I wonder if we will ever have the leisure, the money, and the time to breed and develop better quality fashions, homes, luxurious lifestyle, and leadership than the English aristocrats

I obviously believe in change in the evolutionary philosophy of theological materialism, but I don't think changes should be made unless the change is actually better than the past.   

 

I think the Anglophile's are basically right in revering the age of aristocracy in England regarding clothing, fashions, homes, luxurious lifestyle, and leadership in general; it was one of the greatest aristocracies in history, even if it was eventually prone to etiolation and effeteness.   

 

In my view, changes in fashions, homes, luxurious lifestyle, etc. would only be improvements around the edges of the age of aristocracy in England. The English aristocrats had the leisure, the money, and the time (1688-1830) to develop the very best quality in fashion, homes, and luxurious lifestyle. The fashions and homes of today are greatly inferior to the age of aristocracy in England by any sane assessment, give or take a few damp manor houses, stiff collars, and bustles. 

 

Breeding between aristocrats of the British Empire was present for a long time not only relating to homes, fashions, etc, but in the greatly successful leadership of the state, armed forces, government, clergy, the big landowners, etc. Even so, in the long run I believe more in the separation of powers and states as seen in the original U. S. Constitution, even to the extent of developing ethnostates for distinctively different ethnic groups. I also believe in meritocracies which prevent the etiolation and effeteness that aristocracies are prone to. And I believe in the constant genetic improvement of human beings all the way to Godhood.

 

Even so, I wonder if we will ever have the leisure, the money, and the time to breed and develop better quality fashions, homes, luxurious lifestyle, and leadership than the English aristocrats of 1688-1830.

Heaven is an evolutionary meritocracy

Contrary to the concerns of many conservatives (see "Hell Is A Meritocracy," page 13, Chronicles July 2017), meritocracies do not require big culturally Marxist or fascist states any more than the private ownership of the means of production (capitalism) does.

It took awhile for IQ tests to be accepted and it will take awhile for the science of genetics to be accepted. Who wants radical change? Conservatism changes more slowly. And the change can certainly be voluntary.

The people will choose to have children without genetic diseases, and later will more positively choose to have, say, more intelligent children. That is humane. There need be no Orwellian widening of the gap between classes, genetic science will become cheaper for everyone.

Intelligence can and does rise in any class. New varieties of intelligence and creativity are welcome in ongoing evolution. The intelligent top want the bottom to improve. But this does not call for a Marxist or fascist state when an ethnopluralism of ethnostates will do nicely---an ethnopluralism of ethnostates can be conservatively adapted by the constitutional separation of powers and states in the U. S. We all rise together protecting variety over long-term evolution.

The technocratic meritocracy we have today recognizes IQ from sterile tests and then feeds the chosen into culturally Marxist universities which do not believe in the biological or genetic origin of much of our social behavior. That is an oxymoron meritocracy to say the least and it should not represent meritocracies.

As to religion, which is perhaps the bottom line of conservative objections to meritocracies: when real Godhood is understood as evolved to in the material and supermaterial world (see theological materialism) then religion and conservatism can be on the side of meritocracies. Heaven is an evolutionary meritocracy.