The conscious and unconscious Marxist scam against biology

It's a Marxist scam, this affirmation of self-invention and culture-invention, leaving out the biological origin of most of our social behavior. This includes most of modern philosophy.

Why would we want to leave biology and genetics out of philosophy? It seems to be both a conscious and unconscious scam. The great irony is that it is the will to survival and reproductive success (deeper than the will to power) that most pushes the rejection of the biological origin of our social behavior.

If we can ever see it for the scam that it is then we can really start evolving and advancing---all groups can. As E.O, Wilson says regarding human survival, "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." This basic group-selection preference leads logically and instinctively (and humanely) not to Marxism but to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Predictably human nature is breaking America apart

Prominent conservatives can't even eat in restaurants without being harassed by mau-mauing, irrational, uncivilized leftists, who are activated mainly by racial animosity and resentment, even if they hold up slogans demanding justice and equality. The central fact of the biological origin of most of our social behavior rules human history and politics.

A few of us see that the only sane way to bring some harmony to our now multicultural (really multi-ethnic) nation, given that human nature is resolutely kin and ethnic-centered, is to adapt the constitutional separation of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates...But this idea is quite a bit ahead of its time, even though it was advocated before I came on the scene.

Meanwhile, leftists, feminists, transgenders, and minority racial supremacists are gaining much attention, supported by the nefarious Big Media, so we may have to watch the slow painful realization of regional ethnostates, probably only after much civil disruption or even civil war. Predictably human nature is breaking America apart.

Both Nietzsche and the libertarians mainly missed the individual/group-selection dynamic

American libertarian's affirm almost any individual. Avoiding that kind of individualism Nietzsche affirmed the noble individual or the genius. One side leads to working with democratic republics, the other to working with aristocracies.

Both Nietzsche and the libertarians mainly missed the individual/group-selection dynamic based in the biological origin of social behavior. The addition of the science of sociobiology has shown us that "within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." (E.O. Wilson)

This means we need to find social rather than antisocial exceptional individuals to develop in our societies, using psychometric testing etc. to find them. That is, choose people in a merit-based way rather than choosing by ethnic or political quotas, as we now do.

In the longer run the reality of kin and ethnic-centered real human nature points toward developing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates where all distinctive groups can best flourish. This could be accomplished in the U. S. with only a few amendments to the constitutional separation of powers and states,

The importance of defense forces in retaining truth, morality, and justice

Intellectual and moral leaders say truth is right, morality is right, justice is right, but the real world says might is right. Who is right?

Truth, morality, and justice are right but they have to compete in the relativity of a might-is-right world.

We won't have truth, morality, and justice in the world without the power to establish them and then defend them.

This doesn't require totalitarianism, dictatorship, or illegality, but realism says that we need to defend truth, morality, and justice in any system, ideology, or even religion.

Few individual men have had both wisdom and social power, which is why ancient human history developed a tripartite sharing system between priests, warriors, and food providers. Modern men in the West seem not to want to think about the reality that we still need to be backed by defense forces if we wish to survive and prosper in the world.

I think of this when I see our defense forces discredited, but also when our political elites use them unwisely.

A National Association Against Human Nature?

A National Association Against Human Nature (NAAHN?) might seem ridiculous but it wouldn't surprise me to see it one day.

Many of the minorities who shout the loudest against racism seem unaware of their own racism which motivates their stand against racism. White liberals join in the chorus against racism attacking their own ethnic history, as they were taught to do in our schools and in the Media. But even conservative's go out of the way to avoid affirming any kind of ethnocentrism existing within human nature.

The latest I have seen (Boyd Cathey, Chronicles, June 2018) points out that it was the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, not ethnocentrism or racism, which enshrined the natural differences and inequalities between people by protecting the rights of the states to be different from one another with federalism.

That seems true, but the ethnocentric nature of human nature (even xenophobia) remains very real, along with other conservative traits like being kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, with group-selection (mainly ethnocentrism) as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

The fair and just way to deal with the natural differences and inequalities between people, ethnic groups, or races, is to acknowledge real human nature. Then an ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could at least begin to be established legally and nonviolently in the United States enshrined with the constitutional separation of powers, states, and regions, and protected by federalism.

That will not be easy at all, but it is far preferable to radical Marxism or Fascism on the right or the left, or the political dissimulations of the liberals---and even the denials of full human nature of conservatives---based on flawed definitions of human nature, which has brought us civil disruptions and even civil war, and is now increasing across a world of unworkable multicultural (multi-ethnic) societies, demanding that since we are all the same we must all get along living in the same territories.

Beyond culture as empty noise

What is culture? If you say as Nietzsche did that culture is for the production of geniuses, or if you say as Hegel said that culture is fulfilled by the state, you now have to be aware of the sociobiological insight which says that "within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." (E.O. Wilson)

The biological origin of our social behavior better explains, or puts in its place, the intellectual defense of the productions of genius, and better explains statism. That is, individual geniuses need the group as much as the group needs the geniuses. All creators are jazz philosopher's riffing on the work of men of the past, or if you prefer, classical composer's creating variations on past themes. For the survival of both the creators and the societies they work within, geniuses need to create social rather than antisocial creations---although during the time of creation they need complete creative freedom.

.

Culture needs to be more than high knowledge, it needs to embody the material evolution of man toward supermaterial Godhood. That is the way we "transcend," we do not transcend into a non-material spiritual nothingness defined as the goal of culture. Leave the evolution of the natural world and the evolution of man out of the culture and you have mostly empty noise defined as culture.

Fighting a political disease by injecting the disease

The main political and ethical problem with special interest lobbies who represent nations and ethnic groups is the "supremacy" of their ethnocentrism, which amounts to "racial supremacy." It is not their ethnocentrism that is the problem, it's their interest (often hidden) in supremacy. Ethnocentrism is entirely normal and a primary part of real human nature; it is a big part of the biological origin of much of our social behavior, which led to the central survival success of group-selection, and altruism.

Special interest lobbies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Black and Hispanic lobbies, and White racial groups, promote their own special interests often by blaming the other groups for being racial supremacists while ignoring or hiding their own racial supremacism. And on and on it goes with the far-right and far-left getting angrier and angrier, seeing their own groups falling back in numbers and power, which often leads to civil war, pogroms, and genocide.

Like fighting a political disease by injecting the disease, we can fight the special interest lobbies who push their own racial and national supremacy not by promoting and finagling our own supremacism but by promoting an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real human nature.

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be accomplished in the U. S. with only a few amendments to the constitutional separation of powers and states, where different ethnic groups could politically and culturally conduct themselves according to who they actually are in their own states and regions, with a federalism mainly for the geopolitical heft to defend the ethnostates in the big world. And it needs to be done legally and nonviolently.

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates is the natural, ethical, legal, and practical way to counter special interest lobbies that represent unfair supremacist nations and ethnic groups.

Gender roles and our immigration policy

Watching the Big Media hysteria over our immigration policy, I thought about the image of mommy/democrat and daddy/republican parties.

But we need to stretch the image a bit because we also now have radical feminism and a new fascism distorting real gender differences.

Then there is the related image of good and bad marriages. Good marriages compromise and work things out between feminine nurturing and masculine territoriality, and bad marriages do not.

The image gets stretched even more when we see that some democrats want more immigrants because immigrants tend to vote for democrats, which is a more territorial than nurturing motivation.

Traditional gender roles had women handling most of the nurturing in the home and men taking care of territoriality outside of the home, and both more or less letting the other do their thing. That worked fairly well for many centuries because it was in direct harmony with biological or genetic differences between men and women which make women better at nurturing and men better at protecting the territory. These biological differences have not changed.

But traditional gender roles and marriages can get exaggerated or hypertrophied to the degree that women totally cover themselves with veils in public while their men make endless war against virtually everyone.

There may be no one-size-fits-all cultural solution to these "battles between the sexes" because cultures and ethnic groups are different in the way they deal with these things. But there is one-size-fits-all in the primary biological or genetic gender differences between feminine nurturing and masculine territoriality. This logically harmonizes with women handling most of the nurturing because they are better at it, and men taking care of most of the territoriality because the are better at that, and both more or less letting the other do their thing.

This points toward the daddy/republican/conservative philosophy conducting our territorial immigration policies.

Musing on zero and Godhood

"Zero" exists as a conscious symbolic non-number with the attribute of being nothing, non-material, or one could say "spiritual," but zero does not exist as a physical object.

A non-material spiritual God does not exist in the same way that zero is not a physical object, being a conscious symbolic non-material nothing, or spiritual.

But a non-spiritual material (or super-material) Godhood reached through material evolution does exist, or can exist given enough evolution, as a physical object, is not spiritual, and is not a zero.

Where the hope for America comes from

It's about over now, we won't return to traditional America or traditional Americans. What we have now is a polyglot of diversity which does not work. It's post-America now, global America, which is what the liberals and neocons wanted---they even openly admit it now. They don't care about America any more than the new immigrants do, it's a place to exploit fading riches.

The problem is their polyglot global America is not based in real human nature. Human nature is kin-centered, heterosexual, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this human nature, with such experiments as Marxism and globalism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect human nature.

And that is where the hope for America comes from: we will eventually decentralize into a protected ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions which can still legally follow the constitutional separation of powers and states. In any case that is where polyglot America (and Europe) will end up, purposefully or unpurposefully, peacefully or by civil war. Polyglot empires are the end of civilizations, ethnostates are the beginning and the end, if we are wise and strong enough to keep them.

So now how do we define high culture?

The old way of defining high culture was having knowledge of art and philosophy. It was aristocratic, perhaps necessarily elitist. Then science began to enter the mix with such overarching fields as the evolutionary science of sociobiology, pointing out the biological origin of social behavior, which virtually subsumes the humanities, including art and philosophy, if we are honest about it.

So now how do we define high culture? It has to be a broader synthesis of art, philosophy and science. The biological origin of social behavior brings all fields back to earth---although doing research science seems to be a high I.Q. aristocracy, chosen by merit. But aristocracies are more than test scores.

Affirmative Action has shown us that rejecting merit in choosing various positions is not the only problem. Even if test scores merit the choice (and they usually don't) there are clashes simply due to ethnic differences. For example, what seems like over-defensiveness to one group may be normal behavior to another. Social harmony comes easier when both nature (genes) and nurture (culture) are homogeneous, that is, when aristocrats and commoners are composed of elements that are mainly of the same kind. That is simple common sense.

Some readers may guess what I'm going to say next: high culture can develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature, where meritocracies can create more harmonious "aristocrats" and "commoners." Some sort of federalism can protect but not rule the whole. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be legally adapted in the United States from our constitutional separation of powers and states, so this future can be conservative and is not too Utopian.

Wrong religion leads to wrong politics

In reality the deeper spiritual gurus celebrate a lot of death. First they think being born into the sinful material world means the death of the real Self. Then must come the death of the lower nature and the awakening of the higher nature, followed by the diffusion into eternity, really another death defined as life because all the desires of real life are gone.

Why this great hatred of real life? It all seems to be done in reality to experience the bliss that can come from blocking all the desires of material life, some of which can cause pain, and this desirelessness is then pumped up as being the experience of heaven or nirvana. Was no hedonistic heroin available?

No. That is wrong religion. Right religion affirms successful survival and reproduction and defines Godhood as the zenith of successful survival and reproduction and the zenith of material evolution. Life, evolving life, is celebrated, not death.

Finding the best way to evolve, eventually all the way to Godhood, allows us to take another look at political philosophy to see how much of it is affected by religious hedonism and Utopianism. Deep-conservatism keeps it feet on the ground while gazing up at real evolutionary material and supermaterial horizons.

And we can't choose only one people to evolve, they would be overwhelmed in this crowded world of many people. That is mainly why---in harmony with real human nature and theological materialism---we need an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, the political configuration of the future.

The will to power of the nerds

The will to power of the nerds is a better translation of the "managerial revolution" than "the revenge of the nerds." Yes, revenge might have been involved due to, say, bullying in high school by star football players, but the deeper motivation was the will to power of the nerds.

As Jack Trotter more or less pointed out in "Chronicles," the nerds attained power by shoving aside traditional meritocracies which cared at least as much about what was good for the people and the nation and as they did about efficiency and profits. The nerds had also absorbed modern liberalism and cultural Marxism in the humanities departments of the elite colleges and universities they attended, and so when they weren't looking at their clipboards they were talking about how all rowdy bullies need to disappear in a vast bureaucracy of equality. ( I might add that President Trump is no nerd which must relate to why the managerial nerds hate him so much.)

This does not mean that democracies should not consult with experts. In our increasingly complex world we should have more scientists (sociobiologists would be my preference) in congress and fewer lawyers who now make up the vast majority, as Cattell once suggested. We need people who can look beyond the narrow confines of efficiency and profits, which has given us global corporations and political empires managed by power-desiring nerds who have been destroying the West, with no feeling of patriotism.

Now we have nerds pushing for the dominance of artificial intelligence which they will of course control, preferring the evolution of computers to the evolution of nasty patriotic humans.

Understanding the difference between the social and anti-social creative outsider

Taking their clues from Nietzsche, postmodern philosophers were biased toward the individual over the group, at times reaching the level of worshiping the individual. I believe this came from missing or greatly undervaluing knowledge of the Neo-Darwinist science of sociobiology, which showed us that group-selection trumps individual selection: as E.O. Wilson put it: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

The great psychologist Raymond Cattell believed that the key to evaluating the individual and the group was for society to have a way to understand the difference between the social and anti-social outsider, because creative outsiders can be virtually criminals in rejecting laws. This harmonizes with the understanding that group-selection is the primary unit of selection and individual selection follows after.

The bottom line for me in thinking about the group and the creative individual is to let individuals and outsiders freely create with no strings attached, that is, philosophers, artists, engineers, scientists, or whoever, but in the end the judgment has to come down to understanding and judging the difference between the social and anti-social work of outsiders. Cattell's field was in comprehensive psychometric testing and the tests work quite well in telling us much about social and antisocial people (as long as there is room for outsiders to fall through the cracks, which being outsiders they often do.)

Conservatism in general upholds social change and not radical antisocial change, but this tends to get lost in a conformity that allows no antisocial or social change.

Why would we want to be "released" from the "bonds" that bind us to the "wheel of life?"

Do we ever "escape" the world of necessity, and why would we want to?

It is a suicidal wish, or a hedonistic desire to live without any displeasure.

The bliss religious gurus seek, or the absolute truth philosophers desire is not experienced beyond the material world, these things are in their very material human heads, or in their very material pleasure centers, not in any trance of non-material spiritualism.

But this realism does not kill Godhood. Real Godhood is reached by the very materialism that spiritualism rejects. We evolve to supermaterial Godhood by way of material evolution, and not by "releasing" ourselves from the "bonds" that bind us to the "wheel of life."

Religion and philosophy need not be rejected but they need to be brought back to real material life and real material and supermaterial evolution; art, culture, and political philosophy can grow from there.

How libertarians can join conservatives in applauding the value of altruism

The great scientist E.O. Wilson has said that group-selection supersedes individual selection: "The competition between the two forces can be succinctly expressed as follows: Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue."

Libertarians can join conservatives in applauding the value of altruism, which was developed by group-selection preferences, and was the social foundation of most religions and political philosophies. Libertarian philosophers missed that distinction, which makes the differences between free trade and fair trade. Since most of the libertarian philosophers were refugees from totalitarian political systems that probably made them prefer the concept of individual freedom over group freedom, which was an unfortunate bias. It gave capitalism a bad name.

Both group-selection and individual selection are mainly driven by the biological origin of social behavior, although there is a co-evolution between nature and nurture. This subject moves into epistemology when we ask the question, can knowledge alone be reality, or is knowledge defined as being in harmony with reality which then brings human satisfaction? Biology comes before knowledge of biology and our knowledge needs to harmonize with biology rather than only dwelling in a world of abstractions and calling it knowledge of reality and settling for a lesser satisfaction with that.

Our intellectual and political elites often misinterpret the laws of nature and the laws of human nature

Our intellectual and political elites often say that our worldviews must operate "within the bounds of the laws of nature" (John Locke) and within the laws of human nature, but they then often misinterpret the laws of nature and the laws of human nature.

Claude Polin points out (Chronicles, June 2018) that Marx and Marxism are not the enemy of liberalism, they are the embodiment of liberalism, claiming to establish the ideals and goals that liberals only talk about, which Marxism supposedly achieves by forceful totalitarian means.

All of this is based on a false reading of nature and human nature, which is in many ways the opposite of liberalism and communism: human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this human nature, with such experiments as modern liberalism, or cultural Marxism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature.

Conservatism and traditionalism affirm many of those natural traits, but then their definition of a non-material soul, spirit, and heaven is as utopian as the Marxist utopia which offers "no leadership, currency, private ownership, laws or need for any of these things." At least the gurus of Marxism didn't despise the material view of nature as the elite religious gurus did---but not their lustful yet religious peasants.

Readers of this blog know that I believe human beings would be better off to get in sync with what they and their activations actually are, which means existing in the flow of successful survival, reproduction, and ultimately material evolution toward supermaterial Godhood. So we need not lose conservatism or religion, but they need to be transformed (not rejected) within the real bounds of the laws of nature and human nature, best defined in the non-utopian evolutionary sciences, and in the religious philosophy of theological materialism.

Looking at life from a deeper position than only thinking or feeling

Both religion and philosophy tend to value thinking over life (Nietzsche's position). Although I would add that religion at the upper levels of development "feels" and "experiences" blissful states which thinking gets in the way of---perhaps a different version of Dionysus.

I think we need to look at life from a deeper position than only thinking or feeling and when we do the biological origin of social behavior reveals a force which thinking and feeling are only a part of---although it may still be rational.  Biology comes before and develops thinking and feeling.

I then take the position that human biology contains an activation to evolve to the highest success of Godhood, along with dealing with the random outside forces of selection and evolution. I call that inward activation Tirips (a material will to Godhood) which transforms thinking and feeling about spirit and Godhood.

I believe this primal and sacred activation to evolve toward Godhood, which one day may be empirically understood, shows the "will to power" to be secondary. This primal and sacred activation is more important or deeper than thinking or feeling, and it needs to be included in religion, philosophy and science.

Do people who lie have an advantage over people who do not lie?

In asking that question I'm not talking about the polite lies that oil social interaction, such as: "How are you doing." "Fine, thank you."

In the short term lies and lying people can have an advantage over non-liars. But lies are found out and sometimes dealt with harshly.  But then people who lie come up with new lies to cover old lies, and on we go.

It seems to me that a people who maintain a warrior society lie less because, for example, lying about the strength of ones troops can get many people killed. eg. "Tell the truth and shoot strait." But that may not apply to spying and espionage, which really complicates the question.

A non-warrior people, a merchandising people, may gain advance from lying, culturally and even genetically, as liar's might do well bartering etc.

What happens when the warrior-mentality comes up against the merchandising-mentality? Maybe that's when caste's develop.

A more humane solution to the separation or balkanization of the United States

At first glance it looks like the "identify politics" of the liberals could find common cause with the Alt-right because they both push the importance of ethnicity. But then the left does a diabolical thing, it promotes nonwhite and non-Western peoples by the method of charging white-Western people with being racist and xenophobic. And of course there is also the fiction on the left that all human beings are the same and would all get along but for evil racism---discounting of course their own identity politics. 

Conservative's will talk about the importance of political and cultural affinities which tend to create the geographical bonds between people, but they won't mention, or rarely mention, the stronger group-selection preference of ethnicity. It's an understandable excuse since the ruling politically correct cultural Marxism of the left can ruin conservatives if they are charged with being racist. And then there is the universalism beneath the spiritualism of Christianity which also has something to do with the reluctance of conservatives to affirm deep ethnic differences between peoples.

So we have the process of the separation or balkanization of the United States now beginning to take place along with the collapse of the American empire, which was predictable given that real human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other things, with group or ethnic-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

The natural and rational way to deal with the separation or balkanization of the United States and the collapse of the empire would be to legally and non-violently adapt the constitutional separation of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. That won't be easy but it will be more humane and far better than the solutions put forward by the left, and even the right, as mentioned above.

We need to change our immigration laws or America as we have known it will be more a murder than a suicide

Liberals in America have been indoctrinated with a cultural form of Marxism which teaches them to open wide the borders of the United States and allow in virtually all immigrants, even criminals.

Liberals have been brainwashed from pre-school to grad-school to believe that human nature is formed only by culture to be whatever we decide to make human nature, and genetic traits have little or nothing to do with it.

Liberals think that all the immigrants will simply melt into America because liberals are ignorant of genetically-derived human nature with its group or ethnic-selection preferences, which means that distinctly different people don't melt, they compete, often fiercely.

Non-assimilation brings cultural changes as a result of the natural differences between people---as the people change the culture changes. The non-assimilation eventually brings social disorder and even civil war.

The murder of the West seems a better analogy now than the suicide the West. The analogy of  suicide seems related to ignorance, the murder analogy seems more deliberate, although in the deepest sense they may both be the result of ignorance.

The flat fact is we need to change our immigration laws or America as we have known it will be more a murder than a suicide......Will there ever be payback for those responsible for the murder? That depends on who saves us, how we are saved, and if we are saved.

How aristocrat's led to the production of great art, and why we don't

It seems to me that aristocrats led to the production of great art because they were primarily not greedy for money, and did not have such a thing as affirmative action pushing ethnic preferences in choosing the art of monarchies or in nationalistic Europe.

That has not been the case especially in the United States over the last 100 years, but also in Europe. Money and greed---and ethnic preferences since the 1960's---has been choosing the art and the artists, which has led to mostly garbage as art.

Now we have cheap pornography in our books and films and the obscene nursery rhymes of Rap, all chosen by people seeking money or ethnic preferences. Today even on my classical music station I heard one of those boring jacked up Gershwin "American symphonies" which wasn't worth being created let alone having "variations" on.

We probably won't have great art again until America and Europe form an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, along with an appreciation again of meritocracies. But don't hold your breath for it.

Survival and evolution work best in religiously and ethnically bonded groups before they are overcome with spiritualism and universalism

The hypothesis of sociobiology regarding the development of religion is that religion's better bonded people together and made religiously bonded groups more successful than people or groups unbonded by religion or groups weakly bonded by religion.

But like almost everything in life the good comes with the bad, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Spiritualism can be taken to extremes. Asceticism often leads to denying all the material desires including the desire for reproductive success. Several religious founders downplayed the desires of the flesh and warned against them, even advocating celibacy.

It is from that extreme base of spiritual idealism that universalism often develops, which ends up weakening religions---as political universalism (modern liberalism) weakens nations. The original bonds of religion are then broken and the people are therefore broken.

This would seem to give the advantage to religions that remain ethnocentric and not universal, like Judaism, or even religions that claim to be universal but whose members remain bonded within the same ethnic groups, like the Islamic Arabs or Islamic Persians, and the Mormons before they embraced universalism.

The religious philosophy of theological materialism doesn't have that problem of spiritual idealism or universalism because it believes that Godhood is supermaterial, not spiritual, and Godhood is evolved to in the material world. Therefore survival and reproductive success become vital in evolving to Godhood.

The hypothesis is that survival and evolution work best in religiously and ethnically bonded groups before they are overcome with spiritualism and universalism. Theological materialism affirms an ethnopluralism of ethnostates where all ethnic groups and all ethnostates can best bond themselves and proceed with ongoing evolution toward real Godhood, aided by religion, science, and any other field that advances evolution. Various forms of federalism can protect the whole, along with  international evolutionary research centers open to aiding all states.