Clarifying the clunky phrase sociobiological constitutionalism

The general meaning is in the clunky phrase sociobiological constitutionalism.

Human nature today is virtually the same as it has always been in all its dimensions in the “state of nature.” And open immigration, same-sex marriage, the concentration of power, crony-capitalism, with rootless technocrats and globalists managing it all, does not relate to the real state of human nature.

In every human culture ever honestly and rationally studied, human nature included, among other things, kin-selection preferences, incest taboos, marriage, hierarchy, division of labor, gender differentiation, localism, even ethnocentrism, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection, and individualism only as a secondary form of selection within the group. If the culture proposes to not include these things, the culture does not last long and it will always return to these things.

People today are dropping out, not hippies but conservatives, seceding, home schooling, basically quitting politics rather than fighting the rootless global elitists, which hands the victory to the centralized state. What we should be promoting is ethnopluralism, which could be accommodated by the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and states.

Orestes Brownson said that if you deemphasize, or take away the states of the United States you end up with a “centralized despotism.” I believe the relationship between the central government and the states should be heavily weighted on the side of the states, even to the degree of having states or regions with distinctly ethnic cultures, or virtual ethnostates. Federalism can protect their independence. Why ethnopluralism? In our increasing crowded world that is the way we can relate best to real human nature, real human groups, and the real state of nature. Otherwise we will have either slow or fast decline, civil disruptions, even civil war, which would probably lead only to despotism.