SXS5

GLOBAL UNITY PHILOSOPHY

Like any philosophy, Xenophytism is not value neutral. On the contrary, it is based upon making value judgments. Accordingly, it does not go out of its way to avoid controversy. It says resolutely that one way of life, one perspective, or one way of seeing the world, is better than the others. It says with conviction that one system of beliefs is more functional, and will better serve human purposes over the longer term, than the others. But, unlike other belief systems which make similar claims, Xenophytism is solidly based upon the best information that the social and behavioral sciences have to offer.

Because Xenophytism does involve a system of values, attitudes and beliefs, or a comprehensive ideology, at various points, it may be opposed to other belief systems. Accordingly, it may be controversial. Yet, when attempts are made to critique Xenophytism using rational criteria, when it is judged solely on its merits, rather than on the basis of the sentiments to which some of its principles may be opposed, when it is judged fairly according to criteria that are derived from the full range of knowledge that is available in the social and behavioral sciences, Xenophytism clearly emerges ahead of other social, economic, political, legal and theological belief systems.

For instance, and perhaps most controversially, Xenophytism does not hesitate to say that it is best to organize human societies along more racially homogenous lines, or along lines that are consistent with the requirements of the "cosmopolitan" model. Xenophytism dares to say that attempting to maintain or establish a high level of racial homogeneity in any society is a good thing, because it is in accord with the way that the different races of man evolved (i.e. in relative isolation from one another). This is our natural condition as human beings, and this is the basis for the most stable and functional forms of social organization. Relatedly, Xenophytism, dares to say that it is a good thing to attempt to preserve “all” races in their relatively pure forms, or in the forms in which they have evolved naturally, in relative geographical isolation from one another, before modern technologies made it possible for them to freely intermingle.

Over a period of many millennia, geographically separated human populations evolved the distinctive characteristics that we recognize today as racial traits. These traits are an important part of our evolutionary legacy, as well as an important part of our cultural heritage, and they are worth preserving. It is far more likely that these traits will be preserved for the benefit of posterity in societies that have been organized along more racially homogeneous lines. In addition, there are other important reasons why human societies should be organized along racially homogeneous lines.

The perception of racial differences between highly dissimilar racial groups can lead to a xenophobic response. The xenophobic response is a natural aversive reaction to the perception of significant differences in others. Experiencing this response can lead to prejudice and xenophobia. In turn, prejudice and xenophobia can lead to instabilities in multiracial societies, or in societies that have not been organized in accordance with natural law.

Contemporary social engineers would have us overcome the problem of xenophobia by overwriting our nature (socializing us in a way that is designed to suppress or counteract an element of our nature), or by means of a process of continuous racial amalgamation, or breeding across racial lines. Racial amalgamation is intended to eliminate the more stark visible differences between racial groups, or the kinds of differences that would be most likely to trigger xenophobic reactions. Unfortunately, the process of racial amalgamation also tends to destroy the distinctive genetic characteristics that all racial groups have been endowed with by the process of evolution. As a result of the ongoing process of racial amalgamation and hybridization, the unique genetic characteristics of ALL races will tend to be destroyed over time. Humanity will have been reduced to a monochromatic mass with little variety.

One of the most important principles of Xenophytism is that human populations with distinctive racial characteristics are worth preserving. The best way to insure the preservation of human populations with distinctive racial characteristics is to maintain (or at least attempt to partially restore) the natural conditions under which they evolved. That is, create societies that have a high level (in excess of 80%) of racial homogeneity, in order to take advantage of all the benefits that naturally accrue to human societies that are organized along more monoracial lines. This is the key premise of the “cosmopolitan model.” The Preservationist Doctrine provides partial philosophical support for the cosmopolitan model.

The idea that human societies should be organized along highly monoracial lines is destined to become one of the most controversial elements of the Xenophyte philosophy. But, Xenophytism also contains other elements that will prove to be equally controversial. For instance, Xenophytism dares to say that, as far as most human beings are concerned, heterosexuality is the better and the more natural form of sexuality.

Principles such as racial preservation and the unconditional endorsement of heterosexuality would seem to place Xenophytism near the conservative or the "right" end of the ideological spectrum. But, when one looks at the philosophy of Xenophytism overall, it becomes readily apparent that Xenophytism is NOT a conservative philosophy. For, when it comes to such issues as social welfare, environmental protection, population control etc, Xenophytism clearly emerges much closer to the left or liberal end of the ideological continuum. Hence, when compared to liberalism and conservatism, Xenophytism is “all over the map” ideologically speaking. It is all over the map precisely because this is what
functional considerations require.

Despite its novelty, and despite the challenges that it poses to both liberal and conservative thought, an ongoing escalation of website traffic suggests that Xenophytism is beginning to resonate with people from all parts of the world. Currently, and as unlikely as it may seem, a majority of the website traffic for the SXS is coming from the Arab world. There are a number of possible explanations for this. The most likely explanation is that, having found fault with both their own political, philosophical and theological traditions (especially Islamic fundamentalism), as well as with the prevailing world views of the West (especially secular humanism) a substantial number of Arabs began to search for an alternative world view. And, inevitably, this search has led them to discover Xenophytism.

Xenophytism offers a comprehensive world view (a world view with social, economic, political, legal and theological dimensions). Utilizing the knowledge that has become available as a result of more recent advances in the social and behavioral sciences, Xenophytism is designed to overcome the major deficiencies of all social, economic, political, legal and theological belief systems (including Christianity and Islam). Xenophytism is designed to be an optimally functional belief system, or a belief system that will prove maximally conducive to human survivability over the longer term.

A tenet of Xenophytism is that man lives in a universe that is governed solely by natural laws. Therefore, in order to be rational, any ideas that man can have about either God or divine will must be consistent with natural laws. According to a rational understanding of God and divine will, God is simply "that which is responsible for all natural laws." Or, "all natural laws are a reflection and a direct manifestation of divine will." Man is merely a result of the natural order, or natural laws. This understanding of God, divine will, and human origins forms the basis for the natural law doctrine within Xenophytism.

Because man's existence is a result of natural laws, and because man evolved the ability to reason as a way of perpetuating his existence, man's continued existence (at least to the point where he may evolve into a higher life form that is even more survivable than his current form) is in accord with divine will, rationally understood. Therefore, whatever would prove to be most conducive to human survivability would also be most consistent with divine will. The need to maximize survivability (especially by optimizing belief systems) is a higher value than either the quest for more freedom, or the quest for happiness.

Because man lives in universe that is governed by natural laws, and because God does not operate by means of supernatural agencies (Moses, Christ and Mohammed were only men), then, according to this rational understanding of God, all religious works (including the Bible and the Koran) must be products of the human consciousness alone. And, because they are the products of the human consciousness alone, these religious works can only be consistent with divine will (rationally understood), in the degree that they are functional and conducive to the maximization of human survivability. It is not maximally conducive to human survivability to attempt to legitimate a system of beliefs by irrational means, such as by making the claim that a system of beliefs was handed down directly by God to man by some supernatural means. Only reason, knowledge and experience can prove whether or not a belief system is consistent with divine will. In the degree that reason, knowledge and experience clearly suggest that a belief system will be more conducive to human survivability than any other belief system, that belief system will be in closest accord with divine will.

THE BASIS FOR AN OPTIMAL BELIEF SYSTEM IS ENCODED IN HUMAN NATURE
For anyone who has a more accurate understanding of human nature to work with, it is a relatively simple matter to extrapolate certain fundamental principles to serve as the basis for organizing human societies. When it is understood in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions, human nature logically points to, and helps to legitimate, a belief system that is "synthetic," or one that draws on values that are more closely associated with both "poles" of human temperamental essence, rather than one which is polarized, such as liberalism or conservatism.

The reasons for having an ideology that is more integratively complex and synthetic than the conventional polar ideologies of liberalism and conservatism should be obvious. At various points, liberals simply have the better arguments on their side, or they come closer to having something in human nature to justify their claims. Conversely, at other points, conservatives have the better arguments on their side, and they come closer to having something in human nature to justify their claims. Accomplishing "ideological synthesis" involves bringing important elements of both of these polar ideologies together to form a stable ideological matrix. As it turns out, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum that they have been drawn from, or have become more closely associated with, the facts and the truth about man and human society tend to be mutually supporting and reinforcing. Hence, combining these elements to form a stable ideological matrix is not as difficult as it might first appear.

The best arguments (those which reason, knowledge and experience suggest would be most functional in absolute terms, or most conducive to human welfare over the longer term) tend to support and reinforce one another, simply due to the fact that truth at one point tends to agree with truth at other points. When taken alone and in isolation from one another, the elements of a synthetic ideology (which may have originally been more closely associated with either the ideological left or the right) only tend to oppose one another when they are confined within a larger polarizing ideological framework, such as liberalism and conservatism.

The most stable social form is that which is in closest accord with the most important elements of human nature. Depending on the unique challenges that mankind is having to face at a particular point in time, different elements of human nature will tend to support principles, values and ideals that may be more closely associated with either the ideological left or the ideological right. Some values that are more closely associated with the ideological left will be part of the optimal set of values, just as some values associated with the right will also be part of the optimal set of values, and the most functional ideology. Values associated with both the left and the right will be able to point to something substantive in human nature for their justification.

One of the foremost aims of the SXS is to insure that people in all parts of the world have the knowledge that they need to independently arrive at the most functional system of values. When it comes to being able to identify that set of values that would prove optimally functional for human beings more generally, it turns out that evolution has already done much of the work for us. Contained in human nature is a blueprint for what has proven to be most conducive to our survivability at an aggregate level over the course of our evolution.

The process of evolution has endowed us with capacities and tendencies that have allowed us to overcome a wide range of challenges, and that have been most conducive to our survivability over a broad range of conditions. And, the capacities and tendencies which have collectively best equipped us to deal with challenges over the course of our evolution also provide us with a blueprint for the optimal way to construct our societies. They provide us with a basis from which to extrapolate an optimal system of values, or a system of values that would best equip us to deal with the kinds of challenges that we are likely to face at the aggregate or species level over the longer term.

A system of values that has been extrapolated from a correct understanding of human nature (an understanding of the main capacities and tendencies that comprise human nature in the context of their evolutionary origins and functions) will be more likely to prove conducive to our survivability than alternative sets of values. Such a system of values will tend to be a composite or a synthesis of values that are more closely associate with both poles of human cognitive and temperamental tendencies.

AN OPTIMALLY FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM OF VALUES IS THE KEY A PEOPLE'S SUCCESS
Most of what is wrong with human societies today can be attributed to some deficiencies in the values of their people. Or, if you prefer to use a more comprehensive term that includes values, attitudes and beliefs, most of what is wrong with human societies can be attributed to some deficiencies in their ideologies. Some societies are relatively more successful because the most representative or "modal" values of their people happen to be more functional. Conversely, other societies are plagued with serious, chronic and seemingly insoluble problems because the modal values of their people are deficient in some important respects. Some values lead a people to become very disciplined, hard working and better able to overcome obstacles in their environment, while these values seem to be relatively absent in other groups. Differences in national character can be primarily reduced to differences in modal values between populations. Relatedly, values are the single most important determinants of differential success of peoples and nations.

Whenever a society has achieved success, the normative qualities of the people themselves (i.e. something in their character and their values) will have been mainly responsible for the level of civilization that they have been able to attain. Conversely, some deficiency in the character or the modal values of a people will typically have been most responsible for a people's failure to attain a high level of civilization. And, in cases where a society has achieved success, but has apparently undergone some decline, this decline can also most probably be attributed to the erosion of some values that were initially most responsible for its success.

Not only are values important for determining where individuals rank socially, but, depending on the most commonly shared values of a people, or their modal values, they are generally the most important determinants of how nations and civilizations rank. Next to subtle biological or innate differences between human populations (which may constitute predispositions to form or adopt certain values when exposed to a particular set of environmental circumstances), it is the values that a people hold per se that are the main determinants of the level of civilization that a people have been able to achieve. Specifically, and more than anything else, it is a combination of values towards such things as education, work, achievement, honesty, integrity, family and a tight and closely related constellation of optimally functional values more generally, that will be the most critical determinants of the probability that individuals in a society will succeed, and of the probability that the society of which they are a part will be able to achieve a higher level of civilization. That is to say, it is the functional qualities of their modal values, or the values that are most representative of their people, that are most responsible for the level of civilization and the standard of living which they will be able to attain, and that is responsible for their success as a society more generally.

The operation of differentially functional values is the main reason why some societies have been more successful and have achieved higher levels of civilization and than others. When a people have become successful, it is most likely because a vast majority of them have simply placed more emphasis on the values that are more closely related to things like education, work and achievement. Egalitarians will want to challenge this view, or they will reject it entirely, preferring instead to argue that some historical accident or some combination of climate, geography, or some history of subjugation by colonial powers was mainly responsible for the fact that people in a certain region have not achieved a higher level of civilization. And certainly such factors as climate, geography and a history of colonial rule may have played a part in the values that a people have adopted. But, regardless of the ultimate cause or source of their values, it is the values of a people per se that are the most important determinants of the level of civilization that a people have been able to achieve. For whatever reason, some people have simply formed or adopted more functional values than others. And, different cultures and peoples can be ranked qualitatively according to the values with which they have become laden.

ASSUMPTIONS AND AIMS OF GLOBAL UNITY PHILOSOPHY BELIEF SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
As a practical philosophy designed to facilitate a nation’s social, economic, political, legal and theological development, Xenophytism is based upon the following premises:

That a nation’s stage of development, and its living standards are mainly determined by the normative qualities of its people, or by their values attitudes and beliefs.

That regressive, or suboptimal belief systems (both secular and religious), or deficiencies in normative belief systems of a people, are the most important factors which tend to inhibit a nation’s development, or to impair the standard of living that a people are able to attain and enjoy.

That for any nation to achieve a quantum leap in its development, the normative belief systems of its people must be optimized and rationalized.

That for normative belief systems to be rationalized, or for them to achieve their maximum functionality, requires an intensive learning regimen, and a more philosophical approach than simply disseminating technical information.

That normative belief system modification and rationalization can be achieved by means of a methodical step by step process.

That the process of normative belief system optimization/rationalization is best directed at people who are already literate and who already have a moderate level of education (such as university students).

That the process of normative belief system optimization and rationalization requires an intensive regimen of exposure to the best information that the social and behavioral sciences have to offer.

That a comprehensive philosophy, or an optimally functional and rational ideology, or normative belief system can be derived from knowledge in the social and behavioral sciences.

That an optimal system of values, or a system of values that would prove to be most conducive to our survivability, can be extrapolated from a better understanding of human nature, in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions.

That, in terms of the overarching political orientations of our time (liberalism and conservatism), an optimal philosophy will result in an ideological synthesis, or a combination of core concepts, which are more closely associated with either liberalism or conservatism.

That the most essential or core information of this philosophy is not overwhelming, and it can be made available in condensed form that is comprehensible to average literate people.

That, to be most effective, a belief system intervention must involve a comprehensive and internally consistent belief system that has well integrated and mutually reinforcing social, economic, political, legal and theological dimensions.

That because belief systems (both secular and religious) vary in their functionality, they can be qualitatively ranked.

That a regimen of normative belief system modification, or a "normative and value laden approach" is required because, in many cases, it is deficiencies in normative belief systems that stand in the way of a people’s ability to achieve higher standards of living.

That far from attempting to be "non-judgmental" in order to avoid possibly offending people's customs or indigenous beliefs, because belief systems can be ranked according to rational criteria and universally accepted standards, deliberate efforts should be made to rank them.

That because it may challenge or come into conflict with indigenous belief systems of different peoples throughout the world, the “normative and value laden” approach may sometimes run the risk of being controversial and of backfiring. But, that this approach can be done in such a way as to minimize this risk.

That one of the main purposes of education is to expose people to "best practices," as they have come to be known by way of advances in the social and behavioral sciences, and that a regimen of normative belief system modification is consistent with this aim.

GLOBAL UNITY PHILOSOPHY TRAINING ALLIANCE (GUPTA)

To join GUPTA, one must be a Class A member of the Synthesis Party in their nation of residence, and one must have scored at least 80% on their Level 3 Exams. No formal teaching credentials are required, but they may be useful.

The aim of GUPTA is to help spread the word of global unity philosophy (Xenophytism) and to make people more aware of the real world benefits that accrue from holding functional-rational belief systems.

GUPTA members will be provided with training materials, course outlines, lecture notes etc., and they will be placed on the lecture roster in the countries where they live.

THEORETICAL BASIS: THE LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY.
One of the main limitations of prevailing educational philosophy in the West, and throughout the developed world more generally, is its assumption that educational philosophy should be value neutral, when, in fact, it should be value laden. For norms and values are among the most important psychological factors which affect an individual's desire to learn, and their consequent ability to learn.

In order to be optimally functional, a system of education should be designed to either establish or reinforce functional values. In cases where normative deficiencies are an issue, and where it is necessary to establish functional values, interventions should be designed to bring about normative change using a direct approach, rather than attempting to affect normative change surreptitiously, for fear of offending people, due to conflicts that may arise between indigenous beliefs and a system of more functional beliefs.

One of the main purposes of a well rounded secular education is to increase the proportion of people in a given population who hold optimally rational and functional belief systems.