Politics, like all
culture, is essentially a cover for the biological origin of social
behavior. Why? Advertising ones biological will to power hasn't been
as successful as disguising it or lying about it---and many people
are unaware of the biological origin of their social and cultural
practices. But that worked better when the world was not as crowded
as it has become.
Marx had it wrong when he
said that the economic
interest of social classes was the true origin of our social behavior
and that a biologically blind and totally economically
equal proletariat should rule.
Human nature is ethnocentric and has been since humans became humans.
Group-selection was the only way for individuals to successfully
survive, so altruism, or being for others, was genetically derived
and naturally limited mainly to kin and ethnic group because they
shared the same genes which strive for survival.
Given our overcrowded and
fiercely competitive world, and given the real biological origin of
our social behavior, we all would have been better off politicking
for ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. It is not
pro-white to say that most conservatives in America are
white and affirm white culture. It is not anti-Semitic to say that if
Lenin and his friends had promoted a Jewish ethnostate in some part
of Russia the middle-east might now be far more peaceful. It is not
anti-Black to say that if blacks had their own ethnostate in America
(perhaps in the South who enslaved them) our inner cities would not
now be on the edge of disaster. These are not pro-white,
anti-Semitic, or anti-black statements they are facts underlining how
the biological origin of social behavior has been disguised to our
own disadvantage. How much healthier and happy people would be if they could celebrate who they really are in their own ethnostate, protected from marauding imperialists and supremacists by some form of limited federalism.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment