Conservatism has had the defining traits and values of conservatism---and nationalism---in the wrong order

The relatively new science of sociobiology has taught me that conservatism has had the defining traits and values of conservatism---and nationalism---in the wrong order, especially since the last world war, by defining and emphasizing conservatism and nationalism more culturally, as a people living together speaking the same language, with the same religion and laws, but with biological descent merely bringing up the rear.

The biological origin of social behavior, emphasized by the evolutionary science of sociobiology, rights this hierarchy of conservative values. Getting this wrong changed the demographics of the nation allowing the immigration of people with a different descent, and therefore often a different culture. into the nation, which changed the face of the nation, weakening the ties that formerly bonded the nation.

Conservatism and the nation has to right this wrong if conservatism and the nation want to survive.

Conservatism can affirm both gradual change and drastic change

Reading an recent article about Carlyle in Chronicles caused me to realize that Conservatism can affirm both gradual change and drastic change. The position of Burke and Kirk of accepting only gradual change as ethical is of course the preferred default method of change, but when you look at real history drastic change happens a lot and even seems sometimes necessary and realistic to correct a worn out and corrupt world---and it happens in biological evolution too. This realization doesn't change my preference for gradual change, especially since revolutions often make things worse, but it solves that nagging feeling I have always had with conservatism accepting only gradual change.

How conservatives can be worthy of their name

Why aren't all conservatives also racial conservatives, if you don't conserve the races who created the cultures, you don't conserve the cultures for long, so it is not enough to be only a cultural conservative.

This tragic political mistake seems to stem from conservatives not knowing or not affirming the biological origin of social behavior, and from the blocking of the subject and making it taboo by those who benefit from integrating the world, which includes the worlds religions as well as global business people.

Conservatives need to admit our behavior, intelligence, and personalities are to a large extent heritable. Both liberals and paleoconservative's block or conceal the ethnic-centered and xenophobic parts of human nature.

If real kin and ethnic-centered human nature was allowed to be what it is, it would naturally lead to ethnostates, and finally to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red, with each ethnostate protected from marauding imperialists, global businesses, supremacists, Marxists, etc., and defended by a defensive federalism. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states. Then conservatives would be worthy of their name.

The common good-group selection morality of the Founding Fathers connects with real kin and ethnic-centered human nature

"Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." (David Sloan Wilson)

“Charles Darwin himself argued for group selection. He postulated that moral men might not do any better than immoral men but that tribes of moral men would certainly “have an immense advantage” over fractious bands of pirates.” Steve Mirsky

"Individual versus group selection results in a mix of altruism and selfishness, of virtue and sin, among the members of a society." E.O Wilson

Uncourageous and dishonest scholars have interpreted the morality of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as mainly promoting equality, but the Founders understood that the main symbol of American life was the common good, individualism was not the main symbol. And the common good relates to group selection.

Historical life is biological life and biological life is the foundation of human nature, and human nature is 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.

Modern liberal and neoconservative intellectuals (and even many real conservatives) do not admit that human nature is at root biased toward kin and ethnic group (although some of them, like Leo Strauss promote their own group, however subtlety, over other groups) even while claiming to speak the “universal” truth in promoting an “American creed” or a “propositional nation” of universal "reason," which is in fact biased against the Germanic or Anglo-Saxon roots of the American order.

Did Strauss have a bias against traditional conservatism because he feared the rise of a future volkish German-type revolution and he therefore emphasized his propositional nation over (volkish) conservatism? If he did have such a bias it is a bias that a great philosopher should not have had. It is a bias that probably led to the marauding neoconservatives trampling over the traditions of other nations.

The common good-group selection morality of the Founding Fathers connects with real kin and ethnic-centered human nature. If human nature was allowed to be what it is, it would naturally lead to regionalism, localism, general conservative values, eventually ethnostates, and finally an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red, with each ethnostate protected from marauding imperialists, global businesses, supremacists, Marxists, etc., and defended by a defensive federalism. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states.

Evolutionary conservatism and theological materialism can overcome the loss of religious direction and the nihilism of modern thinking

Evolutionary conservatism is a biologically informed approach to the study of human behavior and politics, evolutionary conservatism adds to and deepens conservatism. Theological materialism affirms the material biological evolution of man all the way to Godhood; but in a conservative way.

Evolutionary conservatism adds to and deepens basic paleoconservatism by affirming the biological origin of social behavior. Human nature is biologically kin-centered and ethnic-centered, even xenophobic, as well as being genetically gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, and religious-making, with group-selection and ethnic selection as the primary unit of successful selection.

Even "order," which is so important to Burke and Kirk, is put in place because orderly societies are more successful in survival and reproduction than disorderly societies. But like the liberals and neoconservatives the paleoconservative's block or conceal the ethnic-centered and xenophobic parts of human nature due it seems to universalist religious edicts.

If real kin and ethnic-centered human nature was allowed to be what it is, it would naturally lead to regionalism, localism, general conservative values, eventually ethnostates, and finally an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red, with each ethnostate protected from marauding imperialists, global businesses, supremacists, Marxists, etc., and defended by a defensive federalism. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states.

Paleoconservative 's are very skeptical of human progress and “shun the worship of material progress, particularly when that progress is linked to government efforts to improve human nature.” (Clyde Wilson) Theological materialism sees material progress as life infused with the upward climb of evolution toward ascending levels of Godhood at the zenith of material evolution, which we can and should aid with the evolutionary sciences.

Natural law in evolutionary conservatism brings a conservatism grounded in the transcendent order of material evolution to Godhood, which counters both the stagnation of traditional conservatism and the nihilism of modern thinking. The coming species will evolve far beyond the human species, and far beyond increased human consciousness to God-Consciousness.

We need to love and protect our own groups, states and nations, as human nature and our human instincts intend us to do, but we also need to think and move beyond the human species toward evolving future and better species, all the way to Godhood. This is a worldview which can overcome the loss of religious direction and the nihilism of modern thinking.

DC Comics usher in a gay white superman

 “Superman Comes Out," read the headline, and it was not a joke. I'll bet if superman was black this would not have happened. This is a “woke” attack on a hero of the white man. There seems to be no limit on how much humiliation white men will take from these minority-driven cultural and racial attacks. Today white men have no real defense against their growing dispossession.

Conservatism was the movement to sustain the community in all ways and to ensure the community’s long-term survival, but conservatism virtually left out conserving the biology of the community, the genes, the genetic pool, the ethnic group that defines the community. Conservatism defended religion and high culture against the materialist doctrine of progress but---inspired by its universalist religion---conservatism forgot about conserving the materialism that makes up the genes, the genetic pool, and the ethnic group of the community. The Black Lives Matter movement and its white-woke-cuckold followers doesn't have that problem.

Steady change, not revolution, is typical in biological evolution

Bold thinking is often accompanied by impatience. One of the things that has taken me the longest to learn is that change usually comes in small increments through patient and persistent effort over decades, and big changes can take years.

Radical revolutions usually don't work, they last a very short time and are quickly snuffed out because they were not grounded in patient and persistent effort over decades, and years.

Steady change, not revolution, is typical in biological evolution and is the conservative way to evolve and change; over many centuries we evolved three brains, one evolved upon the other---the reptilian and the mammalian brains were retained, not thrown away, even as we evolved the higher neocortex.

Alan Bullock said originality lay in the realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with and not against the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin revolution.

Perhaps the most important belief of the conservatives is that change comes in small increments through patient and persistent effort over decades, and big changes take years.

I seek big changes, such as ethnopluralism of ethnostates in politics, evolutionary realism in art, and theological materialism in religion and philosophy, but I know that revolutions, like war, tend to sweep all gains away, which can slow down evolution, and evolution over time needs the order of tradition and peace, while seeking and keeping the best of the new.

For example, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be conservatively and legally established in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, but without a federal defense complete secession from the union could leave the new ethnostates vulnerable to marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers.

It will take a little courage to first see and admit real human nature but then even more courage to begin to proclaim it publicly

Finding the truth probably has more to do with having the courage to admit the truth to yourself than having high intelligence, although it may take even more courage to speak the truth publicly, especially if you can lose your livelihood and even your family if you speak or write politically incorrect things, that is, if you do not use language or behavior that does not proclaim cultural Marxism. A lack of courage of intellectuals, writers, and artists today has caused both their ignorance and cowardliness.

Heroic philosophers, writers, and artists on the right or the left don't exist today or are rare and on the fringes of society. What is missing is a true and real definition of human nature, and that is missing because real and true human nature is biologically kin and ethnic centered and even genetically ethnocentric, which does not conform to the cultural Marxism that has marched through our schools and the media since the 1960's.

The schools and the Media have transformed students and citizens into identifying with a rootless universal “humanity” replacing the way American's naturally identified with their own ancestors and traditions and their own genetic ethnic/racial roots. Real human nature is ethnocentric, not with one group overall superior or inferior but with different talents, never equal, because for many thousands of years right up to our present time group selection, or ethnic altruism, was the best way to be successful in survival and reproduction. 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.

But can we expect our philosophers, writers, and artists to admit the truth about human nature if they may lose their livelihood and even their families if they do? Each person will answer that as they can. The most humane way out of our deepening identity crisis would define a true natural rights or civil rights movement as promoting an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red, with each ethnostate protected from marauding imperialists, global businesses, supremacists, Marxists, etc., and defended by a defensive federalism. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states.

Solving the age old problem of division and union in America

Our Founders tried to solve the age old problem of division and union in America. They relied on the ideas of people like Aristotle to help solve the differences between rich and poor, etc, but they missed the problems that came later from allowing unlimited and undiscriminating immigration, most likely assuming immigrants would be from Christian northern Europe. 

Hamilton thought open and free economics could help heal the divisions between rich and poor by giving everyone a chance at getting rich, and it was very successful when the culture was homogeneous, but ethnic and racial divisions later followed the unlimited and undiscriminating immigration. And the Founders also missed the social problems that would later come from allowing black slavery for economic purposes. Our inner cities eventually became filled with unassimilated blacks.

What was missing was knowledge of the biological origin of social behavior which came with Darwin, when real human nature could be seem as being genetically kin and ethnic centered, with group selection as the main unit of successful survival and reproduction. 

The decline of America culture and the American people really began to accelerate in the 1960's when several destructive things came together: postmodernism in the academic world, hedonism promoted by the Big Media, modern liberalism on the left, and libertarianism on the right, and of course continuing unlimited and undiscriminating immigration.

For example, white Minnesotan's have turned themselves inside out to accommodate non-whites. Populations of people of color have increased faster in Minnesota than the rest of the nation since 2010. The over  20,000 Somali's in Minneapolis have begun to broadcast the call to prayer over loudspeakers in their neighborhoods. There are more than 66,000 Hmong in Minnesota, the largest concentration of Hmong in America. The assimilation  of Somalis and Hmong has not taken place, and recent riots in Minneapolis have shown us that that the inner city blacks have after many years still not really assimilated.

The first person I read who had the knowledge and the self-sacrificing courage to challenge Spengler's cyclic view of history was Wilmot Robertson in "The Ethnostate.” Robertson suggested that we could halt and reverse the decline of America by transforming the socially destructive aspects of ethnic or racial competition into developing socially constructive ethnostates.  The new (yet old) solution to the division of the nation, which the liberals and cultural Marxists have willing and consciously created with the help of the media and the schools, is to form ethnostates or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. 

We will probably have to wait for future leaders to pick up what President Trump leaves undone, as he picked up what Ronald Reagan left undone. But we can continue to counter Spengler's prediction of inevitable fall by solving the age old problem of division and union in America by working toward forming an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, legally adapted from our Constitutional separation of powers and states, and then protecting the ethnostates from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, with a defensive federalism.  

I think the Founders might approve.

On the rise to political power

Paul Gottfried said “There’s only one way, as far as I can tell, that a political force can take off. It’s the way neoconservatives moved up, by putting together a king’s fortune, which they used to acquire media power.” But so did the now faded WASPS and the not-fading Jews become a political force, by putting together a king’s fortune which they used to acquire media power. And so did the cultural Marxists in the schools attach themselves to the media powers, although cunning social skills in the battle for ideas lined up against the biological origin of social behavior and had much to do with the rise of the cultural Marxists in the schools.

What Gottfried and other paleoconservatives don't mention is beneath all these grabs for power is the biological origin of social behavior. 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. Why don't the paleos mention that?

Perhaps it doesn't line up with the conservative religious-based agenda which says that God is the origin of social behavior; but more likely knowledge of the biological origin of social behavior gets in the way of a Machiavellian ethnic bid for power: human nature remains genetically kin-centered and ethnic-centered, with group-selection and ethnic selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Evolutionary conservatism features the biological origin of social behavior. A true natural rights or civil rights movement would promote an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red, with each ethnostate protected from marauding imperialists, global businesses, supremacists, Marxists, etc., and defended by a defensive federalism.
 
An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states. That is the most humane conservative solution to our deepening identity crisis.

 

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.

Hollywood has been wildly successful in the destruction of traditional Western culture

It is more entertaining to the masses to attack a culture than to affirm a culture and Hollywood has become an evil genius at entertainingly destroying traditional Western culture. Hollywood has been very successful in promoting and establishing their own degenerate garbage culture in America---and getting very rich in the process.

Then that destruction was combined with the destruction of traditional Western culture in virtually all of our schools. A majority of our young people have bought it all. We can see why Hollywood is the most dangerous organization in America today.

Hollywood was very cunning to at first sell only wholesome patriotic movies and television before and just after World War Two; they took their time to get to the point to where they now sell only hedonism, sex, drugs, and revolution. When Hollywood does temporarily put aside its constant attacks against Western culture its favorite default worldview is cultural Marxism, which is just another more academic attack against Western culture. 
 

This quote from Joseoph Goebbels shows that Hollywood learned from its greatest enemy (or was it the other way around?): “ We shall reach our goal, when we have the power to laugh as we destroy, as we smash whatever was sacred to us as tradition, as education, and as human affection.”

Traditional Western culture is in serious trouble. What can we do about it? We could try to do to Hollywood what they did to us, destroy their culture; but in the long term it is better to just work on legally establishing ethnostates, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in America. Hollywood might even then have their own ethnostate to pollute---New York? Los Angeles?

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.

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.

When will modern culture improve?

I am never inspired by either high or low modern culture. It's lacks talent, is cheap, short-sighted, lacks integrity, and lacks courage. All the books, art, film and television turn to sex, violence and shock because that is all modern culture allows us to take part in. Show me a popular modern writer, artist, actor, producer and I will tell you which of the three they exploit, sex, violence or shock. The freedom or license for individuals to partake in sex, violence and shock is all we have now because everything else in banned by political correctness, including religion. It really is all garbage and at least partly explains why populism has been rejecting the establishment across the Western world.

When will modern culture improve? Probably not until ethnopluralism is established in the lands, with people living in their own territories where the natural affirmation of a people and ethnic culture, which exists within basic human nature, can inspire great culture again. Pluralism is actually a conservative principle, it reflects the natural separation of powers, states and cultures. Unity is not meant to be universal, international, or global, it was evolved for local unity. Even agriculture shows the danger of a large mono-culture, it leads to the end of the gene pool, and the end of ongoing evolution.

So who benefits most from our garbage modern culture? Answer that accurately and maybe we can begin our recovery.

Clarifying the clunky phrase sociobiological constitutionalism

The general meaning is in the clunky phrase sociobiological constitutionalism.

Human nature today is virtually the same as it has always been in all its dimensions in the “state of nature.” And open immigration, same-sex marriage, the concentration of power, crony-capitalism, with rootless technocrats and globalists managing it all, does not relate to the real state of human nature.

In every human culture ever honestly and rationally studied, human nature included, among other things, kin-selection preferences, incest taboos, marriage, hierarchy, division of labor, gender differentiation, localism, even ethnocentrism, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection, and individualism only as a secondary form of selection within the group. If the culture proposes to not include these things, the culture does not last long and it will always return to these things.

People today are dropping out, not hippies but conservatives, seceding, home schooling, basically quitting politics rather than fighting the rootless global elitists, which hands the victory to the centralized state. What we should be promoting is ethnopluralism, which could be accommodated by the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and states.

Orestes Brownson said that if you deemphasize, or take away the states of the United States you end up with a “centralized despotism.” I believe the relationship between the central government and the states should be heavily weighted on the side of the states, even to the degree of having states or regions with distinctly ethnic cultures, or virtual ethnostates. Federalism can protect their independence. Why ethnopluralism? In our increasing crowded world that is the way we can relate best to real human nature, real human groups, and the real state of nature. Otherwise we will have either slow or fast decline, civil disruptions, even civil war, which would probably lead only to despotism.

Ethnopluralism and the constitutional principle of states' rights

The constitutional principle of states' rights is the legal and conservative way to establish ethnopluralism, without radical revolution. Ethnopluralism and states' rights are not code words for supremacist racialism, or the old segregation of the South. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution preserves the rights of the states and individuals and could accommodate ethnopluralism if we wanted it too. By ethnopluralism I mean regions and states generally set aside for distinctive ethnic cultures, and protected by the federalism of the constitution. Ethnopluralism is the sensible legal solution to the increasing civil disruptions caused by natural competition between competing ethnic, religious, and political groups, which have always torn nations apart.

America did not, and will not, melt into a motley creed of sameness or oneness because human nature does not act that way, no matter what various intellectuals preach. In every human culture ever studied human nature included kin-selection preferences, marriage, hierarchy, division of labor, gender differentiation, localism, ethnocentrism, with group-selection as the main unit of selection. As E. O. Wilson reminded us, within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals every time. If a culture proposes to not include these traits of real human nature the culture does not last long and always returns to these things. This view of human nature is affirmed at the core of conservatism and tradition, whereas many of these traits are missing in the modern political creeds of both the left and the right.

People with courage and influence need to rise and work for this conservative and legal solution. I see no other workable or moral long-term solution to the decline of America and the West.

Theological materialism, ethnopluralism, and divine purpose

Marxism, the left, and modern liberalism do not really believe the multiculturalism they espouse, all the world must become exactly what they are.
 

Real respect for variety and diversity comes with ethnopluralism, where there are many ethnic groups, many races and cultures, living in their own territories.
 

One evolutionary religious philosophy and one political philosophy actually affirm this variety and independence: theological materialism and ethnopluralism.
 

Federalism, the modern form of subsidiarity, can offer protection for these differences in ethnic groups and ethnic states.
 

But there is an overall direction and purpose in life and therefore in theological materialism, which is applied in ethnopluralism: the successful evolution of material life to supermaterial Godhood.
 

This divine plan can be guided over great time by international sociobiological research centers, voluntary, open to all, and advised by the religious philosophy of theological materialism.

The Denial of Nature: Godhood Left Out of Religion, Conservatism, and Neo-Darwinism

The deepest problem of modern politics, religion and science is the failure to recognize natural laws and natural standards. There are distinctions in human nature that cannot be denied, but are denied, and they are denied not only by modern liberalism and postmodernism but are denied by conservatism and science---although not all natural distinctions are denied.

It is not just the historicism of liberal postmodernism thinking that all values are relative to the time and the place, which leads to nihilism, it is conservatism thinking that all values relate to a non-material God, and science rejecting God entirely. They miss knowledge of the sacred goal in natural evolution.

Platonic reason and the God of traditional religion swerve away from nature when the highest reason and the highest God are seen and defined as non-material. Many in science are now making the same mistake in calling quantum physics non-material or spiritual. This biases religion, politics, science, and culture in general.

The science of evolution has developed all along from Darwin to E. O. Wilson in learning that human nature remains kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. This leads to values that relate to the separation of powers and states, and to an ethnopluralism protected by federalism. This political structure best enhances the variety that evolution benefits from. But Neo-Darwinism has a problem with religion and conservatism because it sees no ultimate cosmic goal to life other than random selection.

The Godhood left out of religion, conservatism, and Darwinism is the supermaterial Godhood which material life evolves toward in the natural world. The divine is a level of life we can evolve to become. Life endlessly evolves with no beginning and no end---who can really prove a beginning motionless mover?---along with the ups and downs of natural selection and evolution. Our mission is to aid in the evolution of life toward Godhood.

We can return full circle to nature and real human nature while retaining Godhood, conservatism, and enlightened science. Theological materialism affirms this acceptance.

Universalism versus Patriotism

When the U.S. goes abroad in search of monsters and the people ask---“Why is it our business?---the answer involves the clash between universalism and patriotism. Real human nature does not contain the values related to universalism except on the lower level of the hierarchy of values. Universalism, human rights, equality, open immigration, world democracy, etc. etc, do not much relate to the kin-centered, group-centered, regional-centered patriotism of basic human nature, which developed over tens of thousands of years of evolution---and this is universal.

So the patriots have begun to fight back, especially in Europe, against the sneering, presumptuous, universalists, who were indoctrinated in our colleges and universities with the ideology of cultural Marxism, which William Lind said is the basis of political correctness. The arrogant and condescending Clinton's are examples of this type. Sociobiology desperately needs to enter our Humanities departments, but that is obviously not happening.

But patriotic groups are rising all over, even in the U.S.---and I say go to it! It's big power against little power, but so what? Real human nature and human history are on the side of the patriots.