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.

No comments: