The tragedy of conservatism: what defines a nation?

Traditional conservatives talk about the two visions of America as being between those who believe in "places" (Jeffersonians) and those who believe in "ideas (Hamiltonians)" and how modern liberals and neoconservatives talk only of abstract ideas.

But people come before places or ideas in defining a nation. Places and ideas are important but it is the people who essentially make a nation and culture what it is. Does it really have to be said that a European will create a culture different from a Chinese who will create a culture different than an African, almost irregardless of where they live or what ideas they may have? 

Can there be a nation not rooted in ethnic identity? This is considered a politically incorrect question to ask. It should have been asked by the Founders, because it has led to the tragedy of conservatism.

This tragedy stems from the liberal, and even conservative, blockade of knowledge of the biological or genetic origin of most of our social behavior, which does not fit their abstract "ideas" about the malleability of human nature and culture, or the fallen nature of man.

This misplaced hierarchy of values also explains why the saving political solution, of adapting our already existing constitutional separation of powers and states toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates continues to be left out of discussions regarding the solution to our growing civil disruptions.

Human nature is genetically kin-centered and ethnic-centered, even xenophobic, as well as being genetically gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, and religious-making, with group-selection and ethnic selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. A true natural rights or civil rights movement would promote an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups, black, white, brown, yellow, or red, with each ethnostate protected from marauding imperialists, global businesses, supremacists, Marxists, etc., and defended by a defensive federalism. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states. 

America and the world needs to be rid of the various versions of imperialism, whether financial, religious or racial. A United States of independent ethnostates, and a Europe and Asia of thousands of independent states, federated for defense, and concerned with true human nature and future evolution, is the future that we require.

How did such common sense become politically incorrect?