A Godhood and religion of real material life

The great metaphysical error has been the concept of “transcending the world of things.” Why would we want to do that?! Yet that is the sacred goal of traditional religion and philosophy. The ascetic idea of this was to bring about the experience described as apprehending the God or Father within by way of overcoming or blocking all material desires. But it is really a peak material experience and not a spiritual experience that "transcends the world of things."

Nietzsche thought this spiritualism was the conscious will to power of the priests and royals to control warriors and farmers, but it is more deeply defined as a metaphysical error, a plain misunderstanding, and it belongs to the usually unconscious biological origin of social behavior.

As a consequence of his perspective Nietzsche radically threw out God and religion. But the conservative thing to do is to transform God and religion with knowledge coming in from the evolutionary sciences regarding the biological origin of social behavior, which includes religion as the bonding agent for morals and values, caring for others, etc., because that enhanced successful survival and reproduction. 

 

Are we not now mature enough to stop the obvious religious and political lies we use to disguise the biological origin of our social behavior? If real kin and ethnic-centered human nature is allowed to be what it is, it naturally leads to regionalism, localism, ethnostates, and finally an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which could be accomplished, not by way of radical revolution, but through adapting, not overturning, the U.S. constitutional separation of powers and states, with the ethnostates protected from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, by a light federalism.

We can have Godhood and religion as the bonding agent for morals and values, but it is a Godhood and religion of real material life, with the sacred goal of evolving in the material world to ascending levels of Godhood. In the Twofold Path we will need new liturgies and feast days conservatively transforming, and not rejecting, those first inward experiences of God.

Evolutionary conservative is the deepest kind of conservatism

The term evolutionary conservative, which I prefer, often looks oxymoronic, incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory. Nonetheless as a few conservative's have pointed out, including Burke, conservatism is reform not stasis, change is a constant of life, conservatism is adaptable. But the deepest and strongest affirmation of conservatism comes from biological evolution itself.

Steady change, not revolution, is typical in biological evolution and is a conservative way to evolve and change; we evolved three brains, one evolved upon the other---the reptilian and the mammalian brains were retained, not thrown away, even as we evolved the higher neocortex. That describes evolutionary conservatism.

For example, in the Twofold Path of theological materialism religious traditions are retained but transformed rather than rejected. The eastern ascetic experience of nirvana, and the beatific experience of heaven or the Father Within of Christ, were just that, a peak experience in the physical mind after much ascetic discipline in blocking or overcoming material desires. We can conservatively retain that preliminary Inward Path experience of the God Within, but it needs to be transformed in the Outward Path of material evolution to real Godhood. We need to conserve the best that evolves, and help that evolution along, as we continue to evolve toward ascending levels supreme intelligence, beauty, goodness, and Godhood.

In politics, trying to rid real human nature and culture of the deep-seated preference for kin and ethnic group is attempted by many ideologies. But the biological origin of social behavior and real human nature lead naturally to regionalism, localism, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could be established, legally, in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and money grubbers, by a light federalism. That too defines evolutionary conservatism.

We need to harmonize sociobiologically defined human nature with our religious, social, and political structures

Russell Kirk said the scholar of religious aims and aspirations is a person of true freedom of the mind ("The Essential Kirk"). But what does he mean by religious aims and freedom? Kirk wrote of “submission to the will of God,” but how is he defining freedom and God? Kirk says we must abide by the real duties and limitations of human nature, but what are those limitations? And Kirk says freedom is the absence of desire, as the Stoics and Indian tradition believed, which Christianity agreed with. Kirk also said that no order falls except from its own weakness.

Next to Pat Buchanan, Kirk is my favorite conservative writer, but I disagree with them both regarding the nature of religion. The key here for me is that while material evolution can be random, it is not entirely random or accidental. Life has been evolving toward increasing consciousness, intelligence, beauty, and complexity. Few people ask the question why are we driven toward success in survival and reproduction? (Francis Heylighen has been one of the few modern scientists to examine purpose in evolution.)

Just as the pleasure or happiness derived from eating food is driven by the deeper requirements of successful survival, and not mere pleasure, the drive to survival and reproductive success (the sole aim according to science) is driven by the deeper need of evolving toward ascending levels of Godhood as the zenith of success and purpose in evolution (so contrary to many philosophers happiness, like desire, is a secondary goal). Naturalism in evolution can therefore include the activation toward higher evolution leading to ascending levels of supermaterial Godhood.

Human nature is universally kin-centered, gender defined, age-grading, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. As you can see, there are traditional and conservative aspects to natural human nature, and it relates very little to Rousseau. But ethnocentrism, for example, is not evil or the lower part of human nature, as both traditional religion and Rousseauians tend to define it.

This suggest that when we look for a “moral path to peace” as Claes Ryn termed it, we need to harmonize sociobiologically defined human nature with our religious, social, and political structures. This logically and instinctively advances some form of natural ethnopluralism, with regions and states set aside for ethnic cultures, and protected in their near-independence from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, by a light federalism. I prefer the term ethnopluralism to cosmopolitanism because it more directly defines what cosmopolitanism requires if we want a solid bonding foundation in human nature for international states and regions, related to the primacy of kin and group-selection. Altruism, the original creator of religious group values, was evolved within the particular groups and it is not a universal altruism---although if the whole world is threatened then altruism is extended to the world---but the most natural condition of altruism within human nature is designed for ones own group.

That is the natural moral and religious path to peace, in harmony with real human nature and the natural world, and it is fundamentally conservative, so it stands the best chance of being successful over the long term.

How all is not lost for materialism and the bourgeoisie

Ayn Rand's philosophy was an overreaction to communism, Rand's utopian individual selfishness tried to take the place of Lenin's utopian unselfishness. Both had it wrong.

Rand formed her philosophy before neoDarwinist sociobiology empirically pointed out that group-selection with its altruism, which Rand despised, was the primary unit of successful selection, with individual selection following group-selection in a co-evolution, which is genetically inherent in human nature. But by that time Rand's ego was too committed to change her emphasis.

Altruism grew directly out of the competition between groups, with successful groups having more social bonding and cohesion, which passed on those successful altruistic genes and embedded them in basic human nature.

Rand tried to give the bourgeoisie a tune-up but her materialism was not only missing the biological origin of social behavior and altruism but missing a sacred goal. Her philosophy of selfish individualism and her version of materialism helped lead to the marauding globalism of the neoconservatives, which in the end has wrecked her affirmation of the bourgeoisie and materialism.

If real kin and ethnic-centered human nature is allowed to be what it is, it naturally leads to regionalism, localism, ethnostates, and finally an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. All groups can naturally evolve in their own unique ways. In the U. S. this could be accomplished not by way of radical revolution but through adapting---not overturning---the U.S. constitutional separation of powers and states, with the ethnostates protected from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, by a light federalism.

And most importantly religion is not lost for materialism and the bourgeoisie: the philosophy of theological materialism transforms the misguided spiritualism of ascetics and gives materialism the sacred goal it has been missing with the good news of the material evolution of life to ascending levels of real supermaterial Godhood.

The closest we can come to equality is labeled politically incorrect

The whole leftist scheme demanding that social justice is the reduction and end to inequalities and that social justice and egalitarianism are the same, in reality is ignorant, dangerous, and damaging to human life.

The biological origin of social behavior, which is conveniently overlooked by leftists, finds no equality in nature, the closest we can come to equality is in the genes and culture we share with kin and ethnic group---with twins being the closest.

This is common sense and the plain reality of human nature and human life, even the objections to it are usually driven by groups and individuals who are racially and culturally homogeneous and seek dominance over other groups by preaching an end to inequalities.

In reality the best most equitable social structure we can hope for, for all groups, is an organization of ethnostates consisting of genetically and culturally homogeneous people, and then protecting them from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, with a light federalism.

Ethnostatism should not be an outsider position, it harmonizes with real kin and ethnic-centered human nature and it is kept from the people not merely due to ignorance but due to propaganda and brainwashing by villainous people and groups.

Religion, philosophy, and science have no real end, no real goal, without theoevolution

Religion, philosophy, and science have no real end, no real goal, without theoevolution, that is, without the material evolution of life to supermaterial Godhood, which is why---as Alan Tate said years ago in a review about leisure---modern life has misbegotten separations between religion and education, work and play, morality and business, art and society, love and sex, leisure and work, individual and the community, the material and spiritual. 

Theoevolution does not mean that religion becomes the flunky of science, it means that both religion and science see the sacred goal of life as evolving in the material world to supermaterial Godhood. That is, the traditional God experienced by occult ascetics, which is really a peak material experience, is now seen as the continuing levels of real Godhood reached by material evolution.

Theoevolution brings the anarchic and nihilistic separations, which have caused alienation in modern societies, back together again, as they were in the of time of the ancient Greeks and the medieval period, only this time with sacred material and supermaterial realistic ends and goals, and not non-material, non-existing, artificial spiritual goals.

The natural source of objective morality and where it takes us

We can have an objective morality that is impartial, nonpartisan, and even empirical, that is, based on verifiable observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic, if we base our morality on the real biological origin of social behavior, which is the oldest and deepest root of moral systems. As the father of sociobiology, E. O. Wilson, wrote, “human behavior. . .is the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact (eg. altruism). Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate function.” Wilson didn't include an ultimate and sacred evolution moving inevitably in a pattern---even though it has random elements, stagnation, and retreat---with the pattern having a discernible direction toward higher and higher more effective living forms, always evolving toward Godhood (from which religion can spring).

Objective morality needs to harmonize with the real human nature that developed out of the biological origin of social behavior, which has been objectively verified by the evolutionary sciences, and repeated here often, but rarely if ever repeated in our colleges, universities, or churches, and never mentioned, or made taboo, in the corrupt Media. Real human nature is basically and genetically 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.

That is the natural source of objective morality from which laws and culture develop, or should develop, which, for example, can objectively lead toward regionalism, localism, ethnostates, and finally an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, by a light federalism.

Both traditional religion and scientific materialism are unfinished or incomplete systems

The God of traditional religious morals dwells in the non-material spiritual, and scientific materialism dwells in a material world without God. Both are unfinished or incomplete systems. 

Religion's claim that without religious morals we cannot rise from the earth or the beasts, but then religion's reject the centrality of material evolution which keeps religions on earth blocked from the reality of the ongoing evolution of life toward real Godhood. Scientific materialism tends to reject religious morals and spiritualism, which religion's claim keeps men chained to the earth unable to rise to the religious version of a non-material spiritualism. 

The way out of this metaphysical dilemma is to see continuing levels of Godhood as evolved to in the material and supermaterial world. Then religious morals and scientific materialism can truly rise from the earth and the beasts. 

Both traditional religion and scientific materialism need to affirm that evolution moves inevitably in a pattern---even though it has random elements---and that pattern has a discernible direction, in spite of instances of stagnation and retreat, "toward higher and higher more effective living forms," as Cattell put it, always evolving toward continuing levels of Godhood.

Both the Left and the Right try to remould human nature to fit their worldviews

The Left remoulds human nature to fit their ideology which says that since we are all the same, culture must make us all the same. But even though the traditional Right remoulds real human nature far less than the Left, the foundation of the traditional Right tries to remould human nature toward non-material spiritualism, eg. “we are all the same under a non-material God.”

The evolutionary sciences since Darwin (eg. sociobiology) have been gradually and empirically honing in on real human nature across the world and found that human nature is genetically 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. This fits the Right far more than the Left, until the right brings in spirituality as the foundation of their worldview.

But this reality does not mean that God and religion are rejected, theological materialism brings Godhood and religion back to the material world by affirming the material evolution to supermaterial Godhood. Theological materialism can make theology the king of the sciences again, as it was for so long in the Euro-American past.

The material evolution to supermaterial Godhood does not remould human nature but harmonizes with human nature and follows evolution as evolution moves inevitably in a pattern---even though it has random elements---and that pattern has a discernible direction, in spite of instances of stagnation and retreat, toward higher and higher more effective living forms, always evolving toward Godhood. Any “remoulding” would aid this movement, not try to change it.

The timing of the Trump administration in making the Israeli West Bank settlements legal again is suspicious

I don't take sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I believe they both should have respected sovereign states (and work it out without outside interference), but the timing of the Trump administration in making the Israeli West Bank settlements legal again is suspicious, being in the middle of Trump's impeachment trial. This will obviously cause more trouble in the middle east, even though I watched a waspy Trump official this morning saying, with awkward chutzpah, that it would cause no problems at all. I'll bet there is a real quid pro quo going on here, a favor granted in return for a favor, in this case, Trump getting public relations help etc. from the powerful Jewish influence in America in fighting his impeachment. I'd also bet no one makes a peep about it.

This kind of thing makes it harder for those of us who support Trump.

Hip Hop, Rappers, and the Gentleman (from 2011)

Modern day Rousseauns (modern liberals) seem to welcome Hip Hop and rap culture because they seem to prefer the obscene nursery rhymes of the “innocent primitive” "uncorrupted" by Western civilization and its evils. If Hip hop and rap culture had its own independent ethnostate I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but I prefer more the culture of the Gentleman.

I am not talking here about simpering, over-civilized fops when I speak of the Gentleman, I am talking about the fundamental idea of "gentry" symbolized in his grant of coat-armor, and his superiority as a fighting man, and I'm taking about unsurpassed Western civilization.

Since evolution is a central root of my worldview I am obviously not against change or new things, but my kind of evolutionary conservatism synthesizes the new into the old. Ordered evolution is the term I use for change and stability, not anarchy.

During the Dark Ages in Europe anarchic barbarians overcame what was then civilization, and it took well over a thousand years to turn the barbarians into European and English gentleman. Assuming you prefer the gentleman, we might have to wait awhile for Hip Hoppers and rappers to become Gentleman.

There is not necessarily a racial component to being a Gentleman, white barbarians who preceded the Dark Age seem to have been at least as barbarian as Hip Hoppers and rappers but they eventually became Gentleman through the evolution of nurture and nature and the development of ethnostates.

Multicultural multi-ethnic states are unstable because they seek to block the biological origin of social behavior with artificial unnatural laws

The “will” is like the sum total of the biological origin of social behavior, which includes reason. That is how we answer St. Thomas, who said that law is the expression of reason and eternal law, and Rousseau, who said law is the expression of will and the product of the general will.

If we seek stable states with stable laws in which both will and reason can be affirmed, then the states and laws will relate to the biological origin of social behavior. Multicultural multi-ethnic states are unstable because they seek to block the biological origin of social behavior with artificial unnatural laws.

Multicultural multi-ethnic states eventually lead to civil war, and trying to hold them unnaturally together with Big Government leads to violent dictatorships. The most biologically natural social behavior, in which kin and ethnic group are affirmed as the natural basic preference of human nature, suggests that ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates are the best way to stabilize unstable multicultural multi-ethnic states.

If real kin and ethnic-centered human nature is allowed to be what it is, it naturally leads to regionalism, localism, ethnostates, and finally an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. In the U. S. this could be accomplished not by way of radical revolution but through adapting---not overturning---the U.S. constitutional separation of powers and states, with the ethnostates protected from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, by a light federalism.

How we are not overseen by a computer simulation of virtual reality but are already overseen by in-born genetic pools

Mike Thomas says simulation theory “posits that we're actually living in an advanced digital construct, such as a computer simulation, that's overseen by some higher form of intelligence.” Elon Musk said, “we have photorealistic 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, augmented reality. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, the games will become indistinguishable from reality.”

But in the real world we are already overseen by in-born genetic pools that are like supercomputers. And this real genetic supercomputer has the flexibility to adapt to outside natural selection and evolution.  “Biology is the hardware, culture is the software.”

Edward O. Wilson said, "The genes hold culture on a leash. The leash is very long, but inevitably values will be constrained in accordance with their effects on the human gene pool. The brain is a product of evolution. Human behavior. . .is the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact. Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate function."

Perhaps simulation theory could be thought of as a way to introduce the idea that we may not have the degree of “free will” we think we have. Human nature across the world is overseen by in-born genetic pools which are 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. Even the smallest change in human nature and our DNA structure, for example, in our immune system, took hundreds of thousands of years---although genetic engineering may speed that up.

Thinking about it this way, simulation theory seems like an unconscious way to make us feel like we are lucky not to be overseen by some higher form of computer intelligence, when in reality we are overseen by the biological origin of our social behavior.

Perhaps its easier for the simulation theorists to write about being overseen by some higher form of computer intelligence than to write about how to deal with actually being overseen by the biological origin of our social behavior, which is a decidedly politically incorrect subject.

Dramatic Simplicity (from 2011

I think I would define the best writing as I would the best music: a piece of music is great if it stops you short, makes you abruptly stop doing something, makes you listen to it, and a writing piece is great if it stops you short, makes you read it with great attention.

 

There seems to be a simplicity in beauty, more a dramatic simplicity in beauty.

 

Barber's Adagio for Strings does this. Bach is sacred and beautiful, but if you straighten out his complicated Baroque beauty you seem to find a simple, dramatic, Romantic line. The best Romantic's show this kind of simplification of Bach.

 

Writer's who do this sort of thing do their work for the reader, simplifying, clearing up, illuminating, with strong, beautiful, dramatic simplicity.

 

Perhaps all culture does this, including philosophy and religion.

What pisses me off me off about the little jackal Adam Schiff and his phony impeachment party

What pisses me off about the little jackal Adam Schiff and his phony impeachment party is when they purposely play to the feelings of suburban women and effete liberals by bringing ambassador Yovanovitch before their committee and feature her hurt feelings about being fired by President Trump. It is done so that even when their phony impeachment doesn't fly they can decrease the votes of suburban women for Trump which could bring Trump down.

Did Schiff and his nasty democratic friends learn pubic relations techniques from Joseph Goebbels who said, “It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths,” or did they learn PR from the Frankfort School who developed the cultural Marxism which many suburban women and effete liberals already absorbed in our corrupted colleges?

I suppose I don't have faith that suburban women, who are otherwise solid citizens, will vote for Trump while saying they dislike his personalty, which, given our choices, is the way mature women, and men, will vote who haven't been brainwashed by the little jackal Adam Schiff and the culturally Marxist democratic party...Trump's economic nationalism is saving America from utter decline.

Answering Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four"

John Rossi writes (Modern Age, Spring 2019) that George Orwell didn't accept the religious answer to the problems satirized in “1984” that this material life is a preparation for the next spiritual life, but that Orwell wanted to restore the religious “attitude” while accepting that death is final.
  

While Big Brother, Fascism, Libertarianism, Communism, or non-material Spiritual Religion, do not restore the religious attitude while accepting that death is final, theological materialism does.

Theological materialism is thoroughly Western and proud of it, following the Western path in centering on science and reason in affirming sociobiology and emphasizing group-selection, in line with kin and ethnic-centered human nature, as more important than the individualism preferred by the very influential 17^th and 18^th century Enlightenment.

Big Brother government in any form is not required. For example, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could be established, legally, in the United States (and elsewhere) with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and money grubbers, by a light federalism.

Theological materialism affirms religious traditions transformed rather than rejected. When theological materialism looks beneath thought and feeling it finds the multifarious processes of the instincts which activate life to evolve in the material world toward the supreme survival success of Godhood. Theological materialism accepts that death is final at this time but that the biological origin of social behavior goes on as future generations carry our various genes forward (voluntarily improved) as we evolve in the material and supermaterial world toward continuing levels of real Godhood.

Defining the parameters of free will and its sacred goal

The genes set out a blueprint for our lives, but the environment and nurture can cause a divergence from the blueprint in various ways in an attempt to help us survive and reproduce in the most successful ways. “Free will” works within these restrictions or parameters giving us choices among determined things.

I define the “will,” or the prime activation within life, as Tirips, which essentially defines "life" itself, the activation within life, within every cell of the body, always demanding things like metabolism and reproduction, which work along with outside natural selection and evolution. Tirips essentially activates material life to be "life," which ultimately means to evolve in the material world all the way to Godhood, while working within the ups and downs of nature, natural selection, and evolution.

Why would we want to be free from the activation of the will, which is really saying free from the essential drives of human nature and life itself?

Healthy virtue and morality grow out of the activation of Tirips and finding the best way to channel life---that is material life---toward evolving to what life essentially seeks anyway: supermaterial Godhood. When virtue and morality grow out of blocking the drives and desires of life, as traditional asceticism teaches, even if the blockade is designed to experience the Father-Within, life moves toward the death of life.

We can conservatively retain the Twofold Path for both the ascetic symbolic Inward Path and the actual living Outward Path, but life ultimately means to evolve in the Outward Path of the material world all the way to real supermaterial Godhood.

How the two ways of knowing of St. Thomas lead to theological materialism

I basically agree with the two ways of knowing of St. Thomas, the purely theoretical knowing, and knowing on the basis of an essential relatedness but I think these lead to theological materialism.

Today we might call these ways of knowing left and right brain knowing, although they work together more than the separation suggests, with some people synthesizing them more than others.

The theoretical knowing of the evolutionary sciences have gradually drawn a picture of human nature that has to be included in religious philosophy, but has not been done for the most part---although Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and others tried, their God remained a non-material spiritual God.

Teilhard. like the traditionalists, believed man has been developing a divine consciousness and that we must continue this process of the development of consciousness toward god-consciousness so that we can reach our greatest potential as human beings. But human beings cannot attain Godhood, only material evolution to whole supermaterial beings, not just spiritual consciousness, leads to real Gods in the cosmos.

The evolutionary sciences have empirically shown us that the origin of religion remains within the structure of the biological origin of social behavior, where religious bonding, at least in the early days, helped us survive and reproduce successfully. This in turn brought knowledge of group selection preferences toward kin and ethnic group that created the altruism, or being for others, which was later hypertrophied beyond the reach of both theoretical knowing and knowing on the basis of an essential relatedness.

So my position is that purely theoretical knowing and knowing on the basis of an essential relatedness leads to theological materialism, which is more or less placed in the worldview of philosophical naturalism with the difference being that philosophical naturalism is generally irreligious, and theological materialism is religious in seeing Godhood as the goal of material evolution not spiritual evolution, which was the goal first only mirrored in the Father-Within of traditional religion.

Why I accept Nietzsche's advice to quit grumbling and accept my fate

I've made big changes in my philosophy through the years, not with 10,000 people watching, more like a few hundred people watching, and the changes looked like being inconsistent in principles, or at variance with stability. It seems better to people if you can remain the same all through your life or make changes right in line with your past work.

But I wasn't lucky enough to be raised with a philosophy I could maintain all my life. And maybe because of that I developed a distrust of intellectual authority, which had both good and bad consequences in my life. The good was the creative independence I had in developing my philosophy, the bad was burning all my bridges so others could not easily follow me, or me them.

I developed at least five new religious philosophies before I arrived at my present philosophy, which is lasting. I began with rejecting Christianity and developing several new versions of paganism. Then over time, influenced by both conservation and sociobiology, I developed Evolutionary Catholicism. And finally after much study and thinking I developed theological materialism and the projected Theoevolutionary Church.

Each time, with each change, I sent my work to people who couldn't follow my changes over the years or who still think I have the same past views---even my family, which bothers me. Those who follow me now are mostly new people.

But I know I wouldn't be who I am today and I wouldn't have developed my present philosophy if my life had gone any other way. So, as best I can I accept Nietzsche's advice, which he got from the Greeks, to quit grumbling (as I have just done) and accept my fate.

How all the fields can aid in the sacred totality of “asha” for the modern world

The Avestan concept of “asha” is interpreted as the totality of truth, order, justice, righteousness, godliness. The modern Zoroastrian, Ushta, said that in asha: science pursues truth, art pursues beauty, politics pursues good, love pursues passion.

The religious philosophy of theological materialism and the projected Theoevolutionary Church essentially pursues the material evolution of life to supermaterial Godhood, which works along with natural selection and evolution, and means that all the fields can aid in this sacred totality. But love doesn't pursue passion alone, love unconsciously pursues passion for the sacred purpose of evolving life toward Godhood.

  

This totality doesn't contradict the natural separation of powers and states, or ethnostates, which best conform to kin and ethnic-centered human nature across the world.

Why the natural virtues or moral virtues need to include ethnocentrism

When we define the natural virtues as "any moral virtue of which humankind is capable of " I think of the sociobiological definition of human nature as being 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. While this definition from the evolutionary sciences can synchronize with the moral virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, when they are made to be universal in reach they don't synchronize well with the ethnocentric and xenophobic aspect of human nature which created altruism in the first place.

Altruism or being for others was created largely from competing with outside groups which required altruism within groups to be successful against other groups who may have been less altruistic within their group, and so altruistic genes survived---and group selection remains the central unit of selection, as E.O.Wilson has recently affirmed. Christianity and other religions (including Marxism) called for altruism toward everyone, in-group and out-group, which inadvertently destroyed the very dynamic and origin of within-group altruism. This helps explain why two thousand years of Christian altruism toward all has not stopped wars, rather altruism-for-all destroyed the very altruism required to take social action in a group.

When ethnicity, localism, and the nation are taken out of the social process in the interest of abstract universalist or Enlightenment values (modern liberalism and cultural Marxism) then assimilation and altruism are slowly lost, since the deepest, most real, and most workable altruism comes from local, ethnic, and national connections, and not from a universalism which is usually nothing but airy abstractions, and in most cases is used to advance one group over the others by weakening their social bonds.

The natural virtues or moral virtues of which human nature is actually capable of need to include ethnocentrism which is the natural base of altruism. If we really want all people to "just get along with one another" we will allow the world and nations to separate into ethnostates and then protect them all from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, with a light federalism. Far from being "evil," ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates are the realistic way to bring back real workable altruism and being-for-others.

Theological materialism doesn't mean the natural principles of conservatism are rejected

Can natural knowledge be joined to supernatural faith? If by supernatural knowledge you mean knowledge unattached to the natural and material world my answer is no; no knowledge is unattached to the natural and the material world, not even the beatific vision of Christianity, or the Samadhi in Hinduism, which are a peak material experience exaggeratedly described as a spiritual union with God. There is a material and existential structure to all truth including religious truth. It is not enough to be intelligent in looking for the truth, courage and honesty are also needed, which are mainly character traits needed because truth doesn't always please powerful people.

But this theological materialism doesn't mean the natural principles of conservatism are rejected, Godhood and religion are retained but transformed with the affirmation of the material evolution toward ascending levels of supermaterial Godhood. The Twofold Path places the traditional peak material experience of the beatific vision of Christianity or the Samadhi of Hinduism in the Inward Path, but transforms it in the Outward Path of material evolution to ascending levels of real Godhood. The timeless wisdom of conservatism is seeing that we stand on the shoulders of people and knowledge that has has gone before us, and the practical knowledge of conservatism sees that the radical rejection of customs and traditions is more destructive than life-giving. It turns out that material evolution works conservatively too retaining the best of the past as the new is naturally selected and then genetically retained.

Cultural nationalism, ethnic nationalism, and civic nationalism have been falsely divided

In a praiseworthy article for The Burkean, Maolsheachlann Ó Ceallaigh's thesis is that "there are three basic varieties of nationalism, cultural nationalism, ethnic nationalism, and civic nationalism,” and he argues that “cultural nationalism is by far the most important of the three, but that the other two cannot be disregarded.” He concludes his essay with a suggestion of how the “three nationalisms” might be blended: “cultural nationalism above all...and an “acceptance of the importance of blood ties, even if they are not paramount; and a place (but very much the third place) for civic nationalism, so that those left out of the first two categories are not entirely excluded.”

The problem with that thesis is that cultural nationalism, ethnic nationalism, and civic nationalism have been falsely divided in the modern world by politically correct cultural Marxism when in reality they are not divided and were not divided through human history.

There is a co-evolution between culture and biology. The great sociobiologist E.O. Wilson has also found that there is a co-evolution between group-selection and individual-selection with group-selection paramount in successful human survival and reproduction. Group-selection created altruism which favored genetically related groups over more distantly related groups. There is a natural continuum of altruism where concern for the world comes after concern for ones own land and people. Ethnocentrism and racialism are part of real human nature and were genetically selected because they were the most  successful in survival and reproduction.  Ed Dutton concluded that universalist humanitarianism is ultimately a losing strategy because it is “unable to sustain high levels of in-group cooperation.” Humanitarian groups invariably “waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders who give them nothing in return...”

But the biggest damaging error that has been foisted on us has been equating or confounding racism and ethnocentrism with supremacism, which has been the constant propaganda of the Media, who portray marauding barbarianism any time race or ethnicity is mentioned---especially white racism. They have managed to make even the discussion of this subject illegal in some countries.

The Ethnopluralism Hypothesis has tried to counter this propaganda. Real human nature remains 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 selection, followed by individual selection, and this leads naturally to the cultural expression of regionalism, localism, ethnostates, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. Given who we are this appears to be the best way, the most humane way, for all distinct groups to thrive and develop, with the ethnostates protected from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, by a light federalism.

What defines the evolutionary conservatism that could save America and the West?

I believe the conservatives are right in affirming the traditional old ways, the natural customs, habits and ceremonies of the people, but there are flaws in conservatism that arise from ignoring or blocking the biological origin of social behavior and thereby misreading human nature and misreading the causes of the universe.

But changing traditional misreadings is not as easy as affirming them. Change doesn't usually happen until the flaws are seriously bringing the traditional system down. But the changes are often too radical and short term, which is why conservatives are usually right in affirming the traditional old ways. Changing a traditional system can also take time, often too much time in the face of decline and degeneration.

But then, we see how short a time it took Cultural Marxism to take over the culture of the United States and the West. It goes back only to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, although it had ties to older classical Marxism.

Libertarianism among many businessmen shares much of the blame for the decline of America. Concentrating almost exclusively on making a god of individualism and exploiting the freedom to make money came back to bite the libertarians when the Hollywood moguls and leftist publishers and producers of New York, as well as the academic world, exploited the lavish American freedom and deformed a formerly conservative culture to fit their leftist cultural agendas. The Hollywood moguls and leftist publishers found that they could make big money while also changing culture in a culturally Marxist direction. They marched right through the institutions and they won the cultural war. It was brilliant. And it didn't take very long.

The success was made easier by the flaws in American conservatism, such as valuing the individual or individual selection over the group or group selection, and more deeply, from the flaw in religion that sees everyone as the same under God, thereby opening the door to egalitarian evaluations in social policies akin to socialism/communism.

The big flaw in Cultural Marxism, aside from ignoring or blocking the biological origin of social behavior, is that in same way that Satanism depends upon deriving their values from going opposite religious values, Cultural Marxism does the same with conservatism, both are negative systems which depend for their values on turning the values of another system upside down.

Human nature as empirically explained by sociobiology remains basically 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. Even the smallest change in human nature and our DNA structure, for example, in our immune system, took hundreds of thousands of years---although genetic engineering may speed that up.

Even in advanced modern societies where survival is easier, the dangers of Marxism (demanding biologically unnatural equality for the unequal), radical feminism (demanding biologically unnatural roles for women), homosexuality (demanding biologically unnatural sexual life styles) and postmodern relativism (demanding a biologically unnatural relativity of values) will eventually lead to biologically and culturally diseased societies.

I see sacredness and deep religion coming from seeking to understand how life can become best synchronized with the process of evolution, and help it along. Those who believe in the complete randomness of evolution, the majority of scientists, often make dismissive comments regarding any kind of direction to evolution, usually in footnotes to show its unimportance to the text, but then the footnote’s are often emotional and long, protesting too much. I find the arguments that evolution is “non-purposive” and random as closed as the religious arguments denying evolution, information is lacking in both arguments.

I see evolution moving inevitably in a pattern, even though it has its random elements, and the pattern has a discernible direction, in spite of instances of stagnation and retreat, toward “higher and higher more effective living forms.” The goal of evolving to Godhood need not deprive us of either science or religion. The internal activation of life moves life toward evolving toward higher and higher forms and eventually to Godhood, shaped by outside natural selection and inside evolution. This may be a bit further than these men want to go, but we need to go there. I think such a drive and direction will one day be acknowledged by science and religion.

This all suggests that if real kin and ethnic-centered human nature is allowed to be what it is, it naturally leads to regionalism, localism, ethnostates, and finally an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. For example, in the U. S. this could be accomplished not by way of radical revolution but through conservatively adapting---not overturning---the U.S. constitutional separation of powers and states, with ethnostates protected from marauding imperialists, supremacists, and global money grubbers, by a light federalism.

Attaining Godhood in nature through material evolution

Theology, philosophy, science, and even the humanities, have been dominated by an intellectual leadership which features mainly definitions and denotations of objects. This has separated man from real life and nature and has also made of Godhood merely a definition, denotation, an intellectual intuition, or a peak material human experience.

Godhood is not an intuitional-experienced movement from misty metaphysics to intuitional-union, Godhood is attained through the evolution of material life to the supermaterial object or objects of Godhood. To “see” God we need to step back from the “seeing” of metaphysics and intellectual intuition and work toward becoming Godhood in nature through material evolution.

We evolve in the real material world to real supermaterial Godhood, which is not a definition or denotation of God, not a number or principle of God, not a non-material, spiritual, non-object God, and not a peak material human experience of God; Godhood means becoming through material evolution the real supermaterial supreme living object or objects of Godhood---and that sacred path can be helped along by the evolutionary sciences.

Contrary to many intellectuals, the world is not a dream, the exterior world is real, the world has meaning. Theological materialism is not an anti-intellectual stance---equations and definitions have helped to create life-saving technology and great cultural works, but becoming Godhood in nature through evolution is the crowning of theology, philosophy, science, and the humanities with the supreme total living and loving reality of life evolving to Godhood.

Being and becoming are essentially material evolution

Being is mainly becoming, never static, never really absolute, always evolving---although when material life evolves to the level of eternal life that seems almost absolute. Being and becoming are essentially material evolution.

When Nietzsche says becoming I say material and supermaterial evolution, when mystics say Being I say material evolution leading to supermaterial Godhood. This brings material reality back to the mind and body, and back to nature itself.

It was a metaphysical and philosophical error to make a God of logos, reason, and even science. That error caused the worship of words, equations and ideas which are only abstract definitions of living truths and living Gods. A living thing is more important than its definition. The name of Godhood needs to be transformed from a mere abstract spiritual name or idea into a living or future living material/supermaterial object, or objects.

The blocking of a conscious material evolution has taken place along a wide path, from religion to politics to the arts, and even science, which means many obstacles remain in the evolution of life toward Godhood.

This does not call for the rejection of religion, politics, the arts, and science, but requires their adaptation to take up the cause of the evolution of life toward Godhood, which may be the closest we can come to defining the sacred meaning of Being and Becoming. Religion, politics, the arts, and science can grow and become more real and less alienating with the worldview of theological materialism.