Solving the age old problem of division and union in America

Our Founders tried to solve the age old problem of division and union in America. They relied on the ideas of people like Aristotle to help solve the differences between rich and poor, etc, but they missed the problems that came later from allowing unlimited and undiscriminating immigration, most likely assuming immigrants would be from Christian northern Europe. 

Hamilton thought open and free economics could help heal the divisions between rich and poor by giving everyone a chance at getting rich, and it was very successful when the culture was homogeneous, but ethnic and racial divisions later followed the unlimited and undiscriminating immigration. And the Founders also missed the social problems that would later come from allowing black slavery for economic purposes. Our inner cities eventually became filled with unassimilated blacks.

What was missing was knowledge of the biological origin of social behavior which came with Darwin, when real human nature could be seem as being genetically kin and ethnic centered, with group selection as the main unit of successful survival and reproduction. 

The decline of America culture and the American people really began to accelerate in the 1960's when several destructive things came together: postmodernism in the academic world, hedonism promoted by the Big Media, modern liberalism on the left, and libertarianism on the right, and of course continuing unlimited and undiscriminating immigration.

For example, white Minnesotan's have turned themselves inside out to accommodate non-whites. Populations of people of color have increased faster in Minnesota than the rest of the nation since 2010. The over  20,000 Somali's in Minneapolis have begun to broadcast the call to prayer over loudspeakers in their neighborhoods. There are more than 66,000 Hmong in Minnesota, the largest concentration of Hmong in America. The assimilation  of Somalis and Hmong has not taken place, and recent riots in Minneapolis have shown us that that the inner city blacks have after many years still not really assimilated.

The first person I read who had the knowledge and the self-sacrificing courage to challenge Spengler's cyclic view of history was Wilmot Robertson in "The Ethnostate.” Robertson suggested that we could halt and reverse the decline of America by transforming the socially destructive aspects of ethnic or racial competition into developing socially constructive ethnostates.  The new (yet old) solution to the division of the nation, which the liberals and cultural Marxists have willing and consciously created with the help of the media and the schools, is to form ethnostates or an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. 

We will probably have to wait for future leaders to pick up what President Trump leaves undone, as he picked up what Ronald Reagan left undone. But we can continue to counter Spengler's prediction of inevitable fall by solving the age old problem of division and union in America by working toward forming an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, legally adapted from our Constitutional separation of powers and states, and then protecting the ethnostates from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, with a defensive federalism.  

I think the Founders might approve.

Can we resolve the combative mix of left and right?

Charles Kesler described the "cold civil war" between the left and the right (Imprimis, Oct, 2018). Can this combative mix be resolved and prevent a hot civil war? It can if the better parts of human nature prevail---but that's a big "if."

I can agree with parts of both the right and the left. The idea on the left of a "living Constitution" rightly leans toward the evolutionary side of human nature, toward evolutionary rights---but not revolutionary rights which some on the left and the right encourage. And the left today, in contrast to the apotheosis of the individual rights by conservatives, tracks the rights of various groups or ethnic groups which is in harmony with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection in human nature, followed by individual selection. But the left then goes on to champion the rights of almost every kind of perversion which is not in harmony with real human nature---many in the left don't even think there is a human nature believing human nature springs only from ones environmental upbringing. Human nature remains genetically kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, territorial, and even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other mostly conservative things.

The right affirms a reinvigoration of federalism which is in harmony with the growing variety of ethnic groups in America with different genetic pools and different agendas who could, with federalism and the Constitutional separation of powers and states, develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates in harmony with real human nature ---but not secession which could endanger the federal national protection needed for the states in a world that continues to have marauding imperialism.

All of these vital changes need to be done legally, constitutional, and not by revolutionary means which almost never work and cause great biological and cultural convulsions in life...The Right/Left Coalition?

Where are we now, and where do we need to go?

I love America and defend it, but I don't defend the Antifa movement which openly seeks to block conservative First Amendment free speech, the LGBTQ+ crazies who think they can circumvent biologically human nature, or the Open Border nuts who openly want to replace Middle American whites. I defend traditional America and the principle of law and order, and I affirm the paleoconservative or traditional conservatives in the desire to conserve the best of the past. But I believe we have to go further than the paleoconservatives or traditional conservatives have wanted to go to save America.

The Left worked on the offensive for years to make this radical transformation of America happen, and the Right has been only weakly defensive toward the Left. The Right being religious (and afraid of being called bigoted) has been reluctant to affirm all of the elements of the biological origin of our social behavior, especially the sociobiological fact that real human nature is kin-centered, ethnocentric and even xenophobic. But the conservatives do accept that human nature is gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, and religious-making. Conservatives tend to overlook the fact that group-selection or ethnocentrism has been the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

I believe we will need to adapt the constitutional separation of powers and states and decentralize toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. We are no-longer a nation of only Euro-Americans but a nation that the Left gleefully tells us will soon be a land where Euro-Americans are a minority in their own country; and we know as the people and ethnic groups change the culture and politics change toward the new preferences.

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the sociopolitical or political/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature which developed many tens of thousands of years ago and is still very much with us today. I believe we can accomplish this adaptation of the constitutional separation of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates within our institutions and through legally established processes. Like the conservatives and as a deep conservative I don't believe in illegal radical revolutions which are almost always snuffed out and care nothing for traditions.

The Precedence of the Founders and Ethnopluralism

Clyde Wilson writes about the war of independence and the establishment of 13 free and independent colonies in North America (Chronicles, April 2015). Wilson reminds us that each colony developed its own society.  The debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution were often against the centralizing of power and keeping the independence of the states. The best men feared "consolidation." The United States was a plural---the United States are, not the United States is, was the universal usage, as in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson was not an advocate of "one nation indivisible," he would not be called a nationalist, it was the principle of self-government that was important to Jefferson. The union could be changed, it was not eternal. Toward the end of his life Jefferson wrote that it would be better for Virginia to secede than to succumb to the centralization pushed by Northern interests.

The states united together did not forfeit their sovereignty, they were not reduced to one and the same people. The union was "a compact between separate communities." An alliance was created in 1776, not really a "nation." When Jefferson looked westward he saw American's creating  a new self-governing commonwealth joined in such a way as they wished.

This precedence, this character, this tone and guiding belief in affirming non-centralized states (but with a lightly protective federalism, and in today's world with a protecting economic nationalism) could be applied to ethnopluralism, and could be done with conservative reform, not radical revolution. We have gradually learned more about real human nature over the years and we see that human nature remains biologically and often culturally kin-centered, ethnocentric, group-selecting, even xenophobic, which means that in our crowded multi-ethnic world we will need to find a way to accommodate ethnopluralism, to keep whatever peace and harmony is possible between humans.

Establishing, or reestablishing, virtual ethnostates in the United States, where distinct ethnic cultures can thrive and evolve as they wish will probably happen anyway as multicultural empires always break back down into ethnostates. It would be better to do this consciously, rationally, rather than by way of civil war, given human nature---and our Constitution, with its separation of powers and states, could accommodate a natural and moral ethnopluralism if we would choose to do so.