Burke and Kirk didn't emphasize enough the political significance of kin and ethnic group

Businessmen aren't constructed to be statesman, his/her interest is in making money, they don't spend much time with philosophy or learning statecraft. The reason we have a businessman as President now is because we have had such lousy politicians.

For example, both liberals and conservative's agree that having multicultural multi-ethnic societies is a good thing and both shout racism and bigotry if you disagree with them or point out that human nature has been affirmed throughout human history to this day as being mainly kin-centered and ethnocentric, as well as being gender defined, heterosexual, territorial, and even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Are our politicians stupid, cowardly, or both? Or are they just venal, on the take, and amoral? Some of each I would say, with very few exceptions; the courageous politicians have been labeled racist, bigoted, etc, and destroyed by venal politicians, the amoral Big Media, Hollywood, and our academic faculties.

So what can we do about it? We can become the little platoons that Burke talked about, proceeding towards a love of our country, but more directly toward a love of kin and ethnic group. Burke and Kirk didn't emphasize enough the political significance of kin and ethnic group. The affirmation of real human nature instinctively and reasonable leads not to multicultural multi-ethnic societies but toward ethnostates, and ideally an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. That is what defines or should define the values of real liberalism, real conservatism, and real politicians.

Can we save ourselves from the destructive fate that the Big Media, Hollywood, the big academic faculties, and the effete, gender-less, lefty vegetarians have in store for us?

The typical trendy list contains racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, trans- and homophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, xenophobia, etc---but who then remains? A tribe of effete, genderless, lefty vegetarians? Ah but they were strongly supported by the Big Media, Hollywood, and the big academic faculties which had enough power to virtually destroy Western culture and Western people.

So is it over for Western people, did the Big Media, Hollywood, the big academic faculties, and the tribe of effete, genderless, lefty vegetarians win? It looks that way. But these people also totally support minority groups who will at least advance. We could try to build our own conservative version of the Big Media, Hollywood, and academic faculties alongside their Church of Cultural Marxism with a conservative counterrevolution, but the foundation we build upon may need more than that.

I believe the Big Media, Hollywood, the big academic faculties, and globalist elites have all but destroyed the chance of such a recovery because they have created multicultural multi-ethnic cities and states that will not bond together, they are too dissimilar to bond together, as human nature has always prescribed.

We may be able to retain the U. S. Constitutional separation of powers and states if we gradually and legally, not radically, transform the powers, regions, and states into an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected by federalism. Given human nature things could go that way anyway, and not peacefully. We might this way retain what is best of the past and save Western culture and Western people from the destructive fate that the Big Media, Hollywood, the big academic faculties, and the effete, genderless, lefty vegetarians have in store for us. And it has the big virtue of also saving non-western people and cultures who could at last live in their own ethnostates and make of them what they will.

If we split the difference between nature and nurture we could come up with a reasonable political philosophy

Although there is a gene-culture co-evolution or "dual inheritance" that takes place between nature and nurture, if we split the difference between nature and nurture, which some think is 70% nature and 30% nurture, we could come up with a reasonable political philosophy.

Modern liberalism is about 100 percent on the 30% side of nurture and conservatives are on are that 70% nature side, although both sides approve of individualism. Liberalism wants the government to insure a collective individual freedom, which tends to move toward socialism/communism and ends up taking away individual freedom, while conservatism want unchecked individual freedom, especially for capitalism (libertarianism), which tends to create societies ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income that end up taking away individual freedom.

If we look a little deeper at what that 70% nature side is telling us about human nature, the science of sociobiology and common sense show us that human nature has been affirmed throughout human history to this day as being basically kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, territorial, and even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Sociobiologist E.O. Wilson has found that in successful survival and reproduction, "within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." And “hereditary altruists form groups so cooperative and well-organized as to out-compete non-altruists groups.” (“The Social Conquest of the Earth.”)  Wilson doesn't emphasize enough that altruism was developed to enhance the survival success of kin and ethnic group, but being-for-others almost disappears beyond the related genetic pool.

Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this basic 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.

This suggests to reason and instinct that ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates are the best political configuration for humans beings to live within. 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. It may require a few constitutional amendments to give more power to the states to move toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, but that is far preferable to radical and marauding Marxism or Fascism, or the political dissimulations of today based on flawed definitions of human nature that have brought us radically destructive civil disruptions, or even civil war, and which are now increasing across the world within unworkable multicultural multi-ethnic societies.

When there is no love, compulsion is employed

As Russell Kirk said, when there is no love, compulsion is employed. Taking that further to the social experiments of multiculturalism and multi-ethnic states, we see that they do not harmonize with kin and ethnic-centered human nature---the true origin of altruism---and so compulsion is needed. But even compulsion doesn't make them work, as we now see in America and across the world.

Why is this so hard for even conservatives to accept? It's the brainwashing and propaganda from the Big Media and the academic world, and also, alas, from the universalism of even religion telling us that we are all the same. And of course political correctness punishes us acutely for disagreeing with their lies. 

But ironically, or diabolically, this myth of telling us that we are all the same, all equal, and that we must therefore live in the same multicultural and multi-ethnic space, is often promoted by individuals and ethnic groups who selfishly benefit and advance from promoting those lies in the Media they control.

So for now our little media must battle the Big Media. Truth usually prevails, but not always swiftly, and heroes and martyrs are usually needed.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Evolution and conservatism

Continuing evolution takes place best in conservative environments where the best of the past can be retained even as we continue evolving higher talent and beauty; those who shout radical revolution, or worse, whenever human evolution is spoken of are wrong. Genetic engineering will speed up the process of human evolution but conserving the best of the past will remain a principle part of our evolution.

Altruism or being for others was evolved from races competing with outside groups, which required altruism within groups to be successful against other groups who may have been less altruistic within their group. So altruistic genes survived, and group selection remains today the central unit of selection, as E.O.Wilson has recently affirmed.

In a better world attuned to real human nature, which remains kin and ethnic centered, ethnic groups will have their own ethnostates, and that would define deep conservatism. As the scientist Raymond Cattell suggested, ethnic groups should be allowed their own evolutionary development, permitting scientific conclusions regarding traits favoring group survival and evolution.

Fox TV conservative's proclaim a conservatism of ideas not race and excoriate modern liberals for featuring race and gender, but Fox conservative's fail to understand that the problem is that liberals proclaim and champion only minority races and make whites the enemy. If the liberals proclaimed the right of every race and ethnic group to be who they are, even within their own ethnostates, then they would be more deeply conservative than the Fox TV conservatives---all liberals would have to do is include whites when they feature race, and of course stop being cultural Marxists.

That which must not be named: "whites"

We are barely allowed to say that the left is out to "destroy our past," we are not allowed to say the deeper truth that the left is out to destroy whites, because the left has told us by way of the Big Media, Big Tech, and our culturally Marxist universities that the "white male Euro-Christian construction" must disappear. But what really is happening is minority ethnic groups have overtaken the minds of leftist whites, radical feminists, gender-benders, etc., who are oblivious to the biological origin of our social behavior, and minority ethnic groups have made cuckolds out of all of them.

Then there are the more despicable conscious politicians like Schumer and Pelosi who are counting on the coming minority status of whites and the new majority status of minorities to keep them in power, and for that reason only, and not for moral reasons, they are sucking up to minorities, calling for open borders, unrestricted immigration, etc.

In reaction to the anarchy of the suicidal left and the will to power of ethnic minorities we now have two Americas hating each other. Euro-American's have no choice but to fight back for the survival of Western civilization and the survival of that which must not be named: whites. Trump became President because he tapped into this group.

But I believe we must eventually have a lawful, gradual, conservative transformation of the Constitutional separation of powers and states into ethnostates, in harmony with kin and ethnic centered human nature---not fascism, not empire building, just congenial ethnostates, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, a real home that every ethnic group or at least every gene-pool and the distinctive culture they create need to best survive and flourish.

Universal conservatism

Conservatives are right to say that conservatism is not really universal or infallible, like the communist manifesto, and that the U.S. Constitution is not exportable, and yet they will sometimes admit, as Russell Kirk did, that there is a "universal conservatism" which is the "impulse" or "yearning" among all people to conserve their culture, history and race. But at the root of universal conservatism, or deep-conservatism as I call it, is the activation to conserve the gene pool of kin, ethnic group, and race and the cultures they develop. Even "order," which is so important to Burke and Kirk, is put in place because orderly societies are more successful in survival and reproduction than disorderly societies.

Human nature evolved to prefer kin, ethnic group, and race because those traits were more successful in survival and reproduction for individuals and groups. Even altruism, being for others, was created as the preference for kin and ethnic group and weakens as we move out toward universalism, which is the main reason why communism and globalism don't work well and tend to use force to impose unnatural altruism.

Universal conservatism or deep-conservatism instinctively and reasonably calls for ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. That is where the impulses and yearnings of human nature are most naturally directed---it could even be accomplished in an orderly and conservative way. In the U.S. with the growing variety of ethnic groups, each with different genetic pools and different agendas, we could with our Constitutional separation of powers and states legally and gradually develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected by federalism. That would affirm a true universal conservatism or deep-conservatism in harmony with what we actually are.

Big Media, Big Tech, and our culturally Marxist universities have become the enemy

The Big Media, Big Tech, and our culturally Marxist universities have been successfully establishing a moral and social order that is not only opposed to our history and tradition but making big profits from pornography while also heavily promoting leftist propaganda...Repeat that please so I don't have to type it again.

They have those who oppose them locked in strait-jackets of political correctness declaring them unhinged bigots and racists, and socially destroying anyone who opposes their lies.

Then if you take it as far as I and few others do and insist on the biological origin of our social behavior, which instinctively and rationally calls for ethnostates or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, you are defined as a dangerous version of crazy Don Quixote. But the reality is that rather than tilting at windmills and thinking them dragons you are tilting at real dragons which the Big Media, Big Tech, and our culturally Marxist universities insist are windmills, and punish anyone who says otherwise...These people have become the real enemy.

Then if you go even further and develop changes in traditional religion, as I do with the philosophy of theological materialism, and admit the reality of the biological origin of even our religious behavior, which points toward evolving to ascending levels of real Godhood in the material world, you lose even the paleoconservatives.

I suppose I believe that truth eventually prevails, but it's not a very secure belief...No one wise ever believed such an undertaking could be easy. I'm just whining to my friends....Wait, what friends?

Isn't it almost time to create mask-free political parties?

Beneath the liberal and even conservative masks lies real human nature. The masks don't blend well today with the primary kin and ethnic centered emphasis of real human nature and the biological origin of social behavior.

The masks partly come off with civil disruptions fueled by ethnic competition and resentment, but usually we again see words like "equality" and "universalism" used to mask the special interests of ethnic groups.

Hiding real biological motives has been standard operating procedure for human beings, is it still necessary? Why can't we admit what we are and then try to set up sociopolitical or more precisely sociobiological social structures in harmony with what we really are?

As heard here often, human nature has been affirmed throughout human history to this day as being basically kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, territorial, and 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 real human nature, with such experiments as Marxism, and now cultural Marxism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect human nature, and humans then work within and adapt to the environments they find themselves living in.

What would humans do without their masks? Create new masks I suppose. But isn't it almost time to create a mask-free Ethnopluralist Party, or Ethnostates Party, or Global Ethnostates Party, protected by some form of federalism, in line with real human nature? If we wait too long our political masks will have brought us not much left on earth to live on.

Both the right and left have confused and disordered the subject of imperial colonization

Africa is the most recent audacious example of this, where the capitalist's colonized Africa and then later the left called for decolonization, which led to bloody African dictators and a big fall in the standard of living for all except the dictators. Now China, the new imperialists as national socialists, have blocked their people from any objection to getting at the large resources of Africa.

Let Africa be Africa! But then do not accept immigrants fleeing to Europe and America as the consequence of Africa being African. Let Africa work out its own problems!

The same common sense goes for letting ethnic groups be ethnic groups in their own ethnostates across the world; don't try to colonize them with imperial arrogance and greed, but then, do not accept fleeing immigrants who naturally will not assimilate into different cultures.

In any case, reality points toward the long term political/cultural solution of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in America, Europe, China, even in Africa which has always tended to go that way anyway---with some sort of federalism mainly devoted to protecting the independence of ethnostates. That is the political/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature which developed many thousands of years ago and remains kin-centered, gender defined, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. All else is mainly political propaganda.

How can we live in a culture of crap?

Many people turned to the libertarian religion of greed putting on blinders to the decadent culture surrounding them. You could put your kids in private schools and you could buy season tickets to orchestra halls, but the same cultural Marxism of political correctness was taught in the private schools, and the orchestras increasingly featured atonal crap. When you finally get home from work late, pour a scotch, and turn on your smart TV to relax, all you can find is people jumping in bed together for one night stands, wives and children as well as sports devoted to the humiliation of white men, and foul language everywhere.

Dropping out of culture "for the sake of sheltering one’s faith and family from corrosive modernity and cultivating a more traditional way of life," as Rod Dreher put it in defining the Benedict Option, is really a horrible choice to have to make, it seems like laying down in the fetal position and accepting that all is lost. But if you have tried to fight the Big Media, Big Government, Big Business, Big Academia, or Big Tech, all does seem lost, they all have adapted their impressive wares to the same cultural decay and degeneration. And for psychologically healthy people the ascetic model of rejecting the material world, which in the case of the monks meant being celibate, looks like accepting death as the solution.

I for one fight the decay and degeneration with philosophy in general, even though I reach only hundreds rather than the millions reached by the vile Big Media who I believe are the biggest enemies of cultural health that we have. And some of my readers only watch me walk the tight-rope wondering when I will fall off.

But you do what you can do, and I much appreciate those who follow my work. I say hang in there, real human nature will not accept forever a culture of crap.

Kirk protests just a bit too much that conservatism is not an ideology

The late Russell Kirk is my favorite conservative writer, along with Pat Buchanan, but I think Kirk protests just a bit too much that conservatism is not an ideology.

Where conservatism might not be visionary and unrealistic or idealistic it is a system of ideas and ideals and contains economic or political theory and policy as much as any other ideology.

The defense that conservatism approves of a range of systems as long as there are conservators of that system does not make conservatism not an ideology, it just makes conservatism a wiser ideology.

I also think that while Kirk, like Burke, emphasizes "prudent change" he does not emphasize evolutionary change, and he does not include even prudent change regarding a transcendent-spiritual order, or the fall of man and the imperfect or sinful nature of man, when that is where change most needs to happen in ongoing conservatism.

Politics is both the art of the possible and the ideal, but Kirk wants to affirm only what he deems as the possible, which does not include the future biological evolution of man. The biological origin of our social behavior, which includes religion, actually ends the intellectual defense of postmodern relativism and the cultural Marxist ideologues, but it also takes some of the virtue-signaling away from conservatives.

The goal of materially evolving to Godhood need not deprive us of either science or religion. Defining the internal material force of life which activates life toward evolving toward higher and higher forms, and eventually to Godhood, while being shaped by natural outside evolution, may be a bit further than religion and science want to go, but we need to go there.

As I wrote a few days ago, the idyllic imagination which Kirk is skeptical of can project the evolution of material life all the way to supermaterial Godhood, which is best done by preserving the best of the past, and by conserving variety, as we evolve toward higher forms of the good, the true, and the beautiful. That is the change of "deep conservatism," which is more prudent than reckless.

Why artificial multi-cultural multi-ethnic societies won't last forever

I would say that the human nature is universal and then culture and geography create variations and genetic adaptations in the way universal human nature is expressed.

Culture and geography feed back and change some of the genetic traits of human nature to better enhance the the penultimate purpose of it all, which is survival and reproductive success (in the ongoing ultimate goal of material life evolving all the way to supermaterial Godhood.)

Culture can also be instinctive, like language, and not merely a creation prompted by the outside environment. Religion too is inborn and part of basic human nature, we instinctively seek social bonding in religious answers to chaos, or now with political ideologies---it helps us survive better.

So different ethnic groups develop genetic variations from adapting to living in different geographies and climates and therefore develop variations on the cultures they create. These ethnic differences don't change much when living in modern, artificial, multi-cultural multi-ethnic societies, no-matter how much propaganda is thrown at us about how we are all the same.

Competition and civil disruptions then naturally develop in multi-cultural multi-ethnic societies largely do to those old ethnic genetic variations in the way universal human nature is expressed. That is why ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates appear to be the most natural and harmonious sociopolitical form for human beings to live within.

The main problem in establishing a natural ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the few elite who gain financial and political global power by promoting border-less multi-cultural multi-ethnic societies, no-matter how much social disharmony they bring to the many.

But these artificial multi-cultural multi-ethnic societies won't last forever because, as E. O, Wilson said, "The genes hold culture on a leash. The leash is very long, but inevitably cultural values will be constrained in accordance with their effects on the human gene pool."

Aggressive empires, marauding globalism, and megalomaniacal states caused the devastation of our World Wars, they were not caused by nationalism, patriotism, populism, ethnostates, or ethnocentrism

"Politics ought to be adjusted not to human reason but to human nature, of which reason is but a part..." Edmund Burke

The present global elite, the media, and the academics call for the subordination of nations and ethnic groups to globalism---think of that asinine globalist speech by Macron on Armistice Day---although they are usually more indirect and weaseling about promoting globalism. Nationalism, patriotism, populism, ethnostates, and ethnocentrism are exactly what the globalists don't want, even though these things are a deep and genetically-derived part of real human nature; it is real human nature that created patriotism, populism, and ethnocentrism as the best means for a people to survive and reproduce successfully.

Aggressive empires, marauding globalism, and megalomaniacal states caused the devastation of our World Wars, they were not caused by nationalism, patriotism, populism, ethnostates, or ethnocentrism. Civil disruptions are mainly caused by trying to melt distinctly different people into one motley living space, they are not caused by the ethnocentric traits of real human nature, which tend to prefer ethnostates.

All this global chaos is promoted and instituted by a very few global elite, the media, and academics for their own selfish ends...They have to be courageously curbed if we are all ever to live in relative peace.

What mischief has been done by theologians and philosophers who preferred to worship abstract ideas more than life

It was a metaphysical and philosophical error to make a God of logos or reason. That error caused the worship of words, equations and ideas which are only definitions of Gods. "Truth" was labeled in the same abstract way; a living thing is more important than its definition.

That version of old nominalism had it right in specifically denying the real existence of abstract objects that do not exist in space and time. What mischief has been done by theologians and philosophers who preferred to worship abstract ideas more than life.

We can have Gods and religion but it is overdo time to see Godhood as living objects we can evolve in the material and supermaterial to become, not spiritually, and not only abstractly cogitated. We can appreciate superior reasoning and brilliant ideas known and unknown, but logos, reason, or the natural order are not God or Godhood, the natural order evolves Gods.

Can we resolve the combative mix of left and right?

Charles Kesler described the "cold civil war" between the left and the right (Imprimis, Oct, 2018). Can this combative mix be resolved and prevent a hot civil war? It can if the better parts of human nature prevail---but that's a big "if."

I can agree with parts of both the right and the left. The idea on the left of a "living Constitution" rightly leans toward the evolutionary side of human nature, toward evolutionary rights---but not revolutionary rights which some on the left and the right encourage. And the left today, in contrast to the apotheosis of the individual rights by conservatives, tracks the rights of various groups or ethnic groups which is in harmony with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection in human nature, followed by individual selection. But the left then goes on to champion the rights of almost every kind of perversion which is not in harmony with real human nature---many in the left don't even think there is a human nature believing human nature springs only from ones environmental upbringing. Human nature remains genetically kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, territorial, and even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other mostly conservative things.

The right affirms a reinvigoration of federalism which is in harmony with the growing variety of ethnic groups in America with different genetic pools and different agendas who could, with federalism and the Constitutional separation of powers and states, develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in harmony with real human nature ---but not secession which could endanger the federal national protection needed for the states in a world that continues to have marauding imperialism.

All of these vital changes need to be done legally, constitutional, and not by revolutionary means which almost never work and cause great biological and cultural convulsions in life...The Right/Left Coalition?

Why the Big Everythings need to be broken down

The often quoted statement that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" by 19th century British politician Lord Acton is an abstract statement, but beneath that abstraction is the fact that it is individual people and individual groups, often ethnic groups, who do the corrupting. Human nature remains as it has been since humans became human: kin-centered, hierarchical, ethnocentric and territorial, among other conservative traits, because that was the most successful means to survival and reproductive success.

Reality suggests that fragmentation, geographical segmentation, and differentiation are not the bad things that Big Government, Big Business, Big Media, and Big Tech tell us they are as they seek global domination. We don't want to go back to a world without automobiles, the internet, or smart phones, but these big enterprises and the people who run them have corrupted our world and need to be broken down.

Localism is not a "yoke" that "restricts" our movement and we are not "confined" by geographical or ethnic segmentation, as the Big Everythings tell us we are; our best biological and cultural survival have always taken place locally and regionally, and best in ethnostates, until the people who push Big Government, Big Business, Big Media, and Big Tech corrupt that natural localism. History has repeated this corruption by Bigness with various kinds of empires time and again.

So corrupt Big Government, Big Business, Big Media, and Big Tech need to be broken down, and will be, one way or another; but it better not be by another version of Bigness, such as big government fascism from the left or the right, but by a constitutional separation of powers and states, eventually ethnostates, protected by some version of federalism. 

This needs to be done or we may lose the whole earth.

A Deeper Realism (from 2014)

 

Raymond Cattell's best argument against war, at least for evolutionary ends, is that it is the quality rather than the size of the group that should be the basis for natural selection, whereas in war, size has counted. In another sense of this idea, special forces now prove this point about quality over quantity in the fourth generation warfare we will now be engaged in.

 

This for me underlines the realist position on war and the strategic position of the U.S., which was reiterated by Barry Posen: the U.S. is enormously powerful, geography favors the U.S. due to ocean barriers and relativity weak neighbors, and we will best procure our security with a slow transition back to Realism, and away from the liberal and neoconservative idea of hegemony in the world, trying to maintain unipolar world dominance, which does not take into account identity politics, ethnic, national, and religious, which are most powerfully against a unipolar world.

 

The neoconservatives have taken the Hellenized position of a universal elite who think ideas can transcend tribes, cultures and epics, but this never worked well with America. Like Rome, we were, or used to be, too pragmatic for the idealism of Greek philosophy, we wanted to build roads more than philosophy.

 

Nevertheless, we need to build more than roads, philosophy needs to get back to philosophical naturalism. I believe Western religion also needs to affirm theological materialism. We are realistically evolving to Godhood in the material and supermaterial world, and we need long term realistic strategies to do so, in which war is to be avoided---as mentioned above, it destroys quality and favors quantity. And we need to take into account identity politics, ethnic, national, religious, which are most powerfully against a unipolar world. Ethnic or racial imperialism will eventually give way to ethnopluralism, with regions and states set aside for ethnic cultures and protected by some sort of federalism. Then we can all best get along. That is a deeper realism.

 

All the fields are, or should be, transmutable or exchangeable

Both science and religion contain elements of the truth, as someone said, "truth is truth is truth" and truth can come in different fields. 
 
But the deepest truths seem to be interchangeable or synthesizable with other fields. The idea that religion and science have different kinds of truth always seems to evade completeness or rationalize unfinished or lazy ideas.

Religion, philosophy, politics, art, etc., should agree on the deepest truths; if they don't, then we probably don't have the truth. All the fields are, or should be, transmutable or exchangeable, it's even a way to check the truth of truths.

This is what is pursued in the philosophy of theological materialism.

The epic transformation in seeing Godhood related to natural not supernatural spiritual forces

Many people in the "civilized" world have virtually no religion or mythology that interests them and so they often feel lost in the modern world. But order and direction can be brought back to the people and the culture by reattaching religion, philosophy, poetry, and science to the biological origin of our social behavior---which perhaps most importantly includes religion---that is, by affirming the evolution of material life to supermaterial, not spiritual, Godhood. We can then have an historical religious synthesis worthy of the past, present, and future.

Godhood is related to natural, not supernatural or spiritual forces. The spiritual was deeply inserted in religion---but not maliciously. As science and reason advanced, the religious insistence on the supernatural and spiritual led to the rejection of God, religion, and even morality. So it was religion itself and not merely science and reason which was responsible for the rejection of God, religion, and morality.

We can return to Godhood, religion, and morality, after the devastation caused by its loss, with the epic transformation in seeing Godhood related to natural not supernatural spiritual forces. We evolve unendingly in the material world to higher levels of supermaterial Godhood. That is a change in metaphysics as prodigious as the discovery of reason and science by the Greeks, only without causing the the slow death of Godhood, religion, and morality.

Understanding natural law to be in harmony with it

Natural law creates order between man and nature, but this means we must know or understand natural law to be in harmony with it. Traditional religion needs deeper knowledge of the natural world, which has evolved since the time of the religious founders, and Aquinas. To be specific, we need knowledge of natural evolution and its religious implications.

Theological materialism recognizes the supreme principle of evolution in nature and the cosmos. Material/supermaterial evolution takes us to the Godhood first spoken about or symbolically experienced in the inward paths of traditional religion. Vital knowledge of the natural evolution of life to Godhood in the Outward Path is missing in traditional religions. The material/supermaterial evolution to continuing levels of Godhood transforms but does not reject the traditional involutionary Inward Path to the material soul-within of traditional religion.

Communities, ethnostates, and nations of men need to be in harmony with the natural law of the supreme principle of evolution. The key to man's downfall was moving away from the natural evolution of life toward Godhood. We can now aid our evolution toward Godhood with both religion and science.

President Trump's battle against the media is only the beginning skirmish of what should at least be a war of legality

The entertainment industry and the big media is now the biggest enemy of America and the West. They must be evil geniuses if they knew when they were gathering media power, by any means necessary, the degree of power they would eventually have over American culture. They have used their media power to destroy traditional American culture, gradually at first, until now the only thing left for them to do is to produce xx-rated sex and violence as the main slime of popular prime time programming. And we have seen the power of the news media to make and break politicians, foment wars, and brainwash the people in cultural Marxism.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Supreme Court opinion written in 1919 regarding free speech or actions said that, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

The destruction of traditional American culture by the entertainment industry and the big media has certainly been a clear and present danger that continues to bring about many substantive evils. But there is no viable movement to curb or dismantle the entertainment industry and the big media, indeed, the number of destructive media outlets and media devices is expanding. President Trump's battle against the media is only the beginning skirmish of what should at least be a war of legality.

On President Trump's SOTU speech

Watching President Trump's worthy SOTU speech we saw the usual mannerism and gestures of self-importance, overbearing pride, even blowhardism, jutting his jaw out almost as defensively as Mussolini did in his speeches. That visual display of self-importance and overbearing pride causes problems for Trump, especially among Democrats, because liberals and Democrats are shallow and immature and can't see past the outward mannerism and gestures of people and political systems.

That is why the Democrats and liberals fall so hard for shallow and immature "political correctness," which is cultural Marxism, they see only the surface trappings of human behavior, and they don't see that it is more important what one does than how we look or what we say when doing it.

With Trump in office the stock market is at an all-time high, unemployment (for all ethnic groups) is at a 16 year low, he renegotiated NAFTA and withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership keeping jobs here, he brought conservative judges to our court system, he has fought against the corrupt media, and he is bringing our military home from across the world, to name only a few of his accomplishments in a very short time.

He does make bad moves, such as continuing to support the greatest influence dealers in Washington, the Wall Street lobby, the fossil fuel lobby, and especially the Israeli and Saudi lobbies who pay off and threaten corrupt government officials and representatives to get them to take actions that are completely against the interests of our nation. And of course Trump has no understanding of the importance of affirming and adjusting to natural ethnocentrism in human survival, reproduction, and cultural creations.

Yet unlike the shallow Democrats and liberals who fall for demagogues, conservative's know that there is never a perfect man, perfect leader, or perfect system---making strenuous effort toward any goal is always necessary.

Reason can be politically manipulated by cunning intellectuals, but instincts are not as easily maneuvered

Trumpian nationalism hasn't decisively won against the international left and the global neocons, but if it can prevail, the next task will be to save the nation internally by allowing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates to form, fulfilling the real promise of the constitutional separation of powers and states. But people aren't always rational, and reason can be and is manipulated by cunning intellectuals.

Instincts are not as easily manipulated. As E.O. Wilson wrote, "The genes hold culture on a leash. The leash is very long, but inevitably values will be constrained in accordance with their effects on the human gene pool. The brain is a product of evolution..." Human nature remains kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, territorial, and even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

The international left and the global neocons have the Big Media and the schools completely on their side, and the people have been brainwashed by them. But the instincts of modern liberals cause many of them to build walls around their homes or move to the suburbs to be around their own kind, even though they talk passionately of the benefits of globalism and how we are all universally and equally the same.

What will happen? If the grip of the international left and the global neocons remains strong it may lead to more serious ethnic/civil disruptions, which could lead to ethnic/civil war. Then ethnostates would emerge as natural protection. But best would be to slowly and rationally develop ethnostates, that is, form an ethnopluralism of ethnostates legally and nonviolently from out of our constitutional separation of powers and states.

In any case, human nature predicts that ethnostates are coming.

If real mercy is the privilege of the most powerful men

If real mercy is the "privilege of the most powerful men," as Nietzsche declared (didn't Aristotle think that too?) then those who cannot get over the wrongs of World War Two and seek only revenge must be put outside that category of powerful men. But resentment and revenge also keeps the wrong alive as the will to power of the wronged, even if is an ignoble will to power.

We need to move toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. Distinctly different people naturally compete and need their own space. Differentiated ethnic groups in general do not get along well jammed together in multi-cultural-multi-ethnic states.

To resolve this unending problem we do not need the imperialism or supremacy of noble Aryans or Chosen Jews, we need an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in line with kin and ethnic-centered human nature.

Those who block even the discussion of ethnostates are causing great suffering in the world, and for themselves too.

That which has been tearing us apart could put us back together again

It took the whole history of humanity to discover the counter-intuitive idea that we could stop polio, measles, etc, by infecting people with a strain of the virus that taught the immune system how to fight the disease.

A similar counter-intuitive, or counter-popular-culture idea was discovered for stopping or at least better controlling human social and ethnic disruptions and that was the knowledge that we could fight racism best by admitting that human nature is and always has been racist, or genetically kin and ethnic centered, so we could therefore affirm ethnocentrism rather than fight it. This also brought forward the idea of affirming ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups as the most natural solution to racism. A wise man said, that which has been tearing us apart could put us back together again.

That idea has been blocked by leftists, but also by conservatives who have other views of human nature. Leftist think human beings are all the same and equal and therefore ethnocentrism is evil, and conservatives believe that human nature is fallen from universal love and therefore ethnocentrism is evil.

Ironically those who are most against racism and ethnocentrism are usually doing so for ethnocentric reasons; they use the charge of racism to block other groups and to advance their own group, consciously or unconsciously. So the ethnocentrism of human nature prevails in any case.

What good is it to become rich if you and your descendants die biologically in doing so?

Watching a Wall Street guru this morning promoting the immigration of high tech people from India or China reminded me of how Wall Street thinkers (along with the left) are killing the golden goose of free enterprise, which has given Americans the highest standard of living in human history. The global Wall Street libertarians have allowed and promoted open border immigration (which the global left also pushes for different reasons) because they believe that free enterprise and money-making are at the origin of human social behavior. While being a great thing, free enterprise is not at the origin of human social behavior, biology is.

When a population of Hispanics, Latinos, South Asians, Indians, Chinese, or Africans immigrate to America they mainly consume their same ethnic foods and speak their same ethnic languages (but usually learn English too) and they keep their same ethnic culture, and for the most part they assimilate only on superficial levels, which is only natural because human nature prefers and selects kin and ethnic group. And so Euro-America slowly or quickly changes to the culture of the immigrants, depending on the speed and number of immigrants and the gradual inter-ethnic breeding that inevitably takes place, and these things change the gene pool which changes the culture, because people create cultures more than cultures create people.

That is why economic nationalism and tariffs, which president Trump has had the courage to promote, makes sense on the biological level, but not to the global Wall Street libertarians who think only of individual money-making liberty.  We need to retain the great free enterprise system but it needs to be moderated by concern for the biological origin of our social behavior; what good is it to become rich if you and your descendants die biologically in doing so?

If Brokow had uttered deeper truths he would have been buried in obscurity

As I watched retired leftist media talking-head Tom Brokow being called a racist and his character assassinated for suggesting that Hispanics and Latinos should learn English to better fit into American society, I wondered if American's might now apologize to the brave souls who have for years been trying to tell Americans that multicultural/multi-ethnic societies don't work. Many Hispanics and Latinos have no intention of assimilating into gringo society, which is completely predicable given kin and ethnic-centered human nature and the preference for group-selection in successful survival and reproduction.

But I know of course that no apology will come to those men and women who have martyred themselves trying to tell a brainwashed public the simple truth that as the people change or as ethnic-groups change, the culture changes, because ethnic-groups are not the same in the cultures they create.

Being a typical American liberal milk-toast, Brokow apologized for telling the truth that language barriers make communication in a society very difficult. Brokow didn't go on to tell the deeper truth that human nature has been affirmed throughout human history as being basically kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, territorial, and even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. If Brokow had uttered the deeper truth he would have been buried in obscurity.

But doing nothing brings a better possibility of social disruption and violence. I for one will continue to point toward the legal political/cultural solution---not revolution---that eventually will bring about an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism, although it may require a few constitutional amendments to give more power to the states.

But I know that ethnic disruptions and even civil war are more likely than a peaceful transformation; the corrupt Big Media and the schools are too cunning and have too much of a hold on Americans.

Morals and legal norms are developed from the biological origin of social behavior

According to Honneth, Foucault's view on Nietzsche's will to power was that morals and legal norms are "historical variable superstructures." I disagree, these social superstructures are developed from the biological origin of social behavior, which is "limited" by our biologically derived human nature. Why is that so hard to affirm? In Foucault's case did he push an amoral power force to better allow for the deviant behavior he preferred? Where does integrity come from? Are all philosophies biased by the biography of the philosopher? Philosopher's block truths as readily as do the marauding capitalists they hate.

There is flexibility and freedom within the genetic limits of human nature, but it does not affirm most ideologies. The biological origin of our social behavior actually ends the intellectual defense of postmodern relativism, as well as the culturally Marxist ideologues. But it also takes some of the virtue-signaling away from the spiritualism of conservatives.

The reality points toward the political/cultural solution of the an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. This is the sociopolitical/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature, which developed tens of thousands of years ago and is still with us today. In our increasingly crowded world an ethnopluralism of ethnostates looks like the most equitable and natural way for "us all to get along." The challenge will be in protecting the independence of ethnostates from marauders on the left or the right. That was the challenge the founders of America faced with the Constitutional separation of powers and states, which could be reaffirmed and expanded to ethnostates.

The exploitation of altruistic-empathy is killing us

It's ironic that modern liberals who deny any genetic bases to our social behavior are applying a hypertrophied version of the genetically-derived trait of altruistic-empathy in their multiculturalism or multi-racialism.

Northern Europeans seem prone to this fatal flaw which seems to have developed from what was originally a genetically-derived survival tactic in the harsh climate of the North. The Northern Chinese and Japanese seem free of this hypertrophied suicidal cuckoldry perhaps because the climate they were evolved in was much harsher and more unforgiving than the more moderate climate of, say, Scandinavia.

Scandinavian's seem especially suicidal in opening their borders and their societies to "multiculturalism" or multi-racialism, which has been quickly destroying them in an epidemic of rape, murder and social chaos---the Swedes only smile at this tragedy and make it a crime to object to the suicide.

It has also been absolute evil genius on the part of those in the media and the schools who exploited this white altruistic-empathy in their films, television, and books---they must think we are total fools.

The trait of altruistic-empathy was evolved to successfully advance the genes of kin and ethnic group who shared the same genes, it was not evolved to advance multiculturalism or multi-racialism. We see the tragic consequences of this great mistake/exploitation in the biological and cultural destruction of the Western world now taking place...

The only way I can see back to biological, psychological, cultural, and social health is to return to natural ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real human nature. Will our fatal flaw kill us before we recover? We also evolved from warrior cultures that did not give up easily.

Diversity is certainly not our strength

The statement "diversity is our strength" can be seen as a simply stupid idea when considering what makes a nation strong or weak; homogeneity, or the composition of like parts, elements, or characteristics, such as ethnic similarity, helps to create order and harmony, whereas diversity in these things creates opposition and clashes, as we see happening in America and the West.

But when Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer utter the stupidity that diversity is our strength, as they have been doing over building a wall on our Southern border, it is also a demagogic statement meant to appease their supporters and garner votes from minorities and the left, which means for Pelosi voters in the deranged socialist state of California, and for Schumer means his deceitful buddies in New York. And of course both politicians curry favor with the Big Media and the Left. You don't see Schumer advocating diversity for Israel, his favorite nation; Israel won't even seriously consider a two-state solution with Palestinians, and has, you guessed it, built a big wall between them.

The left and their buddies in the corrupt Media are intimating people from speaking out against this "diversity is our strength" stupidity by calling people racist and bigoted if they speak against it, which is the kiss of social death in our controlled and corrupt culture. But people, Pelosi and Schumer are busy creating the social death of America, so speak out against it!

Uses and abuses of altruism

When Nietzsche speaks of "the psychological impossibility of a purely selfless action" (WP)," I think it could be said better as, the biological impossibility of a purely selfless action.

Altruism or "selfless" concern for others is a genetically derived instinct on a hierarchy or continuum of altruism that moves from kin and ethnic group at its strongest to the world or the universal at its weakest.

So when religions or political parties call for universal selfless altruism or even selfless love for the world they are moving outside the bounds of reality and human nature. So they back up their universal selfless altruism with the creation of the spiritual and utopian---because nothing real can support it.

No wonder men like Nietzsche declared that God is dead. But God is not dead, only the spiritual, utopian, selfless worldview is dead. Real Godhood can be reached by evolving in the very material world of genetically derived instincts, which are on a hierarchy or continuum of altruism that moves from kin and ethnic group at its strongest to the world or the universal at its weakest.

This suggests, almost obviously, a political world of ethnostates, or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, and a religious world where order and direction can be brought back to reality, and back to the people, by attaching religion, philosophy, poetry, and science to the biological origin of our social behavior, and by affirming the evolution of material life to supermaterial---not spiritual---Godhood. That's a synthesis worthy of our past, present, and future, which doesn't abuse altruism.

We have to say clearly what is politically incorrect to say if we want to reach the people and save the West

Conservatives, at least paleoconservatives, will tell us that unchecked immigration into the West will mean the death of the West, and they are right, the globe could have eleven billion people by 2100, and most of them will seek to immigrate to the West to survive.

As Nicholas Farrell writes (Chronicles Dec. 2018) it's hard to win the arguments made by the alliance between the global left and the global capitalists about having compassion on suffering immigrants, or for creating cheaper products from cheaper tax-paying labor, especially when the West is dying faster than being born. So the argument against allowing the death of the West is the one powerful cultural argument left for conservatives to make.

But it isn't enough. We have to say clearly what is politically incorrect to say if we want to reach the people and save the West, and that is, as the people change the culture changes, or more clearly, as the ethnic group changes the culture changes toward the ethnic culture of the immigrants. If the West has enormous numbers of Hispanic or African immigrants then the culture of the West will change toward an Hispanic or African culture. The West will fade away if the white Euro-American ethnic groups who mainly developed the West fade away. It's that simple or difficult.

The biological and genetic origin of our social behavior and therefore our culture, must be acknowledged if we are to save anyone. Then we can work toward developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which is the most equitable cultural/political configuration for all people, all ethnic groups, and the social structure most in harmony with what human nature really is and really does. It can be developed gradually, conservatively, in the U.S. from the already existing Constitutional separation of powers and states.

The 91st Academy Award nominations show who their audience is

Looking at the 91st Academy Award nominations it's easy to see that Hollywood is now totally devoted to reaching the left and minorities and isn't even trying to reach the rest of the country, they are losing to Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc---at least those producers are trying a little bit to reach the people in the fly-over nation between the coasts. Such things as: Best picture, Black Panther, BlacKkKlansman, Roma, Best actress, Yalitza Aparicio, Lady Gaga, Best actor, Christian Bale for "Vice," and so on, and so on, show who their audience is.

These nefarious producers will lose money with this strategy, which is odd because they mainly care only about money. The audience for these award shows is dwindling every year. I suppose they are financially and politically counting on the prediction that whites will soon be a minority in this county. But that is a dangerous road to travel because the dislike of Hollywood is rapidly turning into hate, which their propaganda films won't touch.

How we become what we are

Nietzsche's "becoming what one is," beyond the superficial view of this, involves knowing what human nature is. Individual differences are not superficial but they are secondary to group selection in successful survival and reproduction.

In our time, becoming what one is and knowing what human nature is means absorbing the science of sociobiology, which is the next stage of Darwinism. This counters surprisingly few religious edicts in defining human nature by affirming many of the conservative religious virtues and values. According to the general view of sociobiology, "within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals" in survival and reproductive success, according to E.O. Wilson---and we know how altruism, or being for others, is especially promoted in Christianity.

The present leftist but also border-free capitalist view of human nature sees virtually no biologically or genetically derived human nature and admits only environmentally or culturally derived human nature, which tends to fit their leftist and capitalist political agendas. This reflects the real will to power in human nature, but the will to power was overestimated even by someone as astute as Nietzsche. The will to power in human nature is/was evolved to enhance survival and reproductive success, and survival and reproductive success was evolved to enhance the drive of life to evolve all the way to Godhood.

So when we look at human nature related to "becoming what one is," the reality of human nature points toward the political/cultural solution examined in the ethnopluralism hypothesis. That defines the sociopolitical or political/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature, which developed many thousands of years ago and remains today 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, followed by individual selection.

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could be established legally in the United States applying our present constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism, but it may require a few constitutional amendments to give more power to the states. That is how we become what we are---and it can apply to Europe or China too.

Unlost Causes

The civil war was fought for States Rights not for slavery, although States Rights doesn't excuse the stupidness of slavery in the south; it has led to permanently angry, increasingly populating Blacks in America, which in turn may lead to the next civil war, this time for an ethnopluralism of ethnostates---in an odd irony, this could be thought of as an extension of States Rights.

The battle for States Rights was not won, our big government took the victory of the civil war to mean that power should be taken away from the states. So to the old cause of States Rights will be added the next cause of ethnostates. Unlost causes return because we always return to real human nature, which remains kin-centered and ethnocentric, as well as territorial, and even xenophobic, among other conservative things.

Vile politicians like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are too demagogic to see that by supporting big socialist/fascist governments which pander to the minorities against States Rights, they are bringing back unlost causes, along with the added new cause of the drive toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, the logical and instinctive extension of States Rights...Happy future?