The taboo that is still dooming us

Two things doom us to dissatisfaction, or worse to a fall: when we overemphasize being-for-oneself, as in libertarianism and superindividualism, and on the other hand when we overemphasize being-for-another, as in the universalist religions and in modern liberalism/Marxism.

Satisfaction and social stability come more naturally when we can affirm the biological origin of our social behavior, that is, when we see as E. O. Wilson said that in human life and survival "within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." That brings whatever natural coordination we can have to harmonize the process of being-for-oneself and being-for-another.

The obfuscated arguments regarding individual/social doom or satisfaction by Hegel and Marx, Nietzsche, the postmodernists, and the feminists are simply overcome by the instinctive and rational affirmation of the biological origin of our social behavior. How interesting that this remains a taboo view.

I suppose it remains taboo because the biological origin of our social behavior points toward a human nature that goes against modern liberalism, cultural Marxism and globalist corporations, in affirming real human nature as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

That directly and naturally shows the way toward the populist nationalism now rising in the West, and later toward an ethnopluralism of smaller ethnostates, and not toward the globalized corporations or Marxist/fascist dictatorships now preferred by the corrupted elite.  We will get there, but we will be stupid and devious in getting there, as usual.

The garbage culture created over the past 100 years or so goes against all normal and natural human traits

Reading and then watching the news this morning this was my thought: the old adage "as the people change the culture changes" was not paid attention to mainly because the people who were changing our culture into garbage were rising to power on the ashes of the garbage they created and didn't want us to see it that way. So now we have garbage newspapers, garbage television, garbage commercials, garbage movies, garbage books, garbage politicians, garbage global businesses---and on and on.

So how do I define "garbage?" Things that are contemptibly worthless, inferior, and vile, which go against normal human nature and normal human behavior. Human nature has been affirmed throughout human history to this day as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

The garbage culture that has been created over the past 100 years or so---as the will to power of garbage creators---goes against all of those normal and natural human traits, other than the will to power of the garbage creators.

The only thing to do is to go back to what we really are as human beings. The biological origin of our social behavior actually ends the intellectual defense of postmodern garbage culture, but of course the powers behind the garbage culture don't want you to think that way.

Real human nature and normal human behavior affirms in general the populist nationalism now trying to rise in the corrupted West, and after that the reality points toward the political/cultural solution of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. It is a conservative transformation---not radical revolution or civil war I hope---in harmony with real human nature, which could be adapted and established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism.

How to reconcile pluralism with ethnocentrism

How can we reconcile pluralism with ethnocentrism? The answer: ethnopluralism. That is the way to harmonize the primarily kin-centered/ethnocentric altruism of real human nature.

Simple enough, right? Wrong. Human beings are very clever and often devious in advancing themselves. A prime example: one ethnocentric group will try to advance itself over other groups by defining ethnocentrism as evil! That is like calling human nature itself evil. Civil rights movements have used that tactic for years, which has created a reverse racial discrimination!

Wouldn't it be far better and far more just to establish a "universal" ethnopluralism of ethnostates? In the U. S. that could even work by conservatively adapting the constitutional separation of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected by federalism.

That now seems to require cultural victory over the Big Media, the academic world, modern liberalism (which is cultural Marxism), globalism in general, and even the quixotic universalism of some versions of religion.

Impossible? When truth is on the side of real nature and when lies are seen as lies, truth does eventually come out, although it often requires martyrs and heroes.

Hegel defines a spiritual non-material idea, and that is the same old problem

Hegel’s definition of beauty is “the sensible shining forth of the idea” Idea? Hegel defines a spiritual non-material idea, and that is the same old problem that goes all the way back to ancient religion and philosophy.

Ideas depend on evolved matter which creates ideas, not the other way around. Without the body and the material brain there would be no ideas or definitions of "spiritualism." Spiritualism is an idea thought up in the material ingredients of the mind. Even the God-Within is a blissful material experience by way of ascetically blocking material drives and desires---most of the gurus teach it that way.

But before spiritualists and idealist's become agitated over the loss of their favorite fantasy: Godhood and the philosophical "zenith" are not lost, theological materialism affirms them---but they are material, or more precisely, supermaterial. And Godhood is evolved to in the material/supermaterial world. Conservatism remains viable.

But before we rush to the very human idea of "final" endings: evolution and devolution never end, there will always be gods and universes evolving, arriving, rising and falling.

So in theological materialism we have nothing to lose but our deification of ideas and spiritualism, and we have a grand material synthesis of religion and science to gain, along with real Godhood.

Ethnopluralism is not fascism

Ethnopluralism is not fascism. The world is too populated and power is to fluid for any one group to enslave all the other groups; the consequences of trying to do so will be "too dangerous to its temporary beneficiaries," as E. O. Wilson put it. In other words the crowded world will gang up on and destroy any racial group that claims exclusive rule over all the other groups.

Given the kin-centered and ethnocentric nature of real human nature, we can affirm a "universal" ethnopluralism of ethnostates. It turns out that biological variety is better for survival in the long run, as we learned from the potato famine in Ireland where having only one variety of potato caused devastation. Human variety is good for evolution, especially for those of us who want materially life to evolve toward Godhood.

Universal modern liberalism, which has become cultural Marxism, is a foolish dream that causes great suffering as it is goes against real human nature, which naturally arranges itself into ethnostates and not into one imperial fascist state which uses force to unnaturally rule.

But as we move, or if we move, toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates we can do so conservatively. Human nature is classically conservative in being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, 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, and humans then work within and adapt to the environments they find themselves living in.

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be established legally and conservatively in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism. It may require a few constitutional amendments to give more power to the states to move toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates---no radical revolution or violence is advocated or necessary, only the natural and rational affirmation of what we actually are, and to what we can become.

The Democrats will stop at nothing to destroy the West, their "morality" justifies the destruction

"The Democrats have become the party of the neurotics, the misfits, the maladjusted, the perverted, the freaks, and the aggrieved who despise whatever—and whoever—is healthy, sane, and normal in this country." Chilton Williamson Jr. (Chronicles, Sept 2018)

But the freaks and misfits don't really benefit from the Democrats, other than by feeding their own afflictions, like drug addicts. Who does benefit? The Big Media, Hollywood, the academic world, and globalist's like billionaire George Soros (GyÃrgy Schwartz) who feed off the destruction of the West. The neoconservative's do pretty well too undermining the healthy, sane, and normal economic nationalism and populism now trying to rise in the West.

The Democrats and the string pullers behind them need to be exposed for who they are. They will stop at nothing to destroy the West, their "morality" justifies the destruction.

Let's move out from under the ignorance and lies regarding the deepest currents of history

Contrary to religious writer George Weigel the deepest currents of history do not flow through culture, the deepest currents of history flow through biology---biology is at the origin of our social behavior. Both liberals and conservatives make this error (though conservative's less so). Why do they do it?

Religion and political philosophy within in our culture have interpreted culture from spiritual and ideologically abstract perspectives which have, intentionally or not, undermined the biology origin of our social behavior.

Then there is the bias and blockage of the biological perspective since the suffering caused by World War Two, and the fall of fascism and Nazism.

But suffering does not justify ignoring, biasing, and blocking the truth, to do that causes even more suffering in the future. We cannot heal culture or develop a healthy natural culture based in bias and lies.

The real biology origin of our social behavior defines real human nature as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. What does that suggest when the bias and blockage of the truth is removed?

It suggests ethnostates, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates to deal with growing, and competing, multi-ethnic societies; it also suggests a protecting federalism to safeguard all ethnostates against inevitable marauding imperialists. The U. S. even has a constitutional separation of powers and states to adapt to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Let's move out from under the ignorance or lies regarding the deepest currents of history.

Why does the Big Media say virtually nothing about China being national socialist?

Here is the big question regarding China: why does the Big Media say virtually nothing about China being national socialist (yes Nazi) when national socialism is otherwise proclaimed across the West as the rebirth of Satan and his minions? Anyone who is honest can see (and even say?) that China is a national socialist country: China criminalizes miscegenation and criminalizes citizenship for non-Chinese, they enforce sterilizations and eugenic programs which allow only genetically superior embryos planted in mothers, they create but also steal technology and resources from the rest of the world which they believe they are entitled to because they think their county is superior to all other countries, etc etc. (actually patriotism and genetic engineering doesn't sound that bad to me)

So why does the Big Media say virtually nothing about China being national socialist? The answer is that the people who normally shout the loudest about the evils of national socialism have been making big money from their investments in China. They are the globalists who killed manufacturing in America so they could pocket the difference in labor costs when they sell the junk they have made in China back to America. They could care less about America or Americans---they traitorously aid and abet the Chinese competitors and enemies of America for their own benefit. That looks like real evil to me.

I am happy that president Trump has the brass to try to slow them down.

Only a battling President like Trump with his own kind of chutzpah could stand up to the special interest groups

Only a battling President with his own kind of chutzpah, from Queens in the jungle of New York City, could stand up to Hollywood, the academia world, global corporations, and other special interest groups, who think of America only as the place for their greedy ambition to gain power and dominance over the people and culture of traditional America. And they have largely succeeded.

Their arrogant ambition has hidden behind the monstrous fantasy of cultural Marxism, and they have created mainly decadence, degeneracy and immorality which has weakened the resolve of a formerly moral people.

President Trump has some big personality faults, but at least half of America, mostly people living between the decadent coasts, are saying: "more power to him!"

What was once called paranoid is now called truth

For years the right was judged as being paranoid for saying that the Big Media has a leftist bias; now many American's accept that assessment, especially since President Trump took up that position. I think we can now say that most things that the right were once called paranoid for are now understood as the truth.

What else has the right been called paranoid or worse for? Hollywood. The academic world. Special interest lobbyists in Washington. Globalism. The right has been correct in its assessment of the bias and depravity of those institutions.

The alt right is now being called paranoid for proclaiming what may be future truths, one of which has got to be the biological origin of most of our social behavior, which, given human nature, logically and instinctively suggests ethnostates or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates as the healthiest political configuration; in the U. S. this could even be adapted to the constitutional separation of powers and states.

The villainy of the left is seen in how years ago the Media, Hollywood, ect. began by playing up to popular conservative sentiments, which they didn't believe, and how they have now become swaggering and arrogant in promoting a deep cultural decadence, with a few cloudy sentiments on freedom and equality thrown in to lighten their depravity. Their arrogance and endless lies will doom them, as it always does.

So the battle between the left and right is on, and it seems to me that the right has mostly truth on their side. The left are believers in fantasies, they can be great lairs, and they will stop at absolutely nothing to win the cultural battle.

The condition of American Representative Democracy is foul

When yesterday, once again, Hillary "the Hellion" Clinton accused President Trump (and his followers) of being racist and sexist (among other standard culturally Marxist things) she had no clue that she was accusing Trump of displaying real human nature.

Human nature was, is, and remains, genetically kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection and survival.

Can American democracy ever be made healthy? What fools these Democrats be (and many Republicans.) If we cannot get the money out of the political system, democracy will not work. The Representatives in our Representative Democracy represent special interest lobbyists, not us.

Then there is the other big problem of a growing disparity between distinctly different and expanding ethnic groups who are bitterly competing with one another at the expense of national harmony. No establishment party is addressing this reality---the Democrats actually encourage the differences.

As is said here often, the only humane way I can see out of the foul condition of American Representative Democracy is to eventually develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates from out of our existing constitutional separation of powers and states, where real and natural human nature can be affirmed. I do believe that this will happen anyway as it happens with all empires when they inevitably fall apart. Wouldn't it be great if this could be accomplished rationally, legally and peacefully, which is the way I, for one, would insist on it being done.

Is this the inevitable foul fate of open democracies? The ancient Greeks thought so.

Adapting Hegel's grand synthesis to natural reality

We can see the way the Ancient Greeks developed the individual sacrificing to the universal, as seen in Greek tragedy, which lost the individual to the universal, and on to the Romans who brought the individual to the legal, and the medieval losing the material to a universal spiritual, and now the postmodern way of trying to make the individual the universal, with each historical movement losing one vital bond or another in the synthesis.

The universal realistically and naturalistically bonds with individual genetic drives and desires even at the furthest and weakest end of altruism, or being-for-others, as the earth and the universe itself must survive if the individual is to survive, and then altruism gains strength moving from the universal to the nation, ethnostate, ethnic group, kin and self, becoming ever stronger altruistically in genetically-activated bonding due to ever closer and therefore stronger genetic relatedness.

Next we can see how real human nature has been affirmed throughout human history to this day as being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

This logically and naturally points toward the political/cultural solution of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. It is a conservative transformation---not revolution---which can bring about a sociopolitical or political/cultural structure most in harmony with the real human nature and natural universal evolution. "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." E.O. Wilson

In theological materialism the universal exists in both the material Tirips, which is the material activation within life toward evolving to supermaterial Godhood, which works along with outside perhaps sometimes random natural evolution---and the universal also exists in individual knowledge.

So we can altruistically synthesize and bond with the individual, kin, ethnic group, ethnostate, nation, earth, and the universal, without resorting to a non-material, un-bonding,  "spiritual/universal," and we can realistically bond with the real supermaterial Godhood at the zenith of material evolution, without losing any of these bonds.

How universalism loses its utopianism in universal ethnostates

Liberals want a bottomless "universalism," but "universal ethnostates" are the most naturalistic and realistic way to define universalism.

Kin-centeredness is almost an individualistic kind of altruism or being-for-others, but one where the self can know itself even as it knows others. This idea is further extended in the sociobiological affirmation of the biological origin of social behavior, as written about in this genetically-derived social or group affirmation by sociobiologist E. O. Wilson: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals," leading to success in survival and reproduction.

Ethnostatism stands at the furthest reach of effective altruism or being-or others without losing or alienating the self and kin. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates represents the realistic extent of naturalistic social or political universalism, where being-for-others need not alienate self and kin.

The universalism of liberalism expands beyond real altruism and moves back to the self in the form of individualistic and selfish global corporations or political Marxism, with no biological or genetic ties to real altruism, so they soon socially fall apart.

Science and reason have also often led to the withdrawal into individual reasoning, which tends to take the place of bonding with others. Religious asceticism does this too seeking individual enlightenment that tends to downplay materialism and biology, ironically even as it touts a grudging form of material universalism: "If you must marry I suppose that is better than burning in hell," St. Paul more or less said.

However, science and reason move back to a realistic form of being-for-others in the sociobiological affirmation of the biological origin of social behavior, seen in genetically-derived social or group affirmation. And religion moves back to real altruism and bonding when Godhood is understood as evolved to in the material, not spiritual, world. That is how universalism loses its utopianism in universal ethnostates.

Why the "advise and consent" mission of the Congressional hearings on Judge Kavanaugh have become a "search and destroy" mission

The politically incorrect saying that "as the people change the culture changes" helps explain why the "advise and consent" mission of the Congressional hearings on Judge Kavanaugh have become a "search and destroy" mission. The biological or genetic origin of most of our social behavior is a taboo subject.

Although it is virtually illegal to say it, Northern Europeans founded America and its cultural and legal traditions, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (who leads the search and destroy mission of the Kavanaugh hearings) as well as Cory Booker and Kamala Harris come from Jewish and Black traditions which are distinctively different traditions from the Northern European traditions. There is also the standard politics of resentment that minorities always feel toward majorities. And of course there are the usual benighted white liberals also on the panel who have bought into the politics of minority resentment.

Get used to it, there are many Hispanics rising and arriving, as well as Islamic Somalis and other minority ethnic groups, who will continue to change American culture away from its Northern European character, tone and guiding beliefs. Ben Franklin said, more or less, that America could be America only as long as we could keep it, and we haven't kept it.

Is there a way out of the tragic national mistake of cultural Marxism that has been foisted on America, which is tearing us apart and bringing us closer to racial/ethnic civil war? The flat reality is that as the people change the culture changes. Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against 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 kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature.

As a realist this tells me that an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the best political configuration for us to live within. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, with a protecting federalism. I think that is where we are headed, one way or another; but I believe that the legal and nonviolent way is the way it needs to be developed.

Shouting at Hegel

Reading Hegel and his painfully pedantic but worthy attempts at synthesizing the individual and the group and the group and the universal is an absurd exercise. At one point I shouted out loud: "The biological origin of social behavior answers your dilemma!"

The endless word-making and verbiage of Hegel and those who try to explain Hegel (and this could apply to Nietzsche too) are simply answered by the famous statement of the father of the evolutionary science of sociobiology, E.O.Wilson: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

Religious and political universalism sits weakly and lightly at the furthest end of altruism, or being-for-others, which is why world peace and harmony are so difficult. And as for Hegel's universal Spirit or entirely spiritual God, it does not exists---but Godhood does exist or can exist as a supermaterial object or objects at the zenith of material evolution.

We don't need to lose religion, Godhood, or morality, the biological origin of social behavior can be expanded to high culture, which may not create the ideal world of philosophers and ascetics but it will create a real natural world with the possibility of evolving all the way to Godhood.

We can arrange ourselves in a protected ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with our genetically kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature---not Hegel's imperial state, and not the state of Marx, or Hitler---then we can evolve, with variety, toward Godhood.  Let the haggling  academics have an international research center objectively directed to that worldview.

Thoughts while watching the Judge Kavanaugh accuser on television

Whether Judge Kavanaugh is guilty or not guilty of the charges against him, the fact is that Western men, white men, are being weakened and overcome by a combination of academics, lesbians, minority races, the Big Media, and Hollywood, but the West will not be taken over by that decadent motley group; it will more likely be a take over by Islamic revolutionaries with a combination of conquest through immigration as well as by traditional non-western patriarchal behavior. The revolutionaries will laugh at such feminist things as the American "Me Too" movement, and dismiss such things as the Judge Kavanaugh accuser of attempted rape....What do you bet that fascism from the right or left will rise to counter the revolutionaries, which the decadent motley group now hate almost as much as they hate Western white men.

How the Three Covenants are amenable to liberals, conservatives, scientists and religionists

Political philosophers talk of ideologies, religious philosophers talk of covenants, they can be combined in the Third Covenant, the Cosmic Covenant.

If I can go back in the weeds a bit, in the past I wrote of Three Covenants and how in the First Covenant of Primordial Tradition the Spirit and Soul of the Inward Path were understood as existing  in the blood, that is, as being passed on only racially and tribally to a chosen eg. (Jewish) or noble (Aryan) people. Then Jesus Christ (and Eastern masters) brought the knowledge that the spirit and Soul-Within need not be understood and affirmed only racially or tribally but could be understood and followed by any race, any people, universally, provided they were taught the proper way to see or experience the God Within; Christianity said we were “Chosen” through faith in Christ not chosen by blood. That was the Second Covenant. Theological materialism (and the projected Theoevolutionary Church) affirms the mission and path of the Third Covenant, the Cosmic Covenant of the Evolutionary Outward Path, which revitalizes Primordial Tradition, Christianity, Hinduism etc. by once again affirming the First Covenant of genetic and biological qualities within our material evolution to supermaterial Godhood as applied to the Outward Path of material evolution to supermaterial Godhood. Yet also, as in the Second Covenant, this is applied to all people, all nations, all races, all people, living in their own states or ethnostates with access to knowledge of the material evolution to Godhood. That is the Twofold Path synthesis of the Three Covenants in theological materialism.

The Third Covenant acknowledges the biological origin of our social behavior and can end the intellectual separation between political ideologies and religious covenants, pointing toward the religious/political/cultural solution of the ethnopluralism hypothesis, often written about here. It is a conservative transformation---not revolution---that can bring about an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which is the sociopolitical or political/cultural structure most in harmony with kin-centered and ethnocentric real human nature developed many thousands of years ago and remaining with us today. Each ethnostate, each ethnic group, each race, can have access to knowledge of the sacred material evolution to supermaterial Godhood, and can pursue that sacred evolution in their own way in their own states, in the variety that is conducive to evolution, perhaps aided by nonpartisan international sociobiological research centers, as Raymond Cattell suggested.

I see this as a traditional and conservative and not a revolutionary undertaking, as the Covenants affirm, and it is amenable to liberals and conservatives, scientists and religionists.

Representative democracy in America is not working, is there a solution?

As I watch the Kavanaugh supreme court nomination circus I can't help thinking that representative democracy in America is not working. When we ask why representative democracy in America has become corrupted the best and most honest answer I can find is that distinctively different people or ethnic groups bring distinctively different behavior which brings distinctively different political methods and distinctively different cultures and ethics. We now have different ethnic groups with distinctively different biological and social agendas, and all of them are naturally competing with different methods of competing, and it is mainly that which has naturally corrupted representative democracy in America.

If we are honest we can see that a white Anglo Saxon protestant is going to have different methods of living and competing even than an Irishmen living next door, yet alone a Jewish or African or Hispanic American, based on the biological or genetic origin of most of our social behavior. As the demographics of the country changes the culture changes or gets corrupted from its original form. Money and lobbies enter Washington and politicians are corrupted to the point where they don't represent the people who elected them.

Can representative democracy in America be saved? As a conservative I hope so because I don't believe in radical revolutions. The only way I can think of to salvage America and representative democracy in America is to first admit that multiculturalism has not worked, different ethnic groups have for the most part not "melted," they have naturally and vigorously competed, which has led to the present corruption of representative democracy in America.

But this does not have to lead to radical revolution; if we are courageously honest it shows us that, given real human nature, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the best political configuration for distinctively different ethic groups to live within and to tolerably get along. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could be established legally in the United States with our existing constitutional separation of powers and states, protected from marauding empires by a protective form of federalism.  It may require a few constitutional amendments to give more power to the states to move toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

The political dissimulations we now live under, such as cultural Marxism, based on flawed definitions of human nature, have brought us civil disruptions, or even civil war, and the great frustrations could descend into various forms of fascism on the right or the left, which is what usually happens when nations fall apart as we are falling apart.

Given reality I see no better conservative solution.  Do you?

How theological materialism defines faith

Inspired by the models or pattern-making of Hegel, I define "faith" as projecting the realities of the natural world and the world of science into the utmost future. As I said yesterday, in theological materialism I see evolution moving inevitably in a pattern, even though it has its random elements, and the pattern has a discernible direction, in spite of instances of stagnation and retreat, toward higher and higher more effective living forms, ending in supermaterial Godhood. "Faith" derives from projecting the realities of the natural world and the world of science into that future.

That faith can add to the noble way of overcoming selfishness and being-for-itself as well as overcoming anthropomorphism in predicting the future. But perhaps even more importantly we can avoid having faith in an absolute spiritualism which removes itself from the realities of the natural world and the world of science---alas, even Hegel couldn't avoid that kind of faith.

That is also the rational, and instinctive, way to identify the individual with the future of the group or the collective---I hesitate to identify with the "Absolute" mainly because I don't think evolution ever ends, there are always Gods evolving and arriving at the zenith of success in survival and reproduction.

Real cultural altruism is not produced by libertarian individualism or by universalist Marxism but by an ethnopluralism of ethnostates

Altruism, unselfish concern for others, originated and remains working in human nature as bonding best with those who share the same genetic pool as oneself, that way altruism helps advance one own related genes, so it's not quite an unselfish as we think it is.

It is through the group, that is, the ethnic/racial group (leftist boo) that the individual acquires the reality of real social bonding after the alienation of both libertarian individualism and collectivist/universalist Marxism.

We move beyond the reality of standard human nature and altruism when we move beyond the natural altruism of the ethnic/racial group. We did evolve the abnormal ability to occasionally move beyond  natural ethnic altruism for times when we might need to, say, bond with earth allies who are not closely related to protect ourselves from unearthly extraterrestrial invaders, but that is abnormal hyper-altruism not evolved for normal living in natural human conditions.

Healthy human culture needs to rescue us from the alienation of our bogus culturally Marxist societies as well as from libertarian hyper-individualism, by declaring that ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all (rightist boo) are not "evil" but are liberating.

This is the tradition that conservatives as well as liberals need to return to if they really want people to show "unselfish' concern for others. The bogus cultural Marxism we live under has alienated us, tore us apart, and increasingly caused civil unrest and eventually civil war between naturally competing groups.

As is said here often an ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be established legally in the United States by adapting our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected from each other, or from marauding imperial forces, by a lighter form of mainly protective federalism.

I do believe we will eventually get-up-and-go to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates voluntarily and rationally (which I advocate) or unvoluntarily and violently (which I don't advocate) because it is a return to what we actually are as human beings.

I could stomach the Emmy Awards last night for only a few minutes at a time

These arrogant fools don't even seem to realize that they are losing the audience who used to adore them and pay for their lavish life styles. They have now re-acquiried the low-life reputations they used to have back in more civilized times when actresses and actors were considered only slightly above hookers and wandering vagabonds.

These actresses, actors, and directors sold their bodies and minds for fame----even their "me-too" movement and their half-learned cultural Marxism can't redeem them now.

Good riddance. We need a new center for respectable, moral, theater and the arts. And no past producers need apply.

How cultural Marxism and universalism destroy us

The statement that the state "absorbs but does not destroy the individual" (Eliot Jurist) is more realistically accomplished by the genetically related group, that is, the ethnic/racial group and the ethnostate, and not the universal multicultural state. Modern cultural Marxism and universalism casts off the individual from the group and unmoors the group from the individual.

There certainly can be healthy competition between individuals in a healthy ethnostate, but selection between groups is where selection finally takes place, as the famous quote by E. O Wilson says: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

If the evolutionary science of sociobiology was positively taught in our schools and political science departments then cultural Marxism and leftist universalism would be seen for the flim flam con game that they are. Then next could come recognition for the political configuration of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real kin and ethnic-centered human nature and the biological origin of most of our social behavior.

This simplifying and fair-minded intellectual and political path is now blocked by the cultural Marxism and universalism of the academic world and the Big Media, and even blocked by universalized religions that promote collectivism and universalism. This blockade up-anchors both the group and the individual while allowing the group promoting the flim flam con game of cultural Marxism and universalism to hypocritically prosper over the other weakened groups...Nasty, nefarious, but true.

The present trend of hypertrophied feminism will only prevail as long as America and the West don't need territorial defending

I don't define the loudmouth leftist Joe Biden as a "bully" when he says he would like to take President Trump outside and beat him up because he says Trump is a "bully." Neither one of them are "bullies," they are just assertive and aggressive males, and Biden is hypocritically promoting himself by signaling the exaggerations of modern day feminism.

I wish women well and want them to be the very best they can be, but like the Marxists, the feminists have ignored the biological origin our social behavior and explain social and gender differences as entirely environmentally caused; that makes me lose respect for Marxists, feminists or whoever believes it, including Biden.  And our past president Obama always struck me as demagogically appealing to the matriarchy he was raised in---remember his wimpy and inept exercise video? Good lord. 

Our mostly black professional football gladiators seem to be the only males allowed to be assertive and aggressive without being called "bullies."  I suppose that's due to  Affirmative Action programs for minorities, who soon won't be minorities largely do to the Marxists and feminists.

Anyway, "men and women have different body structures, sexual systems and biological responses and processes "(differencebetween.net), and only fools and demagogues deny it. The present trend of hypertrophied feminism will only prevail as long as America and the West don't need territorial defending. When we do, our excellent Special Forces will not be nearly enough in number to defend the West against assertive and aggressive males who hate the West. The assertive and aggressive Islamic Afghans are still going strong and remain undefeated even by the superpowers---and they aren't much bemused by feminism.

Adjusting universalism back to its natural circumference and limitation

Evolutionary sciences such as sociobiology have shown us that "universalism" has limits related to real human nature. Individuals legitimately and naturally "sacrifice'" themselves, not to the nothingness of an airy unrealistic idea of the universal, but to the genetic pool which realistically relates the individual to kin and group. That is the origin and natural extent of real altruism, which quickly disappears in any universalism defined much beyond that relatedness---we have enough problems feeling or showing selfless concern for the well-being of even related gene pools. We can keep the idea of the "universal," if we must, as long as it is adjusted back to its natural circumference and limitation.

This also applies to those fantasies of universalist religions and philosophies which actually deceive and even block the natural flow of evolution toward real Godhood, which is evolved to in the material world. So religion is not lost when universalism is adjusted back to realistic levels. When universalism is naturalistically understood we can spend more time trying to figure out how we can actually all "get along" as we evolve.

That is when the political configuration of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates occurs to us, which adjusts universalism to its natural limits. In the U. S. the constitutional separation of powers, states, and regions can be adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. This will not be easy, of course, but it is a far more realistic goal than the present goal of global universalism. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates can be secured from marauding states or empires by a light protecting form of federalism.

Who is against this realistic adjustment of universalism? Not counting those who are simply ignorant of real human nature, usually it is related individuals and groups who benefit, at least in the short term, from promoting a universalism unhinged from real life and real human behavior, which weakens their competition.

Our penchant for dreaming up "universals" unhinged from the natural world

Our penchant for dreaming up "universals" unhinged from the natural world has had philosophers saying such hings as: we move from the natural to the ethical universal. Slow down boys and girls. The natural is the source of the ethical.

Altruism (disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others) was evolved in nature to advance specifically related gene pools. Universalism enters the scene only at the distant end of altruism, say, if space aliens came to try to conquer the earth whereupon earthlings might then become planetary altruists.

I also don't see Greek Tragedy saying that we move from the natural to the ethical universal, the city states were ethnostates and came together only when outsiders like the Persians came to threatened them. Later Roman imperialism brought in "universals" unhinged from the natural world, and collapsed because of it. Greek art is superior to Roman art due to Greek ethnostatism, and not due to empires.

One thing we can learn from this is that we need to form not merely single ethnostates out of our constitutional separation of powers and states, but an official ethnopluralism of ethnostates to help in avoiding war between ethnostates, and protected from marauding empires by a lighter version of federalism.
 

We can't escape the natural, why the hell would we want to? Escaping the natural mainly seems to come from greedy men seeking to weaken the social bonds of others so they can strengthen their own bonds and thereby dominate---priests have done this as much as emperors.

The future of religion transformed

Matter is energy, but energy is matter. There would be no matter without energy but also no energy without matter. Do we really want to rate one higher than the other? I would then rate living matter as more evolved than simple energy. Spiritualism turns the real material world upside-down and claims that the religious/philosophical ideal is not really material, is not matter, or is more sacred energy than lowly matter. They claim that their supreme ideas are non-material and Godlike, or even God.

Why the hatred of the material world even to the point of blocking all material desires or blocking all life, at least for ascetics? They do it so that they can dwell in the blissful bodily experience of supreme ideas, unbothered and unaffected by material desires. It is a cloistered world ultimately driven by hedonism.

The main problem with traditional asceticism is that it blocks the path of material evolution to real supermaterial Godhood, which requires material desires, but channeled desires that need to genetically and culturally funnel evolving life-forms toward the supermaterial zenith of beauty, truth and goodness. This allows material science to enter religion as a help-mate. That is the future of religion transformed.

We can conservatively keep the old ascetic inward path to the "god" within in the Twofold Path, but only as a symbolic glimpse of the real Godhood reached in the outward path of material evolution to real Godhood.

Trump's instincts for borders and division are more humane than Obama's Marxist flim-flam about bringing all people together

Former president Barack Obama gave a typical holier than thou speech the other day implying that he is better than President Trump because he seeks to bring all people together and Trump seeks to divide people. That is the standard notion of both Marxism and modern liberalism. But it is deceptive flim-flam, whether its purveyors know it or not.

By the time of the advent of Homo-sapiens human nature had biologically or genetically become kin-centered, gender defined, 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. Human nature evolved to be that way because it was most successful in survival and reproduction in a very difficult world, and it advanced human genetic pools best.

Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against real human nature, with such experiments as Marxism, but culture is eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature. Humans then work within and adapt to the environments they find themselves living in.

That defines the natural origin of our moral sense, and that is why human beings naturally divide and separate, and that is why it is hopeless to try to make distinctly different people live together in the same living space. That explains why the U.S. constitutional separation of powers and states, created by the Founders, works well with real human nature. And that is also why ethnopluralism is the most natural political configuration for humans beings to live within, protected with some version of federalism.

So Trump's instincts for borders and division are more real and more in sync with how human beings best live and survive, and even more humane, than Obama's universalist Marxist flim-flam about bringing all people together no matter how different they are, which leads to civic disruptions and even civil/racial war.

Professional sports as a microcosm of the biological origin of our social behavior

"Merit" should not be defined only as talent and aptitude, just as IQ scores alone are not enough in choosing our leaders; character traits also have to be included, otherwise we would have only genius-monsters as leaders.

But that describes the old Western preferences. There is not one good or one bad when comparing apples and oranges and there is not one good or bad when comparing one ethnic/racial group to another. They are just different.

Our culture and our Big Media now seems to want emotional outbursts and agit prop and finds traditional etiquette and decorum too confining. How many young tennis players and football players will now destroy their tennis rackets, loudly argue with the umpire, or protest various political injustices on the football field?

Serena Williams and Colin Kaepernick, who are African Americans, illustrate the change in the character and tone of professional sports. Our sports have become more rude, unmannerly, and vulgar when compared to the old WASP (white Anglo/Saxon Protestant) standards. But it also more deeply illustrates the politically incorrect reality that when the ethnic/racial group changes the culture changes.

Not one, I repeat, not one, announcer or commentator took the side of the beleaguered umpire when he tried to uphold the old traditional etiquette and decorum of tennis from being trashed by MS Williams. The New York crowd had to be chastised later by Williams, to her credit, to stop booing on her behalf because it was ruining the win of Naomi Osaka, who played well and showed that elite Japanese athletes are more civilized than many Americans athletes.

These are just the facts, man, just the facts.

What if Patrick Buchanan had been President?

When Patrick Buchanan was prevented from becoming president it seems to me that something hopeful and vital ended in America. Buchanan was born and bred to be president. He was and remains a rare combination of astute political intellectual with big courage and good character.

I can't decide if Buchanan would have been able to take on globalism as successfully as president Trump has done; maybe the brash seemingly amoral character of Trump, with the lies and the girlfriends, needed to be there to also have that high audacity to take on the world. But then Buchanan was wiser than Trump and just as tough and bold; for example, Buchanan didn't make friends with the Israeli lobby as Trump did.

Now we have a real big mess in Trump's Washington, half of which wouldn't be there if Buchanan had been President. But perhaps only someone with the big ego of Trump could stand up to the powerful onslaught against him.

One thing I do know, the United States is a great country and it needs to stand. But I believe the U.S. will eventually need to transform to harmonize and contain an ethnically/racially diverse and increasingly competing population. My hope is that we will one day legally transform the constitutional separation of powers and states into an ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions. Will we be wise and strong enough to do it? That is our survival question.

I don't mean to piss off the epistemologists

I don't mean to piss off the epistemologists but it seems to me that how we know what we know as well as the origin of desire follows the same pattern of activation, that is, desire as well as consciousness do not "seek" they "receive" stimuli from the biological body.

Consciousness does not initially create stimuli, consciousness is created by stimuli. 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.

I don't see a specific center in the body for this activation, for example like the pineal gland of the ancient mystics, but the brain at least coordinates the mass of stimuli coming in from the biological body.

I think there is also a deeper "desire" or activation beneath this pattern of activation which essentially defines "life," or activates the metabolism growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction which defines life. I call it "Tirips," after previously calling it "spirit-will," because it is an entirely material or supermaterial activation.

Tirips is that deep motivation of life not to just survive and reproduce successfully, or to merely satisfy biological desires, but to endlessly seek to reach the zenith of material evolution, which is Godhood, and to never to be satisfied until it attains Godhood---but even then it keeps activating life toward higher life forms, working along with the ups and downs of natural evolution...That unifies religion, science, and culture, if we dare.

"Civility" does not solely come from ideas it derives more deeply from biological bonds

Burke and Kirk convinced me of the wisdom of conservatism, but Darwin and E. O. Wilson convinced me of the wisdom of the evolutionary sciences. Our social bonds do not solely come from ideas, they derive more deeply from biological bonds. And so "civility" also originates in biological bonds. Contrary to the abstractions of liberalism, civilization does not require a blocking or weakening of kin and ethnic-centered human behavior. We are not more civilized when we try to neuter all biological and local bonds to try to serve a Utopian fantasy of universalism or equality---which both religion and politics have attempted to do.

If there is to be a real social bonding it must come from biological bonds that do not try to move outside of what human nature actually is, and that 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.

This means civility in reality is best grounded and even depends on natural separations, such as an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, where distinctive groups can develop distinctive cultures in line with real biological bonds and the biological origins of most of our social behavior. We are now seeing what multicultural/multi-ethnic/multiracial diversity in the same living space has brought us, declared  and undeclared civil/racial war.

And standing on the shoulders of Burke, Kirk, and Wilson, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates can be adapted legally (no radical revolution here) from the traditional constitutional separation of powers and states, and protected externally and internally by federalism.

As to the bonds of religion, I find a conservative synthesis of these fields in the philosophy of theological materialism, which says that both the Inward and Outward Path experiences of Godhood in the Twofold Path are material and supermaterial not spiritual and are of the phenomenal material world. The traditional material inward experience of Godhood as seen or experienced in traditional religions is retained in theological materialism but transformed and fulfilled and reached in the Outward Path of material evolution to supermaterial Godhood, a Godhood which is ever evolving.

We need not give up on "saving the world."

Nike and the undeclared racial/civil war

Nike Inc. has take the side of Colin Kaepernick in the undeclared racial/civil war now taking place in the U.S. and the West. Kaepernick, the black athlete who won't stand for the U. S. flag because he says the country oppresses black people and people of color, has been given a multi-million dollar Nike deal with his own line of shoes, shirts, jerseys, etc.

Nike clearly demonstrates the big problem the West has with global corporations who have no loyalty to borders. Money is their only country and patriotism is meant only for the leadership of the corporation. This is why the U.S. needs to reign in globalism with economic nationalism, which President Trump and Pat Buchanan him have been pointing toward.

We will see where this undeclared racial/civil war takes us. The U.S. probably won't look the same in the future. Given real human nature, which remains kin-centered and ethnocentric, one hopes an ethnopluralism of ethnostates will eventually legally develop, adapted from the constitutional separation of powers and states.  Then peace and harmony will have a better chance for us all.

The natural limits of altruism

There has always been a problem understanding the connections between the universal and the particular, the abstract and concrete, the group and the individual, etc. I think the biological origin of social behavior goes a long way in clearing up this problem.

"Liberalism" seems to have arrived by seeing the individual as far more important than the group, and so individual freedom became the great political mantra. But the biological origin of social behavior changes that liberal mantra around because group-selection has precedence over individual-selection, although they work together in a co-evolutionary way: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals" as E. O. Wilson put it, and there we have the origin of altruism.

Altruism can be understood as the individual best advancing over the long term by concern for the well-being of others, which therefore isn't really selfless. Abstract morals and values regarding concern for others don't come before this natural biology, they follow after and affirm naturalism.

The old idea of the "common good" took for it granted that cities and states were made up of the same homogeneous ethnic groups. Aristotle took that for granted when he spoke of the common good, and so did the Founders of United States, although they were a bit biased toward the individual. The idea of a universal, abstract, individualism was more a modern political sell.

Ancient and modern intellectuals seem to think of altruism, universalism, and groupism as superior to or beyond naturalism.  But when those virtues and values are correctly explained by naturalism they put natural limits on altruism, universalism, and groupism, which are understood as needing the same homogeneous ethnic groups for altruism to actually work. This also supersedes the communist conceptions of a universal atheistic altruism.

The natural limits on altruism correctly limit the pie in the sky, Utopian, universalist, dreams of religious or political liberalism, and gives a solid ground for the political/cultural solution of the ethnopluralism often written about here. A conservative transformation---not revolution---can bring about an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, perhaps carved out of the constitutional separation of powers and states, and protected by federalism. This is the sociopolitical or political/cultural structure most in harmony with ethnocentric and kin-centered real human nature, and the natural limits of altruism.

I don't believe Western people will fade away

As a typical Western conservative sits and listen to, say, Mozart, I know their mind occasionally strays from the sublime music and they can't help thinking that high Western culture is fading. It's a depressing feeling to have.

But the hard reality is that conservatives (and liberals) are going to have to embrace or at least affirm the biological origin of our social behavior if they are ever going to save Western high or even low culture---Nashville music is fading almost as much as the Boston symphony.

The hard reality is that conserving Western culture means conserving Western people, and Western people seem too depressed to breed or maintain their cultures anymore, as we see reported almost daily, and gleefully, in the demographic statistics of the Big Corrupt Media.

The hard reality is as the people change the culture changes. Western people now see and hear only loud and angry post-modern culture created by loud and angry people who usually do not share their same genetic or cultural traits.

Distinctly different people don't melt together no matter what ideology or religion is preached to them, they compete.

Human nature hasn't changed, we are still kin-centered, gender defined, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Western man doesn't easily anger and non-Western people better hope that the calm continues because primitive imperialism and supremacy rises as anger rises.

The only realistic and equitable way I see of conserving not only Western people and their cultures but also non-Western people and their cultures is to develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates from out of our crowded democratic republics or whatever political isms people are now living under. It could even be established legally in the United States by adapting our constitutional separation of powers and states.

I don't believe Western people will fade away.

The manipulation of being-for-another

Being-for-another, as the philosopher's like to call it, or altruism, has had a long history of manipulation, from the ancient ascetics to the cultural Marxists of today.

Even Darwin had problems understanding altruism. Neo-Darwinist's like the great E. O. Wilson cleared things up by explaining that: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." Individuals in groups work together this way in a co-evolution.

Ascetics did not care at all about material life and actually sought to block material life to reach the god within, therefore they could conveniently call for universalism and egalitarianism because they had no interest in natural material evolution and selection, they saw natural competition as fruitless and only getting in the way of their spiritualism.

Then we had the manipulations of Being-for-another, or altruism, by individuals and groups who promoted universalism and egalitarianism for others for the purpose of weakening the natural ethnocentrism of others so that their own ethnocentric group could prosper---a devious way to operate.

Is all fair in love and war? Not really, if you want to survive and prosper over the long-term.

The biological origin of most of our our social behavior actually ends the intellectual defense of universalism and egalitarianism as well as ending 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.

Existing realistic values come from the various social and cultural methods we try (including postmodernism) to biologically and genetically advance ourselves and our related ethnic group, locality and nation. This affirms in general the populist nationalism now trying to rise in the corrupted West, which needs to eventually develop into an ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions. Ethnostates could even be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states.

Whatever peace and harmony is possible between different and competing human groups can be best accomplished in an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, that is the political/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature, which remains kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Free-will within determinism

Many people, many liberals, are not happy with the idea that we may not be free to be as anarchic and even nihilistic as they think they want to be. But we are freest when we are aware of the degree of free-will we have within our determinism. Unconscious determinism is not bad, consciousness was not the “fall” from the unconscious direction of life. Animals are not bad because they are unaware of their biological determinism. It is not determinism in itself that is backward, in humans it is unawareness of the degree of determinism and free-will we have that is backward.

We have choices in what we do but they are not unlimited choices. The goal is determined but the path is freer. We can control our actions through values and morals which are or are not in harmony with human nature and the natural laws, and also we can have values more deeply in harmony with the activation of life to evolve toward Godhood. That is not exactly what Nietzsche meant when he said "accept your fate." He more or less thought the will to power was anarchic and nihilistic and we should learn to accept that unfreedom of the will.

This defines a partial "free will," not a complete free will---the large rock rolling down the mountain can take different paths, but it is rolling down the mountain in any case.

Real human nature points toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates

Conservative's like to say that history and experience are better guides for politics and life than the abstract conceptions touted by liberals and neoconservatives---then they stop there. But there is a deeper guide even than history and experience in the biological origin of most of our social behavior, which includes and subsumes history, experience, and abstract conceptions. Experience may be superior to reason in guiding us but biology is superior to experience.

This points toward nationalism but a nationalism that includes an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.  Real human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making,  hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. And that real human nature points toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.  Lucky for us, and the wisdom of our Founders, the U. S. Constitution affirms a separation of powers and states which could accommodate an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected also by federalism.

One hopes that both conservatives and liberals will eventually affirm an ethnopluralism of ethnostates as better than any other political or cultural formula to actually bond people together, with fewer civil disruptions and cultural disjunctions. It can and should be done legally without radical revolution.  I think it will be done eventually as globalism literally and intellectually falls, and returns to ethnostates, as it always does.

The self and the group

The idea of "agency" in philosophy seems unnecessarily complicated (surprise, surprise). I think the capacity for individualized choice and action in the world needs to be biologized, which will require a bit of courage by philosophers because it is a "politically incorrect" idea.

Connecting "being-for itself and "being-for-others" means affirming the biological origin of most of our social behavior. That is the"renewal of agency" we need. And it addresses the "alienation" that philosophers go on about.

I think the self and the group are best understood in the following quote by the great father of sociobiology Edward O. Wilson: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

No one is more individualistic and self-starting than I am, and if I can accept this explanation of agency then any narcissist, extreme libertarian, or person with authority problems can accept it.

There is great room for individual self-expression in the natural preference for group-selection which evolved over great time in human nature and in human behavior. What we need to do, as the great psychometric psychologist Raymond Cattell pointed out, is understand the difference between social and antisocial individualistic behavior, especially with geniuses, which was Nietzsche's concern.

The neonationalist shuffle

Neonationalists and neoconservative intellectuals don't quite run away from neo-Darwinist information regarding the biological origin of most of our social behavior, they do a kind of neonationalist shuffle and claim that nationalism is "forbiddingly difficult to define," as Samuel Goldman described it (Modern Age, Summer 2018). Then they step in with that shuffle and argue that a nation is not based on common descent but is "unified around cultural characteristics" of language, religion and shared history (Yoram Hazony). Is it the ghost of Hilter, intellectual cowardice, or a more sinister shell game to protect real or, ironically, ethnocentric motives?

The neoconservative's failed, for a time at least, when the new populism surprised the hell out if them and elected Trump---although Trump has since made them happy regarding his policies in the Middle-East.

Nations are not all that "forbiddingly difficult to define," although it is now virtually forbidden to define them. Throughout human history to this day 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. That behavior bonded people together best for survival and reproductive success and from out of that natural foundation nation's formed.

Nations are naturally ethnocentric and even xenophobic and when they are not they tend to fall, and become feuding multicultural societies which eventually break back into an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. So why not head off those cycles and begin to establish, or reestablish, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates? An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be established, legally, in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism. No radical revolution is necessary.

It may require a few constitutional amendments to give more power to the states to move toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, and it will not be easy at all, but it is far preferable to radical Marxism or Fascism, or the political dissimulations based on flawed definitions of nationalism and human nature which have brought us increasing civil disruptions, or even civil war, within unworkable multicultural (multi-racial/multi-ethnic) societies.

Is it just ignorance or is it insidious evil that promotes the idea that "diversity is our strength?"

My guess is that it is 97% ignorance and 3% due to the insidious evil of a few people or groups who are aware that diversity weakens and then destroys nations, so that they can take over.

I have actually heard people ask, so what's wrong with that? Really?! It seems people can be suicidal and not know it!  A borderless world with universal values destroys national sovereignty. When the racial and ethnic demographics change, the culture changes to better reflect the character, tone, and guiding beliefs of the prevailing group. That was one of the reasons ancient Rome fell, as did many other nations and empires.

As the courageous Prof. Edward Erler recently pointed out in a speech in "Imprimis," in reality diversity means we have less in common, diversity causes racial and ethnic divisions, diversity dissolves the unity and cohesion of a nation; what works harmoniously with homogeneity does not work with diversity.

There's a special place in the-hell-of-your-choosing for the vile people and groups who are aware that diversity weakens and then destroys nations and for that reason insidiously promote the idea that diversity is our strength. Ignorance is also no good excuse.

This somber reality points toward the political/cultural solution of the ethnopluralism hypothesis, often written about here. It is a conservative transformation---not revolution---that I see coming, eventually, which will bring about an ethnopluralism of ethnostates carved out of our constitutional separation of powers and states. That is the biopolitical or political/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature, and healthy for all races and ethnic groups.