If we never have another Shakespeare I would settle for less if we at least affirmed Darwinist sociobiology

I think we can say that Shakespeare believed in tradition, hierarchy, monarchy, and aristocracy, but Charles Darwin, another great Englishmen from the great British Isles, had not yet added his genius discovery of evolution. What would Shakespeare have done with Darwin? What would Darwin have done with the Neo-Darwinism of sociobiology?

We will probably never have another Shakespeare, but we could have a Darwinian tune up of his worldview to take on the arts and humanities, which have been destroyed by postmodernism, Marxism, feminism, multiculturalism, anti-religion, and anti-white-racism, which are all absurdness, lies, and undisguised wills to power astoundingly taught in virtually all our schools and reflected throughout the media.

The postmodern idea that everything is socially constructed (but not postmodernism?) is almost psychotic. The explanation that seems plausible to me for the freakish victory of postmodernism, Marxism, feminism, etc. in the academic world and in the media is that the relativism and power philosophy of postmodernism was not successfully countered by the academic traditional conservatives because they could not fully accept their best defense, which is the broadly biological origin of our social behavior, taught by the scientific synthesis of sociobiology. They could not even affirm religion as essentially having been a better way to socially bond groups together (altruism) for successful survival and reproduction. Traditionalists could not see beyond their definition of God as being outside the world of biological power and material desires, and so postmodernism won the academic power war.

The biological origin of our social behavior, as empirically explained by sociobiology, actually ends the intellectual defense of postmodern relativism. As long as we are alive every cell in our body demands survival and reproductive success. This natural activation can be blocked, subverted, or it can be unknown to us, but it can't legitimately be intellectually or instinctively denied. Any existing "relativity" of values can come only from the various social and cultural methods we try (including postmodernism) to unconsciously or consciously biologically and genetically advance out kin, related ethnic group, locality and nation.

A Neo-Darwinist Shakespeare could have a ball satirizing postmodernism, Marxism, feminism, multiculturalism, anti-religion, and anti-white-racism, while supporting the populist nationalism and ethnostatism now trying to rise in the very corrupted West. But if we never have another Shakespeare I would settle for less if they at least affirmed Darwinist sociobiology.