The populist/nationalist movement cares more about preservation than about money or paper ideas

Honest and courageous sociobiology (not the biased versions) shows that we are all inherently, biologically, self-preserving and self-protecting, which leads us to even deeper group-preserving and group-protecting. This is true of the right, the left, and in-between, whether we are conscious of our actions or not. This means that we are all inherently, biologically, conservative, whether we know it or not (modern liberals and neoconservatives don't appear to know it).

The Establishment, the Big Media, Big Government, and Big Academia all tell us that this view of real human nature is isolationist, populist, nativist, nationalist, and racist, and therefore it is evil. They tell us that it is only the uneducated, the poor, and the rural who believe these things. But this is a movement of real biology sanctioned by the science of sociobiology, as well as being a true reading of the history of humanity.

This populist/nationalist movement is showing that it cares more about preservation than about money or paper ideas, which the establishment is too corrupt or too brainwashed to care about. Isn't it ironic that a money-man like Trump leads this populist movement in America, assuming he is the real thing? He says he knows the corruption best because he played the game for so long. Well, anyway, he is who we have at this time.

Natural rights and human rights need to be tied to real human nature

If we want to talk “natural rights,” “human rights,” or “human nature” we better get them right because much depends on how we define these things. Misunderstandings concerning the concepts of the “universal” and “equality” have been seen even in religion as well as in government, leading to many social problems. Both universalism and equality meant that the natural will to live of all people should be treated equally by the laws of government and the laws of nature (or God). They did not mean that people are or should be physically and mentally the same.

Politics, culture and art are best when they reflect the real truths of human nature, and according to ancient and recent knowledge, human nature is fundamentally 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. This applies in general to all cultures in the world.

Natural rights and human rights need to be tied to real human nature. The cultural Marxism of the modern Western world, preached with great energy by the Big Media and Big Government, does not reflect real human nature at all. But what government does directly reflect real human nature so that it can therefore best define natural rights and human rights?

Our Constitution was more than hinting at real human nature when its founders developed the constitutional separation of powers and states, but they did also get caught up in those definitions of the universal and equality. Real natural rights, human rights, and human nature clearly call for the natural separations of ethnopluralism, that is, separate regions for distinctively different ethnic cultures so that they can live with the deepest possible natural rights in accord with real human nature. America can go this natural direction with fewer problems, even protected by federalism, due to our Constitution, and solve many of our past and future problems by doing so.

This sort of devolution of empires, which we are now seeing again in the world, has happened time and again in human history, because it best relates to real human nature .

The emotional delusions of the DNC convention

The emotional delusions of the DNC convention are over now. It's scary to realize that millions of Americans actually believe the delusions of the democratic party and Hillary. If you want to be real, find out what the liberal democrats believe and then go in the opposite direction.

Hillary and the democrats are of course pushing cultural Marxism hidden behind simple slogans like “we are stronger together” or “It's your time,” and Trump is telling us that cultural Marxism is destroying America and the West. The college educated are indoctrinated with cultural Marxism and they support Hillary, Americans who are not college educated support Trump. What a mess. Both candidates are flawed but the choice is between the delusions of Hillary and the realism of Trump.

But speaking of realism, let's not delude ourselves, a Trump presidency will only prolong the inevitable decline of America, because the demographics of the country favoring minorities will soon overtake conservative and Republican voters and bring us even more Big Government Socialism. A Hillary presidency will speed up the decline sooner rather than later so that the real solution of ethnopluralism, separate regions and states for distinctly different ethnic cultures, can finally bring us the long term solution to our decline. Does that mean we win either way? I supposes that stretches optimism too much.

When the people change the culture changes

Conservatives will acknowledged that America is not merely an idea but a place, which is more than liberalism will acknowledge, but conservatives will not take the next step and acknowledge that America is based in the ethos, the character, tone and guiding beliefs of Northern Europeans. Even the Ancient Greeks and Romans were founded by Indo-European migrants from the Northeast. Some scholars think that Christianity was influenced by Northeastern non-materialism and altruism (think of Vedism) which then became opposed to the materialism of the money-changers in the middle-east.

The main reason conservatives will not take the next step and acknowledge this biological origin of social behavior seems to be the fear of being called racist, which has been exploited by the left---an exploitation that has increased since World War Two.

The weakness or flaw in Northern European people is based in the very thing that saved them in the cold survival conditions of the North: namely altruism. It was not a universal altruism at all, it was altruism based in the group-selection of their own ethnic culture, and it became a genetic trait over time. Northasians evolved this same trait even more so than Northern Europeans due to even more severe survival conditions.

Universal altruism has been exploited by the left by promoting the impossible and unnatural universal altruism of cultural Marxism. The universalism of Christianity also played into his exploitation by stretching group-selection beyond real human nature. It is ironic and frustrating to find that the exploiters of altruism and universalism are usually motivated (sometimes unconsciously) by the ethnic preferences and will to power of their own people.

So this brings us to the title of this piece: when the people change the culture changes. Open borders and open immigration come from this exploitation of altruism. Readers of this blog know that the only way I see to make peace out of this disharmony is through ethnopluralism, that is, regions and states set aside for distinctly different ethnic cultures and then protected by some sort of federalism, not unlike the U. S. constitutional separation of powers and states. It is long beyond the time when one noble or chosen ethnic culture can claim imperial dominance over all others---the world gangs up on such foolishness and destroys it.

The DNC spectacle of the miseducated and brainwashed

Last night shifty Bill Clinton attempted to claim that Hillary is more “real” than Trump, which showed us what he is really worried about. But Clinton believes that stuff!

It is really astounding to realize that millions of Americans have been miseducated and brainwashed in college. Almost any American who has not been taught cultural Marxism in college is politically wiser than college educated modern liberals.

And minority groups should be too hip to have been conned by the liberals into believing that the liberals have the best solutions to their problems. 

Then there are the show-business fools at the convention who prove that acting talent has little to do with political talent. People are actually charmed and influenced by actors like, say, Johnny Depp, who has never been seen not stoned.

The big question is, will the populists have enough votes to elect Donald Trump. It may be their last chance.

Democratic convention notes: why do liars rule with Utopian strategies?

As I watched the democratic convention last night I kept wondering why Utopian objectives are so hard to understand yet alone stop? I think human nature is open to the exploitation of very fuzzy “universal love” because it is an exaggeration of kin and group love. Sad to say, both religion and politics have exploited this weakness.

It is not only the strategic doctrines of globalism and imperialism that are mistaken, it is the mistaken view of human nature telling us that we are all universally the same, equal, and able to love one another as brothers, if only evil nationalism was curbed.

Utopian ideals are exploited now by elites who in fact benefit unequally and gain power at the expense of everyone else. Liars rule with these Utopian strategies.

This does not mean that realism is unemotional, as is often thought. Romantic nationalism in music is very emotional---think of Chopin, Wagner, Rachmaninoff---reflecting real human nature in being kin, group, and nationally centered. Folk music, country music, and even some rock music also often reflect romantic nationalism---certainly black rap does---although in the 1960's folk music was corrupted by modern liberalism.

Donald Trump, like Pat Buchanan before him, is trying to bring a pause in the utopianism of globalism, which is being exploited by selfish elites and is destroying us internally and externally. Trump wants to bring back realism in foreign and domestic policy. Nothing less than the survival of the Western world depends on this change being made.

Am I also being Utopian in hoping for economic nationalism, the return of the constitutional separation of powers and states, and a New Romanticism in the arts? I believe I am being starkly realistic. These things reflect real human nature and are not utopian ideals.

Why the far right, far left, and conservatives need to embrace ethnopluralism

Imperialism, totalitarianism, radical civil war, fascism, all are linked to the far right and far left because nothing short of force can make distinctively different racial groups live together peacefully, or accept one group lording it over all the others. It is not in basic human nature to do so. Stalin, Hitler, Mao were short lived. So the political schemes of the far right and far left don't work, at least not for long.

The moral high ground goes to ethnopluralism, that is, territories of ethnostates for different ethnic cultures, protected internally and externally by some sort of federalism. Ethnopluralism can even appeal to modern liberals once they move out from under the political correctness of “multiculturalism,” which moronically tries to jam distinctly different people together in one space and then is surprised when they don't all get along.

Then there can be the accommodation of traditionalists, conservatives, and patriots with the U.S. constitutional separation of powers and states, which could legally and even peacefully accommodate the slow move toward regional ethnostates.

Ethnopluralism could even prove Oswald Spengler wrong in his civilizations of seasons, because imperialism always breaks back down into ethnostates which are about as permanent and natural as any civilization can be if we can maintain them, because they relate so well to real human nature which remains kin-centered, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection.

So how long will it take for ethnopluralism to rise in popularity? To answer with an answer: how soon can the power of the Big Banks and the Big Media be weakened?

Russian hacking into the DNC servers is probably a concocted story within a story

The story of Russian hacking into the DNC is probably a story within a story concocted by intelligence services in league with both the neoconservatives and Hillary. But if it is true, the neoconservatives brought it on themselves by continually harassing Putin, and pushing NATO up to his borders. Trump can get along with Putin, but he need not warmly applaud Putin, because Putin is likely another Russian totalitarian imperialist masquerading as an ethnopluralist, as Dugin his intellectual also masquerades.

Who really prefers garbage for art? Who prefers decay for a nation?

People say Frederic Chopin is too familiar, too much played, too popular, so why don't new composers create new works with the same romantic ethos?

One of the main reason is because composers don't have the inspiration of nationalism anymore, that is, a religious or nationalist political vision (but not uncreative propaganda like socialist realism), as Poland was to Chopin or Germany to Wagner. Since nationalism has been lost we have had rubbish for art.

With the inherent nationalism of ethnopluralism established in America or Europe, with a thousand ethnic cultures living in ethnic states and regions and protected by a light federalism, we would have a variety of potentially great art inspired by the natural ethnocentrism inherent in real human nature.

Why fight against human nature in art philosophy when it creates the greatest art as well as the most well loved nations? Who really prefers garbage for art? Who prefers decay for a nation? Fire them, as Donald Trump might say, the sooner the better.

Conservatism needs to be transformed into a movement that makes sociobiological sense

Like the tiny world of modern poetry, intellectual conservatives write for each other. They enjoy each others wit and sarcasm, but they don't speak to the larger nation.

Not intellectual conservatives or cultural Marxists will speak of that which cannot be spoken, namely, in accord with real human nature ethnic and racial differences do not assimilate, no matter what the ideology of the nation might be. Populist Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen have been at least hinting at this.

I won't abandon conservatism, at least not paleoconservatism, I like the U.S. Constitution with its separation of powers and states, but conservatism needs to be transformed into a movement that makes sociobiological sense.

If conservatism cannot be transformed in this way then the West as we have known it is over.

Can conservatism change? It had better change intellectually and peacefully or it will change with civil war. That is easy to predict.

I suppose we should cheer up, things are already changing as ethnostates are increasingly being declared across the West (and soon the East?), against the wishes of the establishment.

It's called “ethnopluralism” and it is the compassionate thing to do

How did this hating of human nature begin? Human nature remains 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.

We jam blacks into awful inner cities where they try to raise their children, and we force whites to pay trillions of dollars in taxes to end poverty. We tell people not to love their own kind, their own race, their own ethnic cultures, even though they naturally do, because we say it is racist to do so, and this upside down perspective has only made things worse between the races. 

You want real compassion? Real compassion would allow distinctly different people, different races, different ethnic groups, to live in their own regions and states, where they may celebrate their own cultures, without trying to break them down and herd them into one motley world controlled by huge governments---that is not at all compassionate.

 

It is an unhealthy trans-valuation of healthy values to call this evil. 

The constitutional separation of powers and states could even accommodate this legally in the U.S. without revolution. It's called “ethnopluralism” and it is the compassionate thing to do.

Does Donald Trump see the inconsistency of supporting gays and transgenders?

I doubt if Donald Trump saw the inconsistency of supporting gays and transgenders in his nomination acceptance speech last night for president, which goes against real human nature as affirmed by both social conservatism and sociobiological studies. You can't go against human nature with social programs without also becoming forceful and fascistic, and that goes against small government and the separation of powers of conservatism. Real human nature across the world is gender-defined and heterosexual marriage-making, among other socially conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection.

So when we think of the external and internal wars we are always fighting, this requires if anything an exaggeration of gender differences, with men being strongly protective and women strongly nurturing. Otherwise we lose to stronger men and women. Gays and transgenders blur these differences and therefore weaken them, and this weakens society in the long run...Then there is the  cultural decadence of the gay life style, which is now a fashionable trend with young people.

Well, I suppose it's also unreal to expect perfection in a presidential candidate. Even Pat Buchanan, who was a better candidate than Trump, absurdly did not believe in evolution.

Why Ted Cruz cannot forgive and forget

I don't think Ted Cruz can help it that he was not magnanimous in refusing to endorse Donald Trump last night at the Republican convention. Cruz cannot forgive and forget.

I know it is politically incorrect to say so, but the qualities of being a magnanimous gentleman derive from both nature and nurture and were especially strong in traditional Northern European and North Asian cultures. This behavior was evolved in difficult cold conditions, which were not the same in southern climates, such as the Cuban background of Cruz. No one is right or wrong in these different social attitudes, they are just differences.

(This is another reason why an ethnopluralism of separate ethnic regions and states is more harmonious with human nature than trying to jam distinctly different ethnic cultures together into the same space and expect them to get along well.)

Add to this non-magnanimous behavior the highly irritating self-satisfied preacher-man cadences of Cruz, which seem phony probably because he is trying to emulate his preacher-man father.

Then there is the deeper and perhaps more serious Christian ideology of Cruz, which in this case trumps the reality of successful survival in the world. I'm not against Christianity but against the Cruz version of it. If followed, Cruz, and his neoconservative buddies---who also never forgive or forget---would allow the West to continue its decline.

Endless evolution of life for theology

It would seem natural to create a beginning (arche) and end (telos) in religious philosophy when following the trajectory of an end and beginning to human life, but that is not seeing the whole trajectory of human life, at least healthy life, which continues on after the death of the parents through the successful survival and reproduction of the descendants. No-death for humans and for life was claimed by creating an unreal non-material spiritualism to fit the desire. Reproduction is a better non-death and it has the benefit of being real.

Occam's razor, or the principle that the hypothesis with the fewest and simplest assumptions can be selected, suggests that a non-material spiritual end to life is harder to prove a reality than the endless evolution of material life toward supermaterial Godhood.

The Inward Path of traditional religion to the God Within was the beginning of the spiritualism that led away from life so as to experience the God within, which was a symbolic interpretation of the feelings derived from the ascetic discipline of stopping material desires.

Following naturalistic teleology we end up with the endless evolution of life from materialism to supermaterialism and Godhood, which is not an end but a constantly perfecting supermaterialism. This is the transformation of religion seen in theological materialism, which can revive dying religion and dying high culture in the age of science.

Deceit or ignorance in global economics?

Are human beings more deceitful than ignorant, or more ignorant than deceitful?

In global economics deceit seems to derive from ignorance. Individual selfishness, which often includes deceit, seems to come from ignorance of the reality that individual selflessness can win within groups, but altruism within groups wins between groups. Research in sociobiology shows this to be true. Ayn Rand, the goddess of libertarianism, was also ignorant of sociobiology.

Global economics has destroyed first jobs and then towns across the Flyover States in America, as jobs moved out of the country for cheap labor. Where are the American people supposed to go to raise their families? To degenerate and dangerous cities? Are people supposed to work for firms with virtually no concern for social or cultural conditions while merely concentrating on “efficiency” and “progress.”?

As Steve Berg wrote (Chronicles, July, 2016), efficiency means doing the thing right, while effectiveness is doing the right thing. In global capitalism “progress” and “efficiency” are the only economic values, the only “morality,” which brings wealth to a tiny, ignorant, selfish elite.

Economic nationalism is not against free enterprise but is against so-called global “free trade” which destroys whole nations.

Donald Trump is at least pointing in this economic nationalist direction, and Hillary Clinton certainly is not.  Even though Hillary claims to be for "the people" she supports and is sponsored by global capitalism. Like many holdovers from the 1960's, the Clinton's are deceitful because they are ignorant. I may be too cynical in hoping that Trump will not replace one tiny capitalist elite with another.

The invention of free will: real human nature is politically incorrect

People often say that there is no accounting for free will. First of all, there is no free will, there are only choices within determined causes.

This means that human nature is more predicable than those who have a problem with real human nature say it is. Thinkers and writers past and present have been corrupted by mistaken education.

Real human nature is politically incorrect, for example, real human nature does not harmonize with or approve of the cultural Marxism which rules modern culture.

Human nature has always first preferred kin and related group and this preference was successful in survival and reproduction, so it was instinctively, genetically, retained within basic human nature.

Other inborn preferences within human nature include being 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.

The blocking of human nature runs very long within human history going way back to the founders of religion whose God could only be ascetically experienced by blocking basic human nature.

This does not mean that we must reject Godhood, it means Godhood needs to be seen as the zenith of the material evolution of human nature, and not defined as being found by blocking material evolution and human nature.

The invention of free will was necessary to advocate cultural behavior that went against real human nature, consciously or unconsciously, for short term and unhealthy gains.

For what it's worth, bringing this perspective to politics today, Donald Trump and the paleoconservatives represent more of the reality of real human nature, and Hillary Clinton and the liberal democrats do not represent the reality of human nature.

This doesn't guarantee Trump will win, but it will at least determine once again how corrupted or uncorrupted modern culture is.

Even in a democracy people vote as a conflict between distinct groups, not individualistically

To expand and deepen a study by Achen and Bartels on the way people vote (as reported in Chronicles, July 2016) by applying the sociobiological studies of Edward Wilson and others, it is true that in democracies people do not first vote by individual rational judgment as we are told, they vote by racial, ethnic, class and religious group. But it is not usually reported that group voting is first based in the group-selection of related genes, that is, in the kin and racial preferences of basic human nature, which has always been the most successful means of survival and reproduction, even for individuals, over the long history of human beings.

So it is a “sentimental falsehood” that individualism ensures the will of the majority, people don't vote that way. Democracy cannot really be “cured” by more democracy. Conflict between groups is what really drives even individualistic democracies. That is how people really vote in a democracy.

This affirms the perspective of ethnopluralism, protected by federalism, at least in the U. S., where the constitutional separation of powers and states could be applied to regions and states designed for racial and ethnic cultures. Most importantly this social behavior is in line with real human nature, which suggests that better social harmony is built around protected ethnostates.

As people have said, this means that Trump will take the white vote and Hillary will take the non-white vote, and the religious and class vote will be split between them. But what is not said is that this voting is based on competing ethnic groups and cultures.

Demographics defined this way really is destiny. And how are things going based on breeding and immigration patterns today?

Separating the temporal from the spiritual was a great theological and philosophical error

The transformation of religion does involve renewal of tradition, as said by conservatives, but Godhood need not be lost when scientific naturalism and philosophical naturalism enter the picture.

And “picture” is the word here. The ancient mysteries as well as the esoteric in established religions purposely designed God and the Absolute to be pure imagination, symbol, idea, or form with no material elements and therefore not really definable. They did not want a God that is definable.

This does not mean that Godhood does not exist, but it does mean that the God of established religion does not exist other than in symbol or in peak yet still material experiences brought about by ascetic disciplines that block all material desires in order to have the experience. No wonder material definitions of God are excluded, God is defined in symbols before God is even found.

There does exist Godhood, but in strictly material, supermaterial and evolutionary terms. That is the transformation we require of religion, as is done in theological materialism. Life evolves to Godhood, non-life and symbols evolve no where.

Separating the temporal from the spiritual was a great theological and philosophical error. We need to unblock the Great Spiritual Blockade against evolution to real Godhood in the material world, the Godhood which was only hinted at or symbolized in traditional religion.

It is said by modern philosophers that existence preceded essence, but essence is existence, and if an essence must be defined it is better defined as the activating dynamism or Spirit Will within life, which is material or supermaterial, and activates life to evolve toward Godhood working in conjunction with outside evolution and selection.

How to stop terrorism in the West

The Western establishment may be horrified by the latest terrorist attack in France but they are indirectly responsible due to their constant meddling in the Middle-east.

Real courage would admit our mistake and remove us from the Middle-east (note to Trump: that includes not supporting Israel). False courage would refuse to “run away.”

Let the Middle-east fight it out among themselves. We can buy oil from the shifting victors.

Members of the West who would continue to meddle in the Middle-east would be defined almost as traitorous, or dual loyalists.

Any terrorist who would continue to attack the the West would be swiftly tried and executed.

This may not be the world we want, but this is the world we have.

Writers and artists: this is the new heroism you need to develop.

Ghoulishly benefiting from false cures for the social cancer that is killing us

The cliche of social cancer still applies. Human history, general science, and common sense tell us that human nature cannot be ignored when we look for cures for the social cancer of oligarchic globalism, modern liberalism, and cultural Marxism which is killing us. Surgery attempts to cut out the cancer, drugs try to eliminate cancer with both pharmaceuticals or natural foods, and doing nothing usually kills the patient. There are also things that can be done to prevent cancer from happening in the first place related to health care, diet, exercise, and life style.

We can arrive at the cure and preventive for our social cancer by first looking at real human nature and then finding the best way to fight the social cancer in harmony with are own bodies and who we are as human beings. Honest knowledge tells us that we are kin-centered, gender defined, age-grading, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection.

With human history, general science, and common sense applied we arrive at the cure of "ethnopluralism," that is, legally separating distinctly different ethnic cultures into ethnic regions and states where human nature is allowed to thrive and evolve, protected externally and internally by federalism. It need not go against the constitutional separation of powers and states.

This could actually rid us of our social cancer. So why are not social philosophers and politicians advocating this cure? Is it ignorance, fear, or could it be that present social philosophers and politicians, and their oligarchic bosses, are ghoulishly benefiting from false cures for the social cancer that is killing us?