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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment