Nothing human, ultimately, seems to be untouched by biology. Yet most of the ideas in modern liberalism and in the humanities in general are defined as untouched by biology. Modern liberalism, now hypertrophied into cultural Marxism, says there is virtually no limit to the human ability to adapt to any social scheme, people can be taught to appreciate anything, we are malleable, our minds are a blank slate. It turns out that this is nonsense. The fact is, human nature sets limits, some things we cannot adapt to or accept. Human nature is basically kin-centered, gender defined, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. So if most of the causes of modern liberalism are things that actual human nature cannot in reality adapt to or accept, are not these modern social schemes exercises in futility? More likely they are subterfuges to gain power for specific individuals or groups, which is explained by biology.
What social or political scheme best harmonize with what we are, that is, with human nature? It seems to many now (especially the European New Right), that we best harmonize with our own ethnic cultures and ethnic states, and this suggests that ethnopluralism is the best overall social and political scheme, for all ethnic cultures, protected by some sort of federalism. This does not suggest a one-race dictatorship of repressive imperialism---we see imperialism, and those who benefit from it, slowly falling, as they always do. In America, the movements to decentralize Washington DC and Wall Street and to bring back the Constitutionally-derived separation of powers, and to put power back in the hands of the individual states, are an example of this movement toward accommodating real human nature... Ethnopluralism is a simple concept, but difficult to bring forward, given the selfish powers that be, yet it is probably inevitable, given human nature---assuming the imperialist's don't destroy us all first.
No comments:
Post a Comment