Why does the demand for "equality" rise from the ashes every generation like a zombie firebird?

It probably began way back with the "universalism" of religious "spiritualism" and then moved on from there to political philosophy and culture in general.

It was highly cynical but Nietzsche was on to something when he saw the will to power behind those who advocate equality, which we see in Marxism, feminism, the civil rights movements, and postmodernism, with their demands for equality which are mainly the will to power or will to superiority of one group over the others.

When we clearly see and admit the biological origin of most of social behavior then we may be able to move past the great confidence game and swindle of equality, which only leads to civil disturbances and even civil war, because equality does not harmonize with real human nature.

No matter how often religions, political philosophies, or cultures tell us that we are all the same, the biological origin of most of social behavior has affirmed throughout human history that human nature is 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, followed by individual selection.

When presumptuous and arrogant politicians, feminists, etc. smile down on us condescendingly and tell us that we are all the same and must be equal, rather than telling them that they are dangerous fools seeking power, which they are, we need to tell them that real human nature leads naturally to the political and cultural expression of regionalism, localism, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected by some sort of federalism. Given who we really are this appears to be the best way we will "all get along."

Trump and the leftist snobs

I like the middle class when they do their main job of defending and maintaining conservative things, but I don't like their snobbery, specifically the middle class leftist snobbery against President Trump.

Trump is often vulgar---in a speech yesterday he talked about "kicking ass"---but vulgar or not Trump is getting important things done when most politicians on the left and the right sound like grandma giving etiquette lessons that no one listens to.

Trump is trying to do, and doing, what he told the populist/nationalists he would do, protecting our borders, making American trade fair by putting up tariffs, appointing conservative judges, etc.

The big unanswered question is why does Trump capitulate to Israel and Saudi Arabia in their attempts to destroy Iran when Trump stands up to every great power on the planet? That could end up undoing all the things Trump is doing right---it is the way of war, even world war.  On this subject of course we see no objection by the leftist snobs in the controlled big media. 

The reconciliation of the individual and the group is not an easy thing to balance but it's not a Greek tragedy

Many problems result from making the human and the divine opposites. This makes the material and the spiritual opposites, and science and religion opposites, and eventually filters down to political opposition.

This great religious/philosophical error is overcome by seeing the divine and human as only different levels of material evolution and not as opposites. We evolve to Godhood in the material world.

According to Elliot Jurist's ("Beyond Hegel and Nietzsche") tragedy was defined by Hegel and Nietzsche (and the Greeks) as the highly emotional reconciliation of the human and the divine, and the individual and the group.

I say the reconciliation of the individual and the group is not an easy thing to balance but it's not a Greek tragedy. The reconciliation of the individual and the group are affirmed in the empirical sociobiological knowledge that "within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." (E.O. Wilson) "Tragedy" comes from getting that balance wrong. Whole empires, nations, and regions rise and fall related to this sociobiological balancing act.

Getting the reconciliation of the individual and the group right means, among other things, discerning the difference between creative social individuals and creative antisocial individuals, which modern psychometric testing can help with, assuming the sociobiological knowledge of the biological origin of most of our social behavior is affirmed. (was Hegel social and Nietzsche antisocial?)

Politically this reconciliation also means setting up or adapting an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in democratic republics, or wherever (legally and nonviolently) in line with the real kin and ethnic preferences of real human nature.

The vile and nefarious march through our schools and through the media

While patriotic Americans were busy working, raising children, going to church, and serving in the military, they barely noticed the vile and nefarious march through our schools and through the media by modern liberals who were really cultural Marxists.

So the old WASP (White Anglo/Saxon Protestant) ethos of the Ivy League schools, which had taught confidence and pride with a bit of patriotism thrown in, now taught people like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama how to be condescending, insufferable, liberals spouting cultural Marxism to the lowly proles, who Hillary really thinks are "deplorables."

Three fourths of college students recently interviewed by a conservative journalist said they did not love or even like America, although they could not articulate why, not having absorbed much of the cultural Marxism taught to them by their condescending, insufferable "professors," but having absorbed the social status of hating President Trump.

So now, after sending our children to good schools to be brainwashed, we have a real cultural mess on our hands, created mainly by the vile and nefarious modern liberals and cultural Marxists who---let's be honest---we allowed to march through our schools and through the media due to our ignorance, but mainly due to the vile and nefarious lies of the cultural Marxists.

What can we do about it? The biological origin of our social behavior, as empirically explained by sociobiology, actually ends the intellectual defense of cultural Marxism and postmodern relativism. As long as we are alive every cell in our body demands survival and reproductive success. This natural activation can be blocked, subverted, or it can be unknown to us, but it can't legitimately be intellectually or instinctively denied.

This defense of real human nature affirms in general the populist nationalism now trying to rise in the corrupted West, which I believe will one day lead to the political and cultural expression of regionalism, localism, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected by some sort of federalism, along with the legal American constitutional separation of powers and states. It won't be easy but there is nothing better we can do.

The conscious and unconscious Marxist scam against biology

It's a Marxist scam, this affirmation of self-invention and culture-invention, leaving out the biological origin of most of our social behavior. This includes most of modern philosophy.

Why would we want to leave biology and genetics out of philosophy? It seems to be both a conscious and unconscious scam. The great irony is that it is the will to survival and reproductive success (deeper than the will to power) that most pushes the rejection of the biological origin of our social behavior.

If we can ever see it for the scam that it is then we can really start evolving and advancing---all groups can. As E.O, Wilson says regarding human survival, "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." This basic group-selection preference leads logically and instinctively (and humanely) not to Marxism but to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Predictably human nature is breaking America apart

Prominent conservatives can't even eat in restaurants without being harassed by mau-mauing, irrational, uncivilized leftists, who are activated mainly by racial animosity and resentment, even if they hold up slogans demanding justice and equality. The central fact of the biological origin of most of our social behavior rules human history and politics.

A few of us see that the only sane way to bring some harmony to our now multicultural (really multi-ethnic) nation, given that human nature is resolutely kin and ethnic-centered, is to adapt the constitutional separation of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates...But this idea is quite a bit ahead of its time, even though it was advocated before I came on the scene.

Meanwhile, leftists, feminists, transgenders, and minority racial supremacists are gaining much attention, supported by the nefarious Big Media, so we may have to watch the slow painful realization of regional ethnostates, probably only after much civil disruption or even civil war. Predictably human nature is breaking America apart.

Both Nietzsche and the libertarians mainly missed the individual/group-selection dynamic

American libertarian's affirm almost any individual. Avoiding that kind of individualism Nietzsche affirmed the noble individual or the genius. One side leads to working with democratic republics, the other to working with aristocracies.

Both Nietzsche and the libertarians mainly missed the individual/group-selection dynamic based in the biological origin of social behavior. The addition of the science of sociobiology has shown us that "within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." (E.O. Wilson)

This means we need to find social rather than antisocial exceptional individuals to develop in our societies, using psychometric testing etc. to find them. That is, choose people in a merit-based way rather than choosing by ethnic or political quotas, as we now do.

In the longer run the reality of kin and ethnic-centered real human nature points toward developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates where all distinctive groups can best flourish. This could be accomplished in the U. S. with only a few amendments to the constitutional separation of powers and states,

The importance of defense forces in retaining truth, morality, and justice

Intellectual and moral leaders say truth is right, morality is right, justice is right, but the real world says might is right. Who is right?

Truth, morality, and justice are right but they have to compete in the relativity of a might-is-right world.

We won't have truth, morality, and justice in the world without the power to establish them and then defend them.

This doesn't require totalitarianism, dictatorship, or illegality, but realism says that we need to defend truth, morality, and justice in any system, ideology, or even religion.

Few individual men have had both wisdom and social power, which is why ancient human history developed a tripartite sharing system between priests, warriors, and food providers. Modern men in the West seem not to want to think about the reality that we still need to be backed by defense forces if we wish to survive and prosper in the world.

I think of this when I see our defense forces discredited, but also when our political elites use them unwisely.

A National Association Against Human Nature?

A National Association Against Human Nature (NAAHN?) might seem ridiculous but it wouldn't surprise me to see it one day.

Many of the minorities who shout the loudest against racism seem unaware of their own racism which motivates their stand against racism. White liberals join in the chorus against racism attacking their own ethnic history, as they were taught to do in our schools and in the Media. But even conservative's go out of the way to avoid affirming any kind of ethnocentrism existing within human nature.

The latest I have seen (Boyd Cathey, Chronicles, June 2018) points out that it was the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, not ethnocentrism or racism, which enshrined the natural differences and inequalities between people by protecting the rights of the states to be different from one another with federalism.

That seems true, but the ethnocentric nature of human nature (even xenophobia) remains very real, along with other conservative traits like being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, with group-selection (mainly ethnocentrism) as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

The fair and just way to deal with the natural differences and inequalities between people, ethnic groups, or races, is to acknowledge real human nature. Then an ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could at least begin to be established legally and nonviolently in the United States enshrined with the constitutional separation of powers, states, and regions, and protected by federalism.

That will not be easy at all, but it is far preferable to radical Marxism or Fascism on the right or the left, or the political dissimulations of the liberals---and even the denials of full human nature of conservatives---based on flawed definitions of human nature, which has brought us civil disruptions and even civil war, and is now increasing across a world of unworkable multicultural (multi-ethnic) societies, demanding that since we are all the same we must all get along living in the same territories.

Beyond culture as empty noise

What is culture? If you say as Nietzsche did that culture is for the production of geniuses, or if you say as Hegel said that culture is fulfilled by the state, you now have to be aware of the sociobiological insight which says that "within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." (E.O. Wilson)

The biological origin of our social behavior better explains, or puts in its place, the intellectual defense of the productions of genius, and better explains statism. That is, individual geniuses need the group as much as the group needs the geniuses. All creators are jazz philosopher's riffing on the work of men of the past, or if you prefer, classical composer's creating variations on past themes. For the survival of both the creators and the societies they work within, geniuses need to create social rather than antisocial creations---although during the time of creation they need complete creative freedom.

.

Culture needs to be more than high knowledge, it needs to embody the material evolution of man toward supermaterial Godhood. That is the way we "transcend," we do not transcend into a non-material spiritual nothingness defined as the goal of culture. Leave the evolution of the natural world and the evolution of man out of the culture and you have mostly empty noise defined as culture.

Fighting a political disease by injecting the disease

The main political and ethical problem with special interest lobbies who represent nations and ethnic groups is the "supremacy" of their ethnocentrism, which amounts to "racial supremacy." It is not their ethnocentrism that is the problem, it's their interest (often hidden) in supremacy. Ethnocentrism is entirely normal and a primary part of real human nature; it is a big part of the biological origin of much of our social behavior, which led to the central survival success of group-selection, and altruism.

Special interest lobbies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Black and Hispanic lobbies, and White racial groups, promote their own special interests often by blaming the other groups for being racial supremacists while ignoring or hiding their own racial supremacism. And on and on it goes with the far-right and far-left getting angrier and angrier, seeing their own groups falling back in numbers and power, which often leads to civil war, pogroms, and genocide.

Like fighting a political disease by injecting the disease, we can fight the special interest lobbies who push their own racial and national supremacy not by promoting and finagling our own supremacism but by promoting an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real human nature.

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be accomplished in the U. S. with only a few amendments to the constitutional separation of powers and states, where different ethnic groups could politically and culturally conduct themselves according to who they actually are in their own states and regions, with a federalism mainly for the geopolitical heft to defend the ethnostates in the big world. And it needs to be done legally and nonviolently.

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the natural, ethical, legal, and practical way to counter special interest lobbies that represent unfair supremacist nations and ethnic groups.

Gender roles and our immigration policy

Watching the Big Media hysteria over our immigration policy, I thought about the image of mommy/democrat and daddy/republican parties.

But we need to stretch the image a bit because we also now have radical feminism and a new fascism distorting real gender differences.

Then there is the related image of good and bad marriages. Good marriages compromise and work things out between feminine nurturing and masculine territoriality, and bad marriages do not.

The image gets stretched even more when we see that some democrats want more immigrants because immigrants tend to vote for democrats, which is a more territorial than nurturing motivation.

Traditional gender roles had women handling most of the nurturing in the home and men taking care of territoriality outside of the home, and both more or less letting the other do their thing. That worked fairly well for many centuries because it was in direct harmony with biological or genetic differences between men and women which make women better at nurturing and men better at protecting the territory. These biological differences have not changed.

But traditional gender roles and marriages can get exaggerated or hypertrophied to the degree that women totally cover themselves with veils in public while their men make endless war against virtually everyone.

There may be no one-size-fits-all cultural solution to these "battles between the sexes" because cultures and ethnic groups are different in the way they deal with these things. But there is one-size-fits-all in the primary biological or genetic gender differences between feminine nurturing and masculine territoriality. This logically harmonizes with women handling most of the nurturing because they are better at it, and men taking care of most of the territoriality because the are better at that, and both more or less letting the other do their thing.

This points toward the daddy/republican/conservative philosophy conducting our territorial immigration policies.

Musing on zero and Godhood

"Zero" exists as a conscious symbolic non-number with the attribute of being nothing, non-material, or one could say "spiritual," but zero does not exist as a physical object.

A non-material spiritual God does not exist in the same way that zero is not a physical object, being a conscious symbolic non-material nothing, or spiritual.

But a non-spiritual material (or super-material) Godhood reached through material evolution does exist, or can exist given enough evolution, as a physical object, is not spiritual, and is not a zero.

Where the hope for America comes from

It's about over now, we won't return to traditional America or traditional Americans. What we have now is a polyglot of diversity which does not work. It's post-America now, global America, which is what the liberals and neocons wanted---they even openly admit it now. They don't care about America any more than the new immigrants do, it's a place to exploit fading riches.

The problem is their polyglot global America is not based in real human nature. Human nature is kin-centered, heterosexual, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, 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 human nature, with such experiments as Marxism and globalism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect human nature.

And that is where the hope for America comes from: we will eventually decentralize into a protected ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions which can still legally follow the constitutional separation of powers and states. In any case that is where polyglot America (and Europe) will end up, purposefully or unpurposefully, peacefully or by civil war. Polyglot empires are the end of civilizations, ethnostates are the beginning and the end, if we are wise and strong enough to keep them.

So now how do we define high culture?

The old way of defining high culture was having knowledge of art and philosophy. It was aristocratic, perhaps necessarily elitist. Then science began to enter the mix with such overarching fields as the evolutionary science of sociobiology, pointing out the biological origin of social behavior, which virtually subsumes the humanities, including art and philosophy, if we are honest about it.

So now how do we define high culture? It has to be a broader synthesis of art, philosophy and science. The biological origin of social behavior brings all fields back to earth---although doing research science seems to be a high I.Q. aristocracy, chosen by merit. But aristocracies are more than test scores.

Affirmative Action has shown us that rejecting merit in choosing various positions is not the only problem. Even if test scores merit the choice (and they usually don't) there are clashes simply due to ethnic differences. For example, what seems like over-defensiveness to one group may be normal behavior to another. Social harmony comes easier when both nature (genes) and nurture (culture) are homogeneous, that is, when aristocrats and commoners are composed of elements that are mainly of the same kind. That is simple common sense.

Some readers may guess what I'm going to say next: high culture can develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature, where meritocracies can create more harmonious "aristocrats" and "commoners." Some sort of federalism can protect but not rule the whole. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be legally adapted in the United States from our constitutional separation of powers and states, so this future can be conservative and is not too Utopian.

Wrong religion leads to wrong politics

In reality the deeper spiritual gurus celebrate a lot of death. First they think being born into the sinful material world means the death of the real Self. Then must come the death of the lower nature and the awakening of the higher nature, followed by the diffusion into eternity, really another death defined as life because all the desires of real life are gone.

Why this great hatred of real life? It all seems to be done in reality to experience the bliss that can come from blocking all the desires of material life, some of which can cause pain, and this desirelessness is then pumped up as being the experience of heaven or nirvana. Was no hedonistic heroin available?

No. That is wrong religion. Right religion affirms successful survival and reproduction and defines Godhood as the zenith of successful survival and reproduction and the zenith of material evolution. Life, evolving life, is celebrated, not death.

Finding the best way to evolve, eventually all the way to Godhood, allows us to take another look at political philosophy to see how much of it is affected by religious hedonism and Utopianism. Deep-conservatism keeps it feet on the ground while gazing up at real evolutionary material and supermaterial horizons.

And we can't choose only one people to evolve, they would be overwhelmed in this crowded world of many people. That is mainly why---in harmony with real human nature and theological materialism---we need an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, the political configuration of the future.

The will to power of the nerds

The will to power of the nerds is a better translation of the "managerial revolution" than "the revenge of the nerds." Yes, revenge might have been involved due to, say, bullying in high school by star football players, but the deeper motivation was the will to power of the nerds.

As Jack Trotter more or less pointed out in "Chronicles," the nerds attained power by shoving aside traditional meritocracies which cared at least as much about what was good for the people and the nation and as they did about efficiency and profits. The nerds had also absorbed modern liberalism and cultural Marxism in the humanities departments of the elite colleges and universities they attended, and so when they weren't looking at their clipboards they were talking about how all rowdy bullies need to disappear in a vast bureaucracy of equality. ( I might add that President Trump is no nerd which must relate to why the managerial nerds hate him so much.)

This does not mean that democracies should not consult with experts. In our increasingly complex world we should have more scientists (sociobiologists would be my preference) in congress and fewer lawyers who now make up the vast majority, as Cattell once suggested. We need people who can look beyond the narrow confines of efficiency and profits, which has given us global corporations and political empires managed by power-desiring nerds who have been destroying the West, with no feeling of patriotism.

Now we have nerds pushing for the dominance of artificial intelligence which they will of course control, preferring the evolution of computers to the evolution of nasty patriotic humans.

Understanding the difference between the social and anti-social creative outsider

Taking their clues from Nietzsche, postmodern philosophers were biased toward the individual over the group, at times reaching the level of worshiping the individual. I believe this came from missing or greatly undervaluing knowledge of the Neo-Darwinist science of sociobiology, which showed us that group-selection trumps individual selection: as E.O. Wilson put it: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

The great psychologist Raymond Cattell believed that the key to evaluating the individual and the group was for society to have a way to understand the difference between the social and anti-social outsider, because creative outsiders can be virtually criminals in rejecting laws. This harmonizes with the understanding that group-selection is the primary unit of selection and individual selection follows after.

The bottom line for me in thinking about the group and the creative individual is to let individuals and outsiders freely create with no strings attached, that is, philosophers, artists, engineers, scientists, or whoever, but in the end the judgment has to come down to understanding and judging the difference between the social and anti-social work of outsiders. Cattell's field was in comprehensive psychometric testing and the tests work quite well in telling us much about social and antisocial people (as long as there is room for outsiders to fall through the cracks, which being outsiders they often do.)

Conservatism in general upholds social change and not radical antisocial change, but this tends to get lost in a conformity that allows no antisocial or social change.

Why would we want to be "released" from the "bonds" that bind us to the "wheel of life?"

Do we ever "escape" the world of necessity, and why would we want to?

It is a suicidal wish, or a hedonistic desire to live without any displeasure.

The bliss religious gurus seek, or the absolute truth philosophers desire is not experienced beyond the material world, these things are in their very material human heads, or in their very material pleasure centers, not in any trance of non-material spiritualism.

But this realism does not kill Godhood. Real Godhood is reached by the very materialism that spiritualism rejects. We evolve to supermaterial Godhood by way of material evolution, and not by "releasing" ourselves from the "bonds" that bind us to the "wheel of life."

Religion and philosophy need not be rejected but they need to be brought back to real material life and real material and supermaterial evolution; art, culture, and political philosophy can grow from there.

How libertarians can join conservatives in applauding the value of altruism

The great scientist E.O. Wilson has said that group-selection supersedes individual selection: "The competition between the two forces can be succinctly expressed as follows: Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue."

Libertarians can join conservatives in applauding the value of altruism, which was developed by group-selection preferences, and was the social foundation of most religions and political philosophies. Libertarian philosophers missed that distinction, which makes the differences between free trade and fair trade. Since most of the libertarian philosophers were refugees from totalitarian political systems that probably made them prefer the concept of individual freedom over group freedom, which was an unfortunate bias. It gave capitalism a bad name.

Both group-selection and individual selection are mainly driven by the biological origin of social behavior, although there is a co-evolution between nature and nurture. This subject moves into epistemology when we ask the question, can knowledge alone be reality, or is knowledge defined as being in harmony with reality which then brings human satisfaction? Biology comes before knowledge of biology and our knowledge needs to harmonize with biology rather than only dwelling in a world of abstractions and calling it knowledge of reality and settling for a lesser satisfaction with that.

Our intellectual and political elites often misinterpret the laws of nature and the laws of human nature

Our intellectual and political elites often say that our worldviews must operate "within the bounds of the laws of nature" (John Locke) and within the laws of human nature, but they then often misinterpret the laws of nature and the laws of human nature.

Claude Polin points out (Chronicles, June 2018) that Marx and Marxism are not the enemy of liberalism, they are the embodiment of liberalism, claiming to establish the ideals and goals that liberals only talk about, which Marxism supposedly achieves by forceful totalitarian means.

All of this is based on a false reading of nature and human nature, which is in many ways the opposite of liberalism and communism: human nature is 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, followed by individual selection. Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this human nature, with such experiments as modern liberalism, or cultural 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.

Conservatism and traditionalism affirm many of those natural traits, but then their definition of a non-material soul, spirit, and heaven is as utopian as the Marxist utopia which offers "no leadership, currency, private ownership, laws or need for any of these things." At least the gurus of Marxism didn't despise the material view of nature as the elite religious gurus did---but not their lustful yet religious peasants.

Readers of this blog know that I believe human beings would be better off to get in sync with what they and their activations actually are, which means existing in the flow of successful survival, reproduction, and ultimately material evolution toward supermaterial Godhood. So we need not lose conservatism or religion, but they need to be transformed (not rejected) within the real bounds of the laws of nature and human nature, best defined in the non-utopian evolutionary sciences, and in the religious philosophy of theological materialism.

Looking at life from a deeper position than only thinking or feeling

Both religion and philosophy tend to value thinking over life (Nietzsche's position). Although I would add that religion at the upper levels of development "feels" and "experiences" blissful states which thinking gets in the way of---perhaps a different version of Dionysus.

I think we need to look at life from a deeper position than only thinking or feeling and when we do the biological origin of social behavior reveals a force which thinking and feeling are only a part of---although it may still be rational.  Biology comes before and develops thinking and feeling.

I then take the position that human biology contains an activation to evolve to the highest success of Godhood, along with dealing with the random outside forces of selection and evolution. I call that inward activation Tirips (a material will to Godhood) which transforms thinking and feeling about spirit and Godhood.

I believe this primal and sacred activation to evolve toward Godhood, which one day may be empirically understood, shows the "will to power" to be secondary. This primal and sacred activation is more important or deeper than thinking or feeling, and it needs to be included in religion, philosophy and science.

Do people who lie have an advantage over people who do not lie?

In asking that question I'm not talking about the polite lies that oil social interaction, such as: "How are you doing." "Fine, thank you."

In the short term lies and lying people can have an advantage over non-liars. But lies are found out and sometimes dealt with harshly.  But then people who lie come up with new lies to cover old lies, and on we go.

It seems to me that a people who maintain a warrior society lie less because, for example, lying about the strength of ones troops can get many people killed. eg. "Tell the truth and shoot strait." But that may not apply to spying and espionage, which really complicates the question.

A non-warrior people, a merchandising people, may gain advance from lying, culturally and even genetically, as liar's might do well bartering etc.

What happens when the warrior-mentality comes up against the merchandising-mentality? Maybe that's when caste's develop.

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.