronicles)

Saving conservatism

Conservatism can be saved only if it includes conserving the race or ethnic group that created the cultures that are to be saved. But alas, that is the one thing not emphasized in the conservative programs, which eventually dooms a people and a culture. But it could be added and emphasized in conservatism.

 Why was this not emphasized? It seems one reason was the reluctance to accept the biological origin of social behavior and the belief in non-materiality as the basis of behavior. Another reason is the push back from competing races and ethnic groups, which could have been avoided if each race and ethnic group had their own ethnostate.

To save conservatism and to conserve various ethnic groups and races, conserving the race or ethnic groups that created the cultures needs to be emphasized by conservatism.