Let's consider the following passage for comparison: "Forty to fifty years ago liberal social scientists professed the view that genes do not determine anything, thus people can be taught and moulded into anything, regardless of where they were born or who their parents were (whose only importance is that they form part of a child's environment) thus people begin life with a clean slate and are shaped solely by their environment. The view that genes are greater determinants of people's intelligence and behaviour than their environment is quite contrary to the above." (Ágnes Kende, www.amarodrom.hu/archivum/99/10/1.html)

What both approaches have in common is that nobody is an inferior being based on either their genes or circumstances. However, the two kinds of logic are not so easily reconciled. To begin with, the American experiment is an example of how modern science is used as a tool for social control. Yet, the inclusion of science in politics is a utopia since modern empirical science divides the world into the practical and the theoretical and only regards what is extant as a basis of acquiring knowledge. Politics, however, is aimed at the future, i.e. something that is empirical not extant.

It is also questionable whether reality can really be divided into theory and practice. As we know, the Nazi biological race theories led to nothing good and nor did the communist "scientific" theory of history. Connecting science and politics is the most important illusion of modern totalitarian politics, stemming from the notion that we are capable of defeating both external nature and the internal nature of man. 

The news in our opening paragraph is actually a version of the theory of evolution. The researchers made the assumption that the behaviour of "seekers" often pays off more than passive behaviour and since the theory of evolution must make its tenet palpable, it seeks some kind of biological carrier. However, if this was seriously considered from a liberal point of view, it would have to be assumed that a "conservative gene" also exists because if there is no "conservative gene", those who have the liberal gene have something that nobody else does and this may well suggest that they are therefore superior beings. The liberal answer to this quandary is that genes are responsible for a potential predisposition but the environment decides whether or not this predisposition is expressed or not.  

Hammering out liberal doctrines is becoming increasingly difficult, but it is still going on all over the world. Rewriting Rousseau's idea - whoever does not comply with the will of the many "will be forced into being free" - the programme of forcing people to be liberal is being implemented. A UN report recommends that Hungary pursue positive discrimination, while others force political correctness to the point of demanding that anyone who is regarded as non-PC must be excommunicated. I only have one question: what happened to the original goals of liberalism, and especially to the safeguarding of freedom?       

These days, liberals fear for their power and not for freedom. Liberalism has come into conflict with its chief limitation, the essence of human nature, i.e. that an individual's ability to be self-determinant is limited if it does not conform with the goals of the community. The freedom of the community always takes precedence over that of the individual - if the reverse were true, the community would become ungovernable.      

By now most liberals have become socialists. And the liberal gene supposedly found in "seekers" is based on the misinterpretation of science and politics. If somebody seeks novelty and to understand themselves, it is enough to reread the classical political writers - this is how the creativity necessary to shape the future can be acquired.