Thursday, February 11, 2016
Let's correctly understand altruism and the ethnopluralism it naturally leads to politically
I think it is true that nature and natural laws eventually rectify the follies of men. Someone said (Nietzsche?) that mighty empires fall when they begin to have numberless laws. When traditionalists and conservatives disparagingly describe the present times as hedonistic “neo-pagan” times they are being unfair to pagans. Pagans were not lawless and nihilistic, and they were not individualistic hedonists.
For example, real altruism within the group was in strong effect in pagan cultures, but not altruism for the whole world. Real altruism is based in the success of group-selection. The sociobiology of E.O. Wilson has shown that within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. It seems to me that regarding altruism classical warriors had a better grasp of human nature even than traditional priests. Warrior asceticism (or stoicism) mainly demands group-selection, priest asceticism demands mainly individual selection, because priests are mainly involved in reaching the inward God or Father Within, which is an individual action, whereas warriors deal in the outward survival of the group, which is a mainly a group-selection action. We can have both, but let's correctly understand altruism and the ethnopluralism it naturally leads to politically. Ayn Rand, the darling of libertarians and neoconservatives, bright as she was, did not understand real altruism, which she attacked. Her hero Nietzsche also did not understand natural altruism.
I think the natural state of man is to live in regions and states where altruism and harmony between ethnically related people can more naturally take place---fewer laws are then required. Ethnopluralism, that is, regions and states set aside for distinct ethnic cultures requires fewer laws to keep social harmony. In any case people tend to naturally divide themselves into ethnic conclaves even in communist states.
Relating these points to present laws in the U.S., if the Supreme Court can radically redefine marriage, religious freedom, and civil rights, then it surely can affirm the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and states, which could lead to natural regions and states set aside for distinct ethnic cultures, where natural altruism could create far more social harmony than the present attempts to force together a motley nation of growing and competing ethnic factions. Radical revolution and the tearing apart of our nation can be avoided.