Wednesday, August 31, 2016

What determines history's outcome and what does that mean politically?


The environment interacts with people and ideas to change history, not unlike the nature/nurture pattern where nature tends to be slightly more influential than nurture. But modern liberals who are mainly cultural Marxists think that nature can be left out of it and that human nature is completely malleable. Historians work from these perspectives usually leaning in one direction or another.

How human nature is defined becomes important in understanding the direction of history and culture. Human nature remains today, among other mostly traditional things, kin-centered, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection. This suggest that real human nature works more smoothly with an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, where nature and nurture can work most harmoniously in determining history's outcome.

To me this means strong leaders and their character traits, which includes their ideas, can make a big difference in the direction of history. This also means that ethno-demographics can change history. As the people change the culture changes. Immigration can change a culture, and multiculturalism can confuse and disrupt a nation, whereas homogeneous ethnostates tend to work more harmoniously.

How long will these plain truths remain politically incorrect and taboo? I suppose as long as some people gain short-term power from lies.

No comments: