The balancing problem of ethnopluralism

People on the right mainly affirm libertarian individualism, and modern liberalism on the left seeks to liberate the individual from collective or group identity. Advocates of ethnopluralism---ethnic states and ethnic regions for diverse ethnic cultures, protected by some kind of federalism---have few friends on the right or the left.

But ethnopluralism has a powerful if unstated well-wisher in the affirmation of real human nature, as recently reaffirmed by sociobiology. Every human culture ever studied included, among other things, kin-selection preferences, incest taboos, marriage, hierarchy, division of labor, gender differentiation, localism, ethnocentrism, and even xenophobia, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. If a culture proposes to not include these things, the culture does not last long and it will always return to these things only slightly changed.

As the great E. O. Wilson has written: “...Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue. So it came to pass that humans are forever conflicted by their prehistory of multilevel selection...The conflict might be the only way in the entire Universe that human-level intelligence and social organization can evolve. We will find a way eventually to live with our inborn turmoil, and perhaps find pleasure in viewing it as the primary source of our creativity. (“The Meaning of Human Existence”).

I believe we will return culturally to the central traits of human nature over time. In the United States we could accommodate a transformation into ethnostates and regions backed by the separation of powers and states in the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise the U.S. could break apart in civil war followed by some sort of martial law to create order, until a natural ethnopluralism once again balances out the problems.