I consider myself a conservative and I say that if conservatives (and liberals) do not come to realize that ethnostates, or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, are "good" they will lose everything they hold dear.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Can Ethnostates Be "Good"?
The fact that most conservatives do not
consider ethnostates "good" seems to stem from their belief
in a universal spiritualism and a non-material definition of
Godhood. This is what seems to unmoor conservatives from accepting
who they really are---and also holds liberals back, whose
"spiritualism" is in their universal secular ideology.
But there is a real universalism
inherent in real human nature which leads clear thinking people to
affirm an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. Real human nature continues
to be kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual
marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and
religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the
primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual
selection. This leads
instinctively and logically to ethnostates.
Religion
need not be lost. Life evolves to Godhood in the material world. Real
Godhood is supermaterial not spiritual. And evolution in general
works best in social and political configurations where distinct
differences in ethnic cultures don't clash, as they naturally do in
unmelting multicultural states, whether those states are based in a
spiritual or secular universalism.
Nationalism and internationalism could than be seen as protective aids for all ethnostates, as well as research guides for ongoing evolution on earth and out into the cosmos.
I consider myself a conservative and I say that if conservatives (and liberals) do not come to realize that ethnostates, or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, are "good" they will lose everything they hold dear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment