A more humane solution to the separation or balkanization of the United States

At first glance it looks like the "identify politics" of the liberals could find common cause with the Alt-right because they both push the importance of ethnicity. But then the left does a diabolical thing, it promotes nonwhite and non-Western peoples by the method of charging white-Western people with being racist and xenophobic. And of course there is also the fiction on the left that all human beings are the same and would all get along but for evil racism---discounting of course their own identity politics. 

Conservative's will talk about the importance of political and cultural affinities which tend to create the geographical bonds between people, but they won't mention, or rarely mention, the stronger group-selection preference of ethnicity. It's an understandable excuse since the ruling politically correct cultural Marxism of the left can ruin conservatives if they are charged with being racist. And then there is the universalism beneath the spiritualism of Christianity which also has something to do with the reluctance of conservatives to affirm deep ethnic differences between peoples.

So we have the process of the separation or balkanization of the United States now beginning to take place along with the collapse of the American empire, which was predictable given that real human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other things, with group or ethnic-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

The natural and rational way to deal with the separation or balkanization of the United States and the collapse of the empire would be to legally and non-violently adapt the constitutional separation of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. That won't be easy but it will be more humane and far better than the solutions put forward by the left, and even the right, as mentioned above.

We need to change our immigration laws or America as we have known it will be more a murder than a suicide

Liberals in America have been indoctrinated with a cultural form of Marxism which teaches them to open wide the borders of the United States and allow in virtually all immigrants, even criminals.

Liberals have been brainwashed from pre-school to grad-school to believe that human nature is formed only by culture to be whatever we decide to make human nature, and genetic traits have little or nothing to do with it.

Liberals think that all the immigrants will simply melt into America because liberals are ignorant of genetically-derived human nature with its group or ethnic-selection preferences, which means that distinctly different people don't melt, they compete, often fiercely.

Non-assimilation brings cultural changes as a result of the natural differences between people---as the people change the culture changes. The non-assimilation eventually brings social disorder and even civil war.

The murder of the West seems a better analogy now than the suicide the West. The analogy of  suicide seems related to ignorance, the murder analogy seems more deliberate, although in the deepest sense they may both be the result of ignorance.

The flat fact is we need to change our immigration laws or America as we have known it will be more a murder than a suicide......Will there ever be payback for those responsible for the murder? That depends on who saves us, how we are saved, and if we are saved.

How aristocrat's led to the production of great art, and why we don't

It seems to me that aristocrats led to the production of great art because they were primarily not greedy for money, and did not have such a thing as affirmative action pushing ethnic preferences in choosing the art of monarchies or in nationalistic Europe.

That has not been the case especially in the United States over the last 100 years, but also in Europe. Money and greed---and ethnic preferences since the 1960's---has been choosing the art and the artists, which has led to mostly garbage as art.

Now we have cheap pornography in our books and films and the obscene nursery rhymes of Rap, all chosen by people seeking money or ethnic preferences. Today even on my classical music station I heard one of those boring jacked up Gershwin "American symphonies" which wasn't worth being created let alone having "variations" on.

We probably won't have great art again until America and Europe form an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, along with an appreciation again of meritocracies. But don't hold your breath for it.

Survival and evolution work best in religiously and ethnically bonded groups before they are overcome with spiritualism and universalism

The hypothesis of sociobiology regarding the development of religion is that religion's better bonded people together and made religiously bonded groups more successful than people or groups unbonded by religion or groups weakly bonded by religion.

But like almost everything in life the good comes with the bad, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Spiritualism can be taken to extremes. Asceticism often leads to denying all the material desires including the desire for reproductive success. Several religious founders downplayed the desires of the flesh and warned against them, even advocating celibacy.

It is from that extreme base of spiritual idealism that universalism often develops, which ends up weakening religions---as political universalism (modern liberalism) weakens nations. The original bonds of religion are then broken and the people are therefore broken.

This would seem to give the advantage to religions that remain ethnocentric and not universal, like Judaism, or even religions that claim to be universal but whose members remain bonded within the same ethnic groups, like the Islamic Arabs or Islamic Persians, and the Mormons before they embraced universalism.

The religious philosophy of theological materialism doesn't have that problem of spiritual idealism or universalism because it believes that Godhood is supermaterial, not spiritual, and Godhood is evolved to in the material world. Therefore survival and reproductive success become vital in evolving to Godhood.

The hypothesis is that survival and evolution work best in religiously and ethnically bonded groups before they are overcome with spiritualism and universalism. Theological materialism affirms an ethnopluralism of ethnostates where all ethnic groups and all ethnostates can best bond themselves and proceed with ongoing evolution toward real Godhood, aided by religion, science, and any other field that advances evolution. Various forms of federalism can protect the whole, along with  international evolutionary research centers open to aiding all states.

Why sociobiology needs to be placed at the foundation of philosophy

In the past philosopher's talked about the influence of culture on the philosopher, and wondered if the philosopher could be "timeless" outside of his culture. This was before postmodernism went wild and decided it could be completely free ("condemned to freedom"---what arrogance) and invent a relativity of truths and values, since all thing were the result of nurture not nature.

Sociobiology changed all that with its empirical studies on the biological origin of social behavior. Philosophers can't escape the implications of sociobiology and almost seem suicidal to want to. Ideas are only as timeless as the biological origin of social behavior relates to ideas (although there is a co-evolution between biology and culture, biology takes the lead.)

So that is why sociobiology needs to be placed at the foundation of philosophy, which will effect the specialties of philosophy, from politics to art. I think sociobiology even relates to ontology and the definition of Being since I believe we evolve to supermaterial Godhood in the material world.

This brings wild postmodernism and its cultural Marxism back to reality as it does the spiritualism of metaphysics, if they can admit it. It also brings Godhood or Being back to reality, rejuvenating them without rejecting them. Conservatism also looks good because it is grounded in the biology of human nature---although conservatism needs to better admit the deep reality of evolution within tradition.

The cancellation of the Roseanne reboot will cause more anger, not prevent it

The vulgar show that finally gave conservatives a chance to vent a little bit was canceled because Roseanne said something bigoted, which minority comedians do every time they go on stage. But the cancellation, which the culturally Marxist liberals wanted even before Roseanne said something bigoted, will only cause more anger, not prevent it. Why?

There is a difference between bigotry and ethnocentrism and Roseanne Barr's statement on Valerie Jarret was bigoted, that is, it showed intolerance toward those who hold different identities from her own (she is Jewish).

But you can prefer your own kin and ethnic group without hating other groups. Ethnocentrism is an extension of being kin-centered, and both of those traits are a basic part of real human nature because they helped humans survive and bond successfully in a dangerous and competitive world.

Minority comedians who have suffered bigotry against them are allowed to vent and attack the majority, which is probably why we have so many angry Black and Jewish comedians, but whites are not allowed to vent anger in that way. That's how dictators rise.

Sociobiology eats the lunch of postmodernism

If we thought of analytical philosophy as the study of nature, rather than the mathematical relations in which the various parts of philosophy fit, and continental philosophy as the study of nurture, rather than how to make whole the complications of analytic philosophers, then it seems to me that the science of of sociobiology would take the place of analytical philosophy, and continental philosophy would study the cultural implications of the biological origin of social behavior.

That is how much I think sociobiology could improve the arcane complications of philosophy. Sociobiology could at least be given an uppermost seat in science and humanities departments in all our colleges and universities, rather than arrogantly condemned or ignored. Sociobiology eats the lunch of postmodernism, which is the presumptuous child of Nietzsche, who I seem to remember writing that if he had it to do over again he would study biology to deepen philosophy.

Recognition of the biological origin of social behavior can lead to the overcoming of alienated individuals and groups in society

Recognition of the biological origin of social behavior can lead to the overcoming of alienated individuals and groups in society. This recognition is now being blocked by cultural Marxism.

But cynical as it is to say, Marxist's who deny biology and push nurture are driven by the same biological origin of their own social behavior and they ride the lies of cultural Marxism to their own biological and cultural advantage, some of them unaware of doing it.

Many people have turned back to closed alienated individualism because they do not feel at home with the social lies of cultural Marxism, which tell us that we are all the same and demand that we all get along living in the same localities showing no preference for anything or anyone other than the egalitarian lies of cultural Marxism.

With the recognition of the biological origin of social behavior people can overcome their alienation and realistically bond with their own groups again and connect with people who share their own biological and cultural traits, which is the only kind of long-term bonding possible given human nature, which continues to prefer kin and ethnic group-bonding.

Empires fall for good reason. The Soviet Union broke into ethnostates because Marxist lies alienated individuals and natural groups in society. The people more or less recognized that the biological origin of social behavior leads to the recognition of ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

The West may fall for the same reasons---and China too. So why not begin the process of dissolving or devolving empires into ethnostates peacefully? As I always suggest, the constitutional separation of powers and states in the U.S. could be legally, not radically, adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, with a federally protective defense against the lies and bogus drives of empires and globalism.

Sacred synthesis

We can have a sacred synthesis in modern times. A healthy culture, tragedy, art, religion and science can conservatively affirm the institutions of society in affirming the evolution of material life toward supermaterial Godhood. That is the ultimate synthesis, the sacred synthesis. Not having that sacred synthesis divides our identity.

Practical material living and ideal material and supermaterial evolution come together in the sacred synthesis---the practical and ideal are usually apart.

As to the will to power and dominion which scare modern man when applied politically, they can be demphasized. Although it is true that you can't have life without protecting and defending life, material and supermaterial evolution are more about mastery, facility, capability, than power or dominion. But the chess table of evolution and future evolution should be protected and not turned over by impatient radicals.

Politically, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates relates well to real kin and ethnic-centered human nature, and that relates in the long term to the practical and the ideal evolution of material life toward supermaterial Godhood. The conditions for evolution work best in smaller ethnostates.

Raymond Cattell's projected international research centers come to mind as to how the work can be organized. I would call them Theoevolutionary Research Centers. TE Research Centers would be where religion, sociobiology, ethnopluralism, genetics, sacred and future evolution, etc. are advanced, along with the more popular religion of theological materialism. 

Will the day ever come when humans stop blocking and denying what they actually are?

Time magazine use to more or less affirm middle-class values, now as it nears its death it promotes feminism and minority grievances. In a recent interview black playwright Lynn Nottage triumphantly declared that: "Trump is the outward manifestation of white male panic."

At least someone is worried about the fall of white men and the fall of Western civilization.  Is the white man supposed to welcome his own death? That would be psychological and biological suicide. 

How about being a little grateful to white men who junked meritocracy to advance minorities, when meritocracy was the thing that made the West fair-minded and great against old world advancement through nepotism and cronyism? Affirmative Action has spent billions of mostly white dollars promoting social programs that advance blacks and minorities (but not Asians) over vastly more qualified candidates, and billions more on welfare programs. Is reverse racism better than old racism?

The answer to that question may shock both the white cuckolds of cultural Marxism and the radical minorities. Being kin-centered and ethnocentric is a basic part of real human nature and has been since humans became humans. Bonding with group-selection preferences was genetically inherited because it allowed us to live and survive successfully in a very dangerous world, and those traits are still very much with all of us today.

Will the day ever come when humans stop blocking and denying what they actually are? Perhaps then we can use the ethnocentrism that is tearing us apart to put us back together again, this time in ethnostates, for all groups. If you want to march for social and racial justice march for that. The U. S. constitutional separation of powers and states could be adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

What we should be teaching in the West

In thinking about the co-evolution of nature and nurture, "we see what we believe" seems to relate more to nurture, and "we believe what we see" seems to relate more to nature.

Both inherited human intelligence and nurtured learning have been mistaught and misused in the West by the ideals of modern liberalism, or cultural Marxism, which virtually denies inherited intelligence and teaches people that we are all the same genetically which they think is good and all our differences are do to what we learn from our environment. On the other extreme are the old style racists who virtually discount nurturing and the environment and believe that all of human nature is inherited.

The inherited material machinery of the eyes and brain are not the same in individuals or species. The machinery of a frog brain is genetically less sophisticated, or differently specialized, than a human brain and they will both see and learn differently. These differences were inherited because they helped the human and the frog successfully survive and reproduce in different environments, and that machinery remains mainly the same today.

An inherited sophisticated brain won't be very useful if the brain is exposed to little but distorted learning. Even a genetically sophisticated brain won't help us much if it is brainwashed or propagandized with mistaken nurturing and learning such as the cultural Marxism we are now taught in the West.

We have gotten far away from knowing about the real human nature we inherited from our ancestors and we need to go back to a healthy expression of who we are. In every human culture ever studied human nature included, among other things, kin-selection preferences, incest taboos, marriage, hierarchy, division of labor, gender differentiation, localism, group-selection and even ethnocentrism. If a culture proposes to not include these things the culture does not last long and it will always return to these things. These traits also happen to be at the core of classical conservatism, whereas many of these things are missing in communism, modern liberalism, and post-modernism.

Real life strongly suggests that real human nature leads naturally to the cultural expression of regionalism, localism, and even ethnostates, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected by some sort of federalism. Given who we are this appears to be the best way we can optimize the gene expression we all inherited from our human ancestors, and that is what we should be teaching in the West. The East could be teaching it too. This would bring a long-lasting natural order to our increasing modern chaos.

Why can't modern liberals think outside the box of political correctness and cultural Marxism?

"This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper:" T S Eliot

Why can't modern liberals think outside the box of political correctness and cultural Marxism? I think it's more a lack of courage than the fact that they were taught that nonsense from grade school through grad school. The lack of courage seems also to be based in a lack of physical courage, caused by a sedentary life full of technical gadgets and passive viewing of a pervasive liberal media.

Many liberals were intimidated or saw others humiliated by more knowledgeable teachers and professors for thinking outside the liberal box. Real truths about human nature are not even taught in our schools, for example, the synthesizing science of sociobiology is left out of the humanities, or is belittled when it is rarely mentioned.

Sports can teach courage but even our sports have been increasingly invaded by passive liberals who seem to prefer losers to winners, at least on the surface.  And of course the military is the traditional way to teach courageous behavior.

Being poor can teach courage in order to survive, but it can also teach lying, cheating, and criminal behavior.

I suppose courage can still be taught in the family even if the culture does not teach it. We can reward our children for showing both physical and intellectual courage---but showing courage in an amiable way, if possible.

When the masculine or feminine traits of real human nature are taken to their extremes

When the masculine or feminine traits of real human nature are taken to their extremes (and there are definite genetically-derived gender differences) the inclusionary nurturing qualities of females can help lead to egalitarian Marxism, and the exclusionary defensive qualities of males can help lead to racial supremacism. Either of these extremes of gender differences applied politically can end up damaging survival and reproduction in the long term. Extreme female nurturing can result in the breakdown of the protection of the people and the culture, and extreme male defensiveness can result in unnecessary and damaging wars. What we need in our social philosophy is a healthy balance between the gender traits of human nature.

Traditional conservatism creates a better more natural gender balance than modern liberalism which has feminized Western culture with cultural Marxism and broken down the protective masculine qualities of Western people, which is leading to being overwhelmed and even replaced by non-western people. But even traditional conservatism has failed to emphasize the natural human tendency to create protective states based on real kin and ethnic-centered, or group-selecting, human nature. A healthy balance between the gender traits of human nature, as well as kin and ethnic-centered human nature, suggests an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, for all groups. If we wish to save our homelands and what we are as men and women, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates should eventually be a future adaption of the constitutional separation of powers and states in the U. S..

What I Affirm ( from 2006)

For the historical, traditionally-understood God, I affirm Traditional Christianity, and the Involutionary Inward Path, for the same, evolving, but futuristically-understood God, I affirm the Evolutionary Outward Path.

I affirm two ways to understand Godhood: Traditionalist, looking back to God, and Futurist, looking forward toward evolution to Godhood; the micro–back, the macro-forward, affirming the same God, although the Theoevolutionary Church (TC) says that Godhood must be evolved to.

I affirm the conservative social philosophy which harmonizes with subsidiarity, agrarianism (including serious ecological concerns), separatism and a strictly interpreted “federalism” of the American variety, i.e. strong states rights, and above all local rights.

“Small is beautiful” is affirmed for conservative and sociobiological reasons, e.g. Beyondism; evolution seems to work best within the biological variety of a natural, conservatism. This can harmonize science and religion.

The Traditional Church is affirmed, for spiritual, conservative, and sociobiological reasons, with the important and vital addition of evolution, and with the "expanded" definition of Godhood defined as that which must be evolved to, a Godhood which was virtually, and blissfully “seen” or “experienced” inwardly by the great religious founders and sages. We see now that we evolve to Godhood.

The royal marriage and sanctification of modern liberalism

I suppose Harry and Meghan are not responsible for their royal marriage being a sanctification of the ideology of modern liberalism or cultural Marxism, they were taught the same ideology of equality, integration, and involution as the rest of the Western world. I wish the happy royal couple well, but the sanctification of equality, integration, and involution will not bring the peace and order we all hope for.

The irony, or tragedy, is that the modern liberalism or cultural Marxism celebrated in this marriage will probably eventually lead to strongmen from the far left or far right taking over and blocking the freedoms of modern liberalism---often called for by the people---in order to create peace and order out of the social chaos caused by the attempts at the integration of distinctly different people in the same living space.  Harry's own London is becoming a violent cultural zoo.

Why does this happen? Real human nature remains genetically kin and ethnic-centered and cultures are still created around that natural behavior. When we try to integrate distinctly different people in the same living space we end up with ethnic competitions that lead to social chaos, no matter how many ways we sanctify modern liberalism, even with love.

Real humanitarian people, real compassionate people, would develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates where each distinctive group and culture could proudly celebrate who they are and what they are, without damaging or corrupting other groups and cultures.

Affirmative Action is part of the imperialistic and supremacist mind-set

Affirmative Action, the effort to improve the lives of minority groups, is in reality part of the imperialistic and supremacist mind-set in advancing racial minorities not by merit but by racial grouping. It's not as bad as slavery but we can see as time goes by that the "equality" of Affirmative Action has been a front for imperialism and supremacism. We also see that Affirmative Action has been mainly directed by other more successful ethnic minorities who are disguising their own ethnic wills to power beneath the calls for equality, which sometimes makes poor ethnic groups only cannon fodder.

But before we get too upset by this we should realize that the drive toward group and ethnic selection is the primary selection choice in basic human nature because it has been the best means to successful survival and reproduction since humans became humans. And so the natural game goes on.

Rather than continuing the same see-saw or cyclic battles between distinctly different ethnic groups within our societies, which in reality is due to group-selection preferences in real human nature, and rather than slavery, imperialism, with unfair and corrupt social engineering programs like Affirmative Action (which only sets up resentment, anger and more ethnic revolutions), it would be far more natural and ethical to affirm an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

So who is keeping an ethnopluralism of ethnostates from naturally, and sanely, happening, which could at least in the U.S. be legally adapted from the constitutional separation of powers and states? In most cases it is ethnic groups and corporations who selfishly benefit, at least in the short-term, from slavery, supremacism, and imperialism, which they disguise with such things as "equality" and Affirmative Action---some without even knowing they are doing it.  It may be cunning but it's stupid.

Has Trump been out-chutzpahed?

Is President Trump America First or Israel First? He seems to be both, which makes him a dual loyalist, like his enemies the neoconservatives. Now that is a convoluted mix. But it seems to be the price of doing politics in America.

But Trump is now playing in a larger and more dangerous playground than his usual New York City real estate zoo. Trump's dual loyalty has gotten him into a real mess in the Middle East. Trump has agreed to moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. And he has supported Israel in its deadly competition with Iran.

This means the U.S. will have to militarily support Israel in a probable war with Iran. Iran may then be supported by Russia, with China as usual wisely staying out of it all. A very dangerous involvement. None of it is good for America.

The next conservative populist leader who rises through the dirty ranks of politics needs to really be only for America First....I suppose we could say that President Trump at least led the opening volley toward saving America.

Equality which acknowledges that we are different?

In a recent interview venerable British actress Glenda Jackson asked the interesting question, how do you create a society in which there is genuine equality which acknowledges that we are different?

The word "society" suggests people associated together for common ends, common interests, common goals. But since "genuine" equality does not really exist, and in reality different ethnic groups are genetically and culturally distinctively different, this suggests that an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the best political way to create homogeneous societies in which there is an equality that acknowledges that we are different. Trying to jam distinctly different ethnic groups together in the same society obviously is not working well in England or in the U.S. regardless of how much we are preached to about equality. Violence increases.

Although she does seem to have courage, I doubt Ms. Jackson would like this answer---too bad, she could sell it better than I do.

It's more a slaying of the West than a suicide

Led by depraved Academia, gender and race quotas in the U.S. have now made James Burnham's term on the liberal "suicide of the West" too broad to define what is now the "slaying of the West."

Even communist China has not fallen for bogus gender and race quotas and is proudly pushing a meritocratic system of schooling. They are also promoting genetic engineering and even positive eugenics to increase the intelligence of the already intelligent Chinese people.

How long will healthy and sane people in the West put up with selecting less qualified people for everything?! Perhaps old greed in hiring will save the day if reason and instinct cannot. Or those who have not been indoctrinated in the academic world will naturally choose by merit rather than quotas and will therefore be far more successful---assuming they can escape the quota police.

That could also continue the populist conservative rise in the West. The "deplorables," not the halls of ivy, might just save the West!

I don't think I'm alone in wanting to see civilization return in both high and low culture

An article by Taki on the "gentleman" (Chronicles, May 2018) reminded me of past thoughts I've had on the gentleman.

If hip hop and and rap culture had their own independent state I doubt if I would have much to say about it, but they have been widely promoted in the whole country by the big and small media and have taken over popular culture the way Europe was taken over by barbarians in the Dark Ages. It then took over a thousand years to turn the barbarians back into European gentlemen.

When I say "gentleman" I'm not talking about a simpering over-civilized fop, I am talking about the old gentry, with good manners and a fighting spirit, a balance between the warrior and a cultured gentleman---which they still might teach in some out of the way school in the South. Taki reminds us that good manners are not a superficial thing, they serve a moral purpose, they illustrate that one is willing to put others first---which not only harmonizes with religion but with the preference for group-selection in real human nature for successful survival and reproduction.

But it's not just rap and hip hop. I don't affirm empires at all, but compare the gentlemen who ran the British empire with the neoconservatives who run the American empire. The Neos prefer cunning to courage, dual loyalties take the place of patriotism, making money is more important than morals principles, and the code of an eye for an eye is preferred to the code of the gentleman. Or think of modern country music stars, most of them act the exact opposite of the Southern gentleman, full of swaggering arrogance, glorifying drunkenness and promiscuity, frankly, acting like Black rappers.

What happened? The Big Media happened, promoting constant attacks against the traditional American people and traditional American culture in music, movies, television, portraying the gentleman as a fool or even as evil. Most of the producers of this junk are from New York or Los Angeles and could care less about the rest of the county.

I don't think I'm alone in wanting to see civilization return in both high and low culture. But distinctive people or ethnic groups make distinctive cultures, and for that I'm politically incorrect enough to say an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is necessary. Otherwise we continue to fall like the Roman and British Empires.

Is centralization ever a good thing?

Conservatives can legitimately criticize white nationalists for their attempts to centralize large diverse nations, but not for pointing out the importance of ethnocentrism. Open-border cultural Marxists are also mistaken centralizers and haters of real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature.

The other last hold out of conservatives (and libertarians) against the importance of group-selection or ethnocentrism comes in defining individualism or individual selection as more important than group selection. But as the great sociobiologist E.O. Wilson put it : "within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

Large countries are now virtually made up of ethnostates, whether they are allowed to be called that or not. Countries the size of the U. S., Russia, China, and continental Europe are made up of many ethnic groups usually located in virtual ethnostates.

All the forms of centralizing haven't prevented ethnopluralism from developing because group selection has always been the best means of successful survival and reproduction, which ends ends up forming ethnostates. The main thing centralizing is good for is protecting an ethnopluralism of ethnostates from marauding empires.

The constitutional separation of powers and states in the U.S. could be legally, not radically, adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates against all centralization, accept for a federally protective defense against empires and globalism. This may happen anyway, by one means or another, because it is natural human behavior---better to do it consciously and rationally, not violently.

Conservative's could learn from the downfall of the swine due to the courage of feminists and liberals

Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, Woody Allen, Jeremy Piven, James Levine, Steve Wynn, Louis C.K., James Franco, etc., and just recently Eric Schneiderman---but also non-Jewish men such as Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore, Garrison Keillor, Bill Cosby, and of course Bill Clinton. All treated women like shiksa's, the politically incorrect Yiddish word for blemished abominable non-Jewish women and therefore fair game to be abused.

And amazingly, it was women of the liberal feminist Me Too movement who had the balls to expose the swine, not conservative men or women who, as usual, worried about being accused of all sorts of politically incorrect things if they spoke out. That same fear didn't stop the feminists. Maybe it also had to due with the fact that many of the Me Too feminists were wealthy actresses who could at least survive if blackballed by Hollywood.

In any case, I would not have predicted the downfall of the swine due to the courage of feminists and liberals...Conservative's could learn from them.

Empires and Ethnostates

If you want an empire then Trump's new national security adviser John Bolton is your man. Bolton constantly advocates the use of force to advance the American empire, which is the main way empires advance.

But intelligent and courageous people do not want an empire, they want ethnostates, or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, because ethnostates are in harmony with real human nature, which remains as it has always been, kin-centered, local, and ethnocentric. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could even be established legally in the United States adapted from our constitutional separation of powers and states.

Why courageous? Because courage is needed to go against the prevailing globalism and cultural Marxism which rules the West. Courage is often more important than intelligence in finding the truth.

People don't bond with empires, empires are too far removed from people for natural altruism to work. But the exploiters and marauders of the earth prefer empires, which they selfishly dominate, and, irony of ironies, they often pursue for ethnocentric reasons.

Empires always fall apart and reform into ethnostates, or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, as an honest reading of history shows us. But any ethnopluralism needs to be strongly protected and defended from marauding empires with some version of federalism. That is where a Bolton might come in handy, but he would have to first learn that force is only used to back up diplomacy. That is also what gangbangers need to learn.

The dragon as good not evil

Contrary to religious mystics, and general art depictions, the dragon defined as "matter" should not be defined as an evil that must be slain by a spiritual hero, the only way to reach Godhood is through material, not spiritual, evolution.

The universe of matter is not the "underworld" of evil, it is matter which is transformed into Godhood by way of material evolution.

Consciousness depends on material form, not the other way around. Forms cannot be non-material spiritual  "forms," forms can only be material or supermaterial, and it is the same with Godhood.

God is not lost when the spiritual form of god is rejected or redefined, the spiritual view of god is transformed by the supermaterial definition of Godhood attained through material evolution.

This is the real "transvaluation" back to religious/philosophical reality that is needed, and not a rejection of religion or Godhood.

Was it evil to destroy white middle-class values for the purpose of people gaining power who are not of the white middle class?

The elites of the Big Media, the academic world, the deep state, etc. have been destroying white middle-class values and morals at least since the 1960's.

They have been attacking marriage, patriotism, religion, gender differences, and on and on, until there is virtually nothing left of white middle-class values and morals. And they have come to power with the destruction.

Can the white middle class recover? James Kalb said it wasn't the white middle class who led the way up after the fall of the Roman Empire, it was religious gurus and kings. What would they be called today? One hopes they would be conservative and promote a democratic republic adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real human nature, and not totalitarian dictators on the left or the right. Who knows for sure.

So to answer the question above: was it evil to destroy white middle-class values for the purpose of people gaining power who are not of the white middle class? It is natural. Human beings are kin-centered, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. People rise and fall according to this classic behavior, or the lack of it.

Iran is an Israeli problem not a U.S. problem

Even if the Israeli's have stolen legitimate Iranian documents proving that Iran has been lying about its nuclear weapons, Iran is an Israeli problem not a U.S. problem.

Only fools and cowards will fall for the old trick of "lets you and him fight," which the controlled Big Media in the U.S. is now promoting.

Will President Trump be suckered by Israel, or is it we who are being suckered by Trump into believing that he is for America First?

The future bad and good

In another fine review in Chronicles (May 2018) Tobias Lanz reviews the work of James Rickards, who says the whole planet is now deeply in debt and this massive bubble will soon explode.

Rickards believes that there is no free trade, trade cannot be free, it is always politically determined. But governments can then be controlled by money elites, that is, the G7 leaders, central banks, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc., which Rickards says are not a real "conspiracy" but are simply not covered by the media. The review doesn't talk about about the real conspiracies within the money elite, which can take the form of selfish or ethnic factions not well serving the other money elites.

In any case, Rickards says all we little people can do is reduce individual debt, hold cash, buy precious metals (especially silver), as stores against the coming storm, which Rickards says is certain to come.

I would add that we also need to vote in leaders who are determined to bring back the economic nationalism that made America great (and is now making China great). That is, tariffs on foreign products and using the tariffs to lower the taxes on American business which will bring them back from the dead. President Trump at least talked about doing that, and the people loved it.

And then, since people make the culture, culture only follows the traits of the people, and since people are kin-centered and ethnocentric, we can begin to develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates legally adapted from the constitutional separation of powers and states (avoiding radical revolution). That is the real long term way---based on real human nature---to counter the money elites and to keep the planet from socially imploding or exploding.

President Trump was totally right to stay away from having dinner with the foul media people

I have heard that comedian Michelle Wolf is not Jewish, few would have guessed it. She's got the obscene comic delivery down cold, even the whiny nasal voice, with her total disrespect for everything and everyone (except Jews of course.) She was an ideal choice for the White House correspondents dinner crammed with people who also disrespect everything and everyone.

What is it with these modern liberals, they struggle mightily to be accepted and then they trash it all with their complete disrespect for everything and everyone, which makes people hate them. Then they complain about being discriminated against. They deserve their favorite fraud psychologist Freud to try to obscenely explain their anger and weirdness.

I say to hell with them and I wait for the day when the whole nation says to hell with them. President Trump was totally right to stay away from having dinner with the foul media people.

The main blunder was allowing the nefarious take-over of the academic world as well as the Big Media

Bizarre modern liberals have separated people from real human nature in their nefarious "march" through the academic world as well as the Big Media.

Modern liberals made permissible such sick ideas that it is the fundamental human right of every child to find its gender identity through proper educational and personal experimentation, and it is child abuse to object to that child abuse!

But they don't quit with that absurd perversion of real human nature, they go on to deny the biological origin of social behavior, rejecting such basic elements of human nature as being kin-centered, 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, followed by individual selection, which empirical studies in sociobiology have found existing in every society.

And they got away with that bizarre liberalism and were supported in their perversions by the whole academic world as well as the Big Media monopolies! Man oh man, how did we let this happen to our culture?!

It looks like the main blunder was in allowing the bizarre modern liberals---and those who exploited modern liberalism for their own non-liberal ends---to take-over the academic world as well as the Big Media.

The name no one will speak in predicting the political future

More realistic conservatives, the paleoconservatives, will go only as deep as to predict a deep war between theocratic religion and postmodern atheism. The courageous Pat Buchanan will mention the pull of ethnicity but he too sees the deepest war as between religion and atheism. This misses or underplays the realism of real human nature which is deeply based in the name no-one will speak: ethnocentrism. The biological origin of our deepest social behavior includes both the movements of religion and atheism.

In every human culture ever honestly studied human nature included, among other conservative things, kin-selection preferences, incest taboos, marriage, hierarchy, division of labor, gender differentiation, localism, and most importantly group-selection or ethnocentrism as the main unit of successful selection and survival, even before individual selection. If a culture proposes to not include these basic traits of human nature the culture does not last long and it will always return to these things. These biological traits also happen to be at the core of conservatism, whereas many of these things are missing in, say, communism, modern liberalism, and post-modernism.

This strongly suggests that real human nature will lead naturally to the cultural expression of regionalism, localism, and yes, the name no one will speak: ethnocentrism, leading to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, usually protected by some sort of federalism. The constitutional separation of powers and states in the U.S. could even be adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Religion will remain, and so will atheism, but the name no one will speak, ethnocentrism, leading to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, will remain. Both conservatives and liberals would do better to affirm this realism as the social force of the future, and not totalitarianism on the left or the right, or some kind of lukewarm middle ground, although these things could prolong the inevitable social behavior of real human nature.

Class divisions and cleaning the swamp

There is sort of a multifaceted class war going on in the U.S., which is also a racial competition between the white working class and the liberals who ride ethnic minorities to power. The American WASPS or aristocrats sold out years ago and became part of greedy global capitalism which primarily rules all classes and ethnic groups, or tries to.

The middle class has been and is important, even vital, to holding onto traditional values and morals, but they are not good at cleaning out the Augean swamp of Washington DC---think of the unctuous Vice President Mike Pence. Although the Big Media, the liberals, and the minority revolutionaries hate Mike Pence's smarmy Christian values they would happily put him in power knowing their mud-swamp would then remain to wallow in. President Trump is no Hercules but he is also no Mike Pence.

Who knows what class to put Trump in? He seems like both a working class rebel and a spoiled rich kid. He is not middle class or aristocratic. The white working class actually liked Trump's vulgarity and elected him because they thought he might have the balls to clean out the Washington swamp.

Being no Hercules, Trump has been moving toward the nefarious agenda of the global capitalists---think of the idiot John Bolton, now in Trump's cabinet, who never saw a war he didn't want to start, especially those on behalf of Israel.

Will these multifaceted classes and races succeed in destroying President Trump? Trump is not predicable, but he may not be smart enough or strong enough to stop them all.

The deeper logic of the world

Is logic "the condition of the world," as Auden put it? Perhaps, but that is an anthropomorphic statement. Human logic does not define the condition of the world, human minds are far less evolved than the minds of Gods and therefore are unable to define the real logic or condition of the world.

Even the best religious philosophers did not define the real logic of the world. What is less logical than the idea of a non-material spiritual? Darwin was closer to the real condition of the world but even he stopped short of defining Godhood as that which life materially evolves to become.

The material evolution of life from the frogs to the Gods, and the process of the simple evolving to the supercomplex, or the unconscious world evolving to the superconscious world, all the way to Godhood, defines the deeper logic of the world, and the basis of real religion and culture for the future world.

Are modern liberals stupid or does it take more than intelligence to find political truths?

If you are not raised in a philosophically conservative or conservative populist home you won't find the conservative philosophy in the Big Media or the schools. It seems to require a curiosity or a skeptical eye to find political truths in our modern liberal culture.

The Internet has helped supply voices contrary to modern liberalism, but it too is gradually being dominated by the politically correct cultural Marxists who already dominate the Big Media and the schools. And the purveyors of porn garbage on the Internet have been demoralizing the public, including children.

The fact that conservative populists could elect Trump president says that the total brainwashing of the Media and the schools has not worked as well as they wanted it too, or perhaps the non-college educated simply managed to escape the academic brainwashing. But they do watch a lot of television...maybe they skip the news.

It's difficult to see the way out of this mess. I suppose the Internet is the best way to find real political truths, at least until it is completely taken over by the globalists and cultural Marxists. We should somehow not let that happen.

I say we have to find ways to show the public the basic truths about human nature---from which deep politics rises---coming in from the science of sociobiology.  Edward O. Wilson is the place to start, but even he, who writes so well, may have to be simplified a bit for mass consumption---although the people instinctively already know that real human nature is local, kin and ethnic-centered, and conservative, which you can't say about their patronizing teachers.

Whoever can develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates will own the future

China's weakness, like the past weakness of the Soviets, is that China is an empire of conquered peoples of different ethnicities, with different languages, held together by the force of the Communist Party, which is more totalitarian than Stalin or Hitler. 

We know what real human nature naturally leads to, even though our schools won't teach it. Human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other conservative things, with group-selection or ethnic selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this human nature, with such experiments as Marxism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature.

So common interest (Cicero), love (St Augustine), equality (Marx), or globalism (Rand), will not bring distinctly different ethnic groups or cultures together in peaceful social harmony. Social harmony comes best in ethnostates where people share the same ethnicity and language. This suggest that an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the way to go for U. S. in the future, held together with our already existing constitutional separation of powers and states, with federalism protecting the whole.

China will eventually separate into ethnostates, as the Soviet Union did, but the U.S experiment with multiculturalism and global empire also will fall apart for the same reasons. Better to have the makings of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates planned and ready to go than to fall apart in chaos, as are competitors will. The U.S. has always been strong in being able to innovate, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is a political innovation based in the long history of human social behavior.

Can we do it? Whoever can develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates will own the future.

Empires will continue to devolve back to natural ethnostates, and that is good

Even though it's not quite fair to compare the Chinese and American empires, since America at least began as a separation of powers and states, whereas China is an empire ruling over many different ethnicities and regions with unsubtle Marxist/capitalist force.

But the U.S. has also become a centralized empire more subtly ruling over different ethnicities and regions with culturally Marxist/capitalist brainwashing and propaganda from an unelected Media and educational system. Europe too attempted to become a Marxist/capitalist empire ruling over many different ethnicities and states with the European Union. Mass immigration is now causing a big backlash by the natural citizens of these nations.

I believe the corrupt empires will continue to devolve back to natural ethnostates, or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, as the Soviet Union did. The nations and states that are threatened most by mass immigration will move first toward ethnostates, mainly do to real human nature, which remains as it has always been, kin-centered and ethnocentric. 

Wouldn't it be civilized if this devolution of corrupt empires back to ethnostates could be done rationally and voluntarily rather than radically and with civil war? It almost makes one understand those who advocate the dirty means of helping along or aiding mass immigration to speed up the natural devolution into ethnostates, but the empire rats are doing a good enough job sowing their own (and our) destruction without unethically helping them.

Hip and educated people need to define a deeper and broader view of human perversion and deviance

The corruption, lying, and ignorance in defining perversion and deviance in human behavior is largely based on the idea that there is no human nature, or if there is, it is entirely and randomly created by the environment we live in. But there is a human nature, biology and genetics determine who and what we are as well as our basic social behavior, the environment then offers adjustments and modifications to that basic human nature.

Even conservatives are too mild and weak in defining human perversion and deviance, and liberals usually don't even believe there is such a thing. Saying so has virtually become against the law.

Human nature has been affirmed by the science of sociobiology, and by examining human history in general, as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other basic conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this real human nature with such experiments as Marxism, or the increasingly wild perversions and deviance of our present popular culture---think of the perversions in the very popular Netflix series "Shameless."  There is even an Alt Right groups edited by homosexuals. But we see that cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature, because successful survival and reproduction demands it.

The Big Media and our educational system are now the main pushers of this perverse and deviant behavior, and it is overdo time to call them out for being the great corrupters that they are. Hip and educated people need to define this deeper and broader view of human perversion and deviance so that it is not seen only as the ravings of holier than thou hillbilly evangelists.

Snobbery and the hierarchy of real human nature

Music reviewer James Tate gave an illuminating definition of snobbery as someone with imposing standards but who affects those standards for social, not aesthetic reasons.

Looking deeper though, that could suggest another kind of snobbery of affecting aesthetic standards over social standards, which get us into the debate over the place of art and social behavior in society.

In the hierarchy of real human nature I believe first comes the biological activation, and close behind that the social activation, then finally comes the activation of art and culture. That would be the order of a true snobbery, if snobbery can be true.

The conservative standard of being against ideologies could be another kind of snobbery, especially if conservatism is defined as an ideology.

I believe conservatism starts with the activation of biology, then follows with the biological origin of our social and cultural behavior, including art, philosophy and even religion which synthesizes all of them.

That is how we arrive at the moral art suggested in theological materialism, and the political suggestion for an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Why do Democrats gloat over the suicide of the United States?

Democrats do actually gloat when they inform us that by mid-century the U.S. will become a majority-minority nation.

This behavior is not due only to bald ignorance on the part of democrats, it's often just selfishness. Democrats believe more immigration will give them lasting voting power since immigrants will vote for their lavish (unfunded) government programs.

Most white democrat's seem ignorant of the reality that as the people change the culture changes, and the change from a white to a black, brown and beige culture could very likely ( and naturally) throw white democrats out of office simply because they are white.

The majority-minority nation would also probably recreate the constantly changing dictatorships (left or right) common in the nations they come from, just as the Anglo Saxon founders of the United States recreated an English ethos.

But many whites will object to these changes in the same way they objected to crime-ridden inner cities, they moved out, not because they are evil but because real human nature is naturally kin-centered and ethnocentric and social order is naturally created by living in homogeneous societies.

Wouldn't it be excellent if we could rationally arrive at an evenhanded ethnopluralism of ethnostates carved out of the constitutional separation of powers and states which already exist (supposedly), rather than having territorial and civil disruptions or wars between distinctly different people?

We will probably have loudmouth empire-minded fascists on the left or the right (Marxist or racial) calling for a police states before more sane constitutional ethnostates become a reality.

It seems that most Democrats and many Republicans can't see this coming, or they are so decadent  they don't care.

Real democracies and ethnostates

Kirkpatrick Sales makes the argument ("Chronicles" April 2018) that only small-scale democracies can be real democracies, where laws and decisions are made directly by the people. Sales says that a Republican government such as the government in Washington DC where 535 people in congress with an average of 759,000 constituents is not a democracy. Sales would like to see a series of secession's of states into manageable sizes where real democracies can have real rule by the people themselves.

Human nature is essentially kin and ethnic centered, and group selection provides the best means of successful survival and reproduction. Human nature has been this way since humans became humans (and even before that). So if any small or large state wants to have longer-term stability it needs to be more than democratic, it needs to be an ethnostate with real biological homogeneity. Cultures are created from the distinctive traits of the ethnic groups who create the cultures as they adapt to whatever environment they find themselves living in. One size does not fit all, so real democracies, which may be one of the best forms of government, won't alone create longer term order.  (And representative government could be more practical if lobbies were curbed, as they should be.)

This is an unmentioned political reality that needs to be mentioned regarding real democracies and ethnostates. Perhaps that will be the next book by Sales.

Adding evolutionary science to conservative tradition

The conservative tradition of America came from common law, the Bible, and classical tradition, but conservatives also need to keep open to new wisdom and knowledge even as they affirm the old sources of tradition.

St. Thomas Aquinas was open to the new although in his case the "new" was the discovery of old Aristotle, who was synthesized by Aquinas into Christianity, which helped save Christianity intellectually.

I think conservatives need to synthesize Darwin and the evolutionary sciences into the conservative tradition to save conservatism from obsolescence. Real human nature leads naturally to the cultural expression of regionalism, localism, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected by some sort of federalism. Given who we are this appears to be the best way we can optimize the gene expression we inherited from our human ancestors.

Beneath the various definitions of America as a business for profit, a mandate for everyone to be equal in all things, or a place where Christians can be Christians, is the the real biological origin of social behavior.

Darwin and the evolutionary sciences could be brought into conservatism by adapting the Constitutional separation of powers and states toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates and regions, which would allow real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature to flourish rather than compete in the same space often with fatal social disruptions.

The addition of the evolutionary sciences into conservatism could even bring a few liberals and scientists into the conservative fold, even though many of them still object to the biological origin of social behavior preferring the fantasies of cultural Marxism, just as many conservatives still think of evolution as evil.

I finally got around to watching a few episodes of "Shameless"

I finally got around to watching a few episodes of "Shameless" (American version) on Netflix, having heard it was well written and well acted, after surfing through and eliminating the huge quantity but few quality shows on Netflix.

Shameless is well acted and well written but in that postmodern way of using irony as if celebrating lewd garbage is equivalently opposite virtuous and heroic behavior.

All the actors are consistently good, which usually means the directer is good.  Except for William H. Macy, the father of the lewd brood, who gets caught in that old actor's trap of overacting and bungling the part of a drunk (hold back 50 percent William, 50 percent!).  

Shameless is "good'' but in the way the philosopher Plato describes artists as appealing to the basest desires while mocking and deriding everything.

Whimsical as it sounds in this age of bottom dwelling art, a good writer and a good story will show good people meeting good ends and bad people meeting bad ends, and do it with clever and brilliant writing. A bad writer and a bad story will show bad men profit and heroes suffer for their virtues, and will often also do it with clever and brilliant writing. There is truth and there is good and these are not relative things when based in the biological origin of social behavior---that cannot be intellectualized away. 

So as usually conservatives wait for brilliantly written moral art. Perhaps this will not come until the corrupt Big Media monopolies are broken up.

Causation

Causation is determined by the activation of life (Tirips) to evolve in the material world toward supermaterial Godhood, while life adjusts to whatever outside environment life finds itself living in.

That is the primal foundation of religion, culture and history whether humans are conscious or unconscious of it.

This definition of causation cuts through the serpentine complications and varieties of cultures and philosophies, which have been driven by this causation.

Regarding Syria the conspiracy has been the conspiracy to make real conspiracies look ridiculous

It looks to me like the latest chemical bombings in Syria have been implausibly blamed on the Syrians or Russians, who deny being involved.

Acts of immoral deception can be buried in such motto's as "by any means necessary" or "by way of deception." Naive Christian's think, "by golly, those motto's do not mean immoral means."

The deceivers and conspirators know that Northern Europeans tend to cling to the old military idea of moral leadership ("tell the truth and shoot strait.") or the Christian idea that leadership is moral leadership, and this is cunningly exploited.

So the conspirators waited until they could place war-hawk and neoconservative John Bolton officially in office as National Security Adviser to President Trump; they knew that chemical bombings in Syria could be exploited by Bolton and they knew that our military would be used to retaliate by bombing Syria, and even taking over sections of Syria.

That's my hypothesis, it's direct meddling to change things before they happen, or quickly exploiting mistakes, or both. The question also is, who uses immoral means as an operating principal? And who benefits most?

When a network is both ethnically and religiously bonded it makes the most powerful political network

Reading the Philips Jenkins review in "Chronicles" of Niall Ferguson's latest book, "The Square and the Tower," on the struggle of networks and hierarchies for global control, it got me thinking about how when a network is both ethnically and religiously bonded it makes the most powerful political network, such as the Israeli/Jewish network and the Islamic/Arab or Islamic/Iranian networks. If business and capital connections are also within these ethnic/religious networks then they have even more clout.

Ferguson suggests that there is a cyclic conflict between hierarchies (Tower) and networks (the Square) as governments and churches go from networks to hierarchies and are then challenged by new networks which eventually become hierarchies.

I see how present ethnic/religious networks are able to draw much larger less connected nations into their fierce competition due to their powerful lobbies within the larger nations, such as the U.S. supporting the Israeli/Jewish network and Russia supporting the Islamic/Iranian network. The Israeli/Jewish network and the Islamic/Arab network seem to have recently joined forces against the new upstart Islamic/Iranian network, and the U.S. and Russia have been corrupt or foolish enough to get involved their battles.

Christianity moved from its original small Jewish-oriented network into vast Western hierarchies ethnically unconnected, with new sects and new networks rising in rebellion against traditional church hierarchies until the new networks themselves became hierarchies. Powerful ethnic and religious connections have been lost in the West as cultural Marxism has made such connections socially unacceptable, leaving the West weakened to the influence of stronger ethnically/religiously connected lobbies, like the Israeli/Jewish and Islamic/Arab networks.

The Russians seem to have a better grip on their own power in their connections with the Islamic/Iranian network, perhaps because the Russians have been developing an Orthodox/Christian/Ethnic/Russian network of their own, which is the strongest kind of network, as we have seen.

Politically incorrect sociobiology really is the foundation discipline in seeing these connections.

What occurs before "power" and hierarchy?

It seems to me that at first it looks like only power defeats power---Nietzsche made a sort of God of the will to power which was the essence of his philosophy. But why does "life" seek power? Life seems to come before power and uses power for its needs.

"Love" doesn't really defeat power as some religions suggest, love is essentially the activation to reproductive and survival success---romanticism comes after that to help love along.

The ultimate goal of power, love, reproduction and survival, even the goal of natural evolution, is to evolve in the material world to the highest success possible, which is to evolve to supermaterial Godhood.

So the will or activation to Godhood is what "defeats" power. It seems to me that this makes, or will make, the religion or worldview that affirms the will or activation to Godhood (Tirips) the deepest foundation for civilization and culture. 

Then the elements that define being civilized, such as being educated, charming, elegant, and tasteful (which defines the old aristocracies) comes into play in any political system, even the ones that come to power as revenge or as envy against civilized people, like Marxism and other radical systems. It's the meritocracy of natural evolution toward Godhood always returning.

Should history be interpreted politically, theologically, or biologically?

Is it lack of knowledge or lack of courage that causes historians to interpret history politically rather than theologically or biologically? Now days if a historian interprets history biologically he will be called a racist or bigot and drummed out of history departments, which suggests a lack of courage that is almost, but not quite justified, especially if there is a family to feed.

I don't know if history departments will one day be subsumed by the science of sociobiology---after postmodernism is seen as a Machiavellian fraud---but I do think sociobiology will one day be one of the main academic tools in history departments.

Should history be interpreted politically, theologically, or biologically? I think history should be interpreted biologically but with a biology that includes theology, call it theobiology. Politics follows after those forces. Why? Because the essential drives of human history are biological and evolutionary as life seeks survival and reproductive success, which develops our cultures, and the ultimate or zenith of success is materially evolving to supermaterial Godhood, the essential evolutionary goal of life and history.

The triple internal threat to the survival of traditional America and the West

The triple internal threat we have to the survival of traditional America and the West is Latino and Islamic migration, legal and illegal, as well as the unassimilable minorities who have lived here for 100 years or more (not to here mention the external threats from China, Russia, etc)

A few conservatives have warned against unassimilable migrants but conservatives rarely have the courage to mention the unassimilable minorities already living here who have created their own cultures within multicultural America, or have succeeded in changing traditional America and West to better fit their own wills to power.

So what we are witnessing is the not so slow suicide of traditional America and white Western culture. This has been cheered on by recent migrants and older unassimilable minorities, as well as by leftists and liberals who were influenced by the cultural Marxism taught in our schools, which was mainly brought here by---you guessed it---unassimilable minority migrants from WWII.

Some may be surprised when I quickly say that it is perfectly natural behavior to be kin-centered and ethnocentric, even xenophobic. But this basic human nature only works well in homogeneous ethnostates. Which is why I advocate an ethnopluralism of ethnostates; in America this can be legally adapted from the constitutional separation of powers and states. Radical revolution is not advocated.

That is the real suicide prevention we require. It is not clear to me that we will prevent the suicide of the America and the West, but healthy people will at least try. In any case, history shows that social chaos eventually returns to natural ethnostates for order.

The co-option and corruption of real human nature

Being kin and ethnic centered is at the origin of the altruism which we all claim as a virtue against selfishness. But it is not and never was a universal altruism, it is and always was kin and ethnic centered.

We learned to advance our kin and ethnic groups because they shared our same genes and genetic traits and we could not survive alone. This behavior was selected because it was most successful in survival and reproduction and became embedded in the biology of human nature, and remains today.

The far left, far right, and traditional religion co-opted and corrupted this real definition of human nature, claiming we are all universally altruistic and then demanding that we show no favoritism toward any group. Or the opposite claim was made that one group is superior to the others.

How are we to arrive at a solution to our differences and our social problems when we deny and even criminalize real human nature, as Europe has done, and as some in America want to do? Human nature is "racist" and ethnocentric, but that does not call for fascism or Marxism.

We need to develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates to harmonize with what we really are as human beings---there are too many people on earth now to successfully claim only one people.  Radical revolution is not even necessary to do this, in the U. S. we can gradually and legally adapt the already existing separation of powers and states.

Looking truthfully at human history this is what happens anyway, but often violently, as empires always fall and break up into natural ethnostates, as the Soviet Union recently did. Can't we do this consciously rather than unconsciously and violently? I think we can, and will---but either way it will happen, because that it what we are, and that is what we do.

"How does it feel?!"

Joe Scarborough, his next (3rd?) wife Mika, and the sycophants on his show were whining this morning about the Sinclair Broadcast Group who had all the anchors on all the local stations they own read the same words regarding fake news. Scarborough was comparing it to Pravda control of the news during the Soviet era, even though the cunning and sinister control of the Media by the left in the West makes Soviet Pravda look crude.

  I think of the old Dylan line: "How does it feel?!"

The right has been complaining about the complete leftist dominance of the media for years! The Zoo York Times, the Washington "Swamp" Post, etc. have been setting the agenda for news outlets across the country for years!  

What happened to the Joe Scarborough who used to be at least a moderate conservative? It all seemed to start when Trump, who Scarborough had earlier supported on his show, made cracks about Mika's plastic surgery and also said something about Scarborough being responsible for a murder.

Does that justify the all out war Scarborough has declared every morning against President Trump, even if Trump was lying? I understand how a gentleman should defend his woman but is there not a limit to the war? Do you change your whole political position as well as damage your public reputation?