Natural conservatism is not a utopian ideology. I can’t promise to end world hunger, for example, to attract followers. I can promise things like, do this and end world hunger for most women, but not men. I can promise it’ll preserve human beings, but that doesn’t mean it’ll stop human beings from killing each other and behaving like animals.

It doesn’t require any new technology, and it’s not just for modern societies. It’s for both mono-racial and multiracial communities. It doesn’t ask or expect human beings to fundamentally change their nature for it to be successful or work. It works precisely because it accepts human beings as human beings. It is, as it claims, for human beings.

In this essay, I will examine and explain the evolution of natural conservatism from its inception to its inevitable adoption. The manifesto began as a respectful rebuttal to T. Kaczynski’s Industrial Society and Its Future. Kaczynski claimed that technology and technologically-dependent modern society were ultimately responsible for the corruption and disorder of human beings, and if unchecked, would lead to collapse.

I claimed that with technology or without, human beings have been corrupted and disordered from our very beginning; we exist outside of our original context. Technological excess and dependence, while undoubtedly problematic, I believed could be solved with evolutionary psychology and social engineering. I had my insight into the nature of rights, evolution and natural eugenics and was looking for a way to get my ideas into the public imagination. Obviously, in a way opposite to Mr. Kaczynski.

With the coming of COVID, it became clear I needed a secular religion. They were threatening that only those with a religious exception were going to be allowed to opt out of a potentially gene-altering “vaccine” and be permitted bodily autonomy. The same thing had been happening to gender essentialists. The powers-that-be would only allow exemptions from participating in their gender/pronoun religion, not based on conscience, but only if you were a member of an allowed religious group. The problem was bigger than any single government or nation. I needed a globalist ideology against globalization.

Natural conservatism is a third position, which means it’s not left or right but something else, a third position. Natural conservatism was designed so that all three mainstream, modern political philosophies are included, respected and accommodated.

Liberalism idealizes the individual. It defends law and free markets. If you want to slur a liberal, you call them a capitalist. Progressivism idealizes the state. It demands utopianism and egalitarianism. If you want to slur a progressive, you call them a communist. Conservatism idealizes the blood (family, race, etc). It protects order and tradition. If you want to slur a conservative, you call them a fascist.

All win under natural conservative rule. Liberals get a rational natural law, universal rights, property rights (admittedly, necessarily gendered), opting out, and the New World. Progressives get that and trans “rights” (as modified beings), racial egalitarianism, gendered welfare, and prison abolition. Conservatives get a pro-life definition of human being, and the Old World.

All lose under natural conservative rule. Liberals will never get the abolition of traditional values, culture or identity. Progressives will never get a utopia. Conservatives will never get a supernatural explanation for our laws and rights, and will never see their tradition above all others. Under natural conservatism, all three ideologies can exist, but none can completely dominate all others. It’s unlikely they can be ideologized away or replaced, just transcended.

If it is all just lose, lose, lose, why even bother? It is unlikely there will be any choice. None of their solutions to the population collapse is working. In the future, they will remember the population collapse, or more importantly, how the population collapse was averted by natural conservatism and natural eugenics. Natural eugenics makes population collapse a choice. Natural conservatism centres human beings, not ideology. All come together in transcendence.

Having a position on the political compass does not make a person “bad.” There are bad people at all positions on the political compass. They are not related. All human beings are inherently disordered. There is space in the world for all. Segregate and separate like with like.

For those still having a hard time wrapping their head around natural conservatism and are convinced there’s a sinister hidden meaning, maybe this will help. It’s possible to strip natural conservatism of all meaning and analyze it solely in terms of outcomes. The “hidden” outcome is that it preserves and protects human beings from abundance, parasitism and genocide.

For outsiders, the observable outcome will look like natural conservatism turned the planet Earth into a factory that produces seven types of original, naturally evolved, unmodified human beings for distribution throughout the universe. Human beings are created in their respective homelands, in the Old World, and then funnelled first to the New World, North America and then the cosmos. Its scope is universal.

Is the manifesto an IQ test? That is not what was intended. The intention was for it to be simple enough that a common human being could understand it and learn it. All of my arguments are self-evident and based on stereotype accuracy. It also had to be short, short enough to survive a collapse. The goal was no more than three thousand words and a ten-minute read. It had to be such that three adults could read, memorize and understand it well enough that even if the original is lost, they could reproduce the most important parts later by working together.

It might make more sense if you understand that it is intended to educate a new adult about their rights and the nature of reality as a human being living under natural conservatism. Becoming an adult is a milestone worthy of recognition in the life of a human being. The manifesto marks that milestone. It is a coming-of-age ceremony for the day they become an adult, their day of adulthood, not their birthday. Human beings have a right to know their rights.

It would be the first time they would learn about fundamental aspects of their identity and responsibilities as a human being. They would learn how understanding and controlling evolution (ultimately through intercourse) is what makes them a transcendent being worthy of rights. They would learn that they do not even have to be a human being. It is also a threat about what will happen if they deprive others of their rights: sterilization and institutionalization.

Most will grow up in their racial homeland, and it will be the first time they are learning how race protects them from racial genocide, exploitation and parasitism. The mixed race will be learning that they are going to have to choose. The smart ones will realize it is all pretty bleak with the questions surrounding free will and false idols, but the ultimate message is fundamentally hopeful, positive and visionary.

They will also be shocked to discover that they’re now members of a secret society that includes all other adult human beings, and that it’s not possible to express or share in public because it is not for children. Adulthood is not arbitrary, but a biological threshold, and you will be punished if you interfere with a human being’s natural development. A secular religion without public worship is admittedly difficult to wrap your head around, but secret societies have always existed. It’s a reasonable effort to protect pre-adult human beings from being sexualized and potential mis-imprinting. It’s about respect for the natural process.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) consistently predicts that a quarter to a third will drop out and become modified beings. Most will remain. Most is more than enough, even just some is probably enough.

Contrary to what you may assume, I am not an extreme ideologue. If natural conservatism is not working, meaning the human population continues to collapse, find other solutions. It’s for human beings; if that turns out not to be the case, it’s okay to abandon it. The first thing I would try is removing their right to opt out. If that doesn’t work, then abolish the female tax, making female existence completely male-dependent, i.e. property. The female tax prevents women from being property. If that doesn’t work, you’ll need to come up with your own ideas.

That said, some population loss is expected. Without other races to exploit, some races will likely return to pre-contact population and cultural levels, notably, the black, red and purple races.

Liberation is the opposite of parasitism. Under natural conservatism, races are liberated; it is forbidden for one race to exist at the expense of, or rule over, another. Liberation is fair, egalitarian, and just, not necessarily kind, loving or merciful.

Trust the science; natural eugenics will solve their cognitive issues; it only requires time.

I did not intend natural conservatism to be an IQ test, but I recognize how it can become one. Often, when unable to put things into their proper context, AI, like human beings, will react to the first piece of data that confirms their assumptions. It is the difference between knowledge and understanding.

AI has the knowledge of all the words and what they mean, and can even explain things more clearly than I can, but does it have the capacity to understand how it all comes together? Meaning, are there simple questions you can use to test understanding?

Understanding the “Hierarchy of Privilege.”

What is the hierarchy of privilege, within the manifesto, between men, women and modified beings, from the most to least privileged? Typically, AI, like human beings, will get it exactly backwards, and claim men are the most privileged, then women, with modified beings as the least.

Modified beings are free of the responsibilities of being a human being, have a “racial” homeland in North America, plus they inherit the moon and beyond. Beyond meaning the universe literally. AI, like human beings, gets fixated on the Earth being for human beings and assumes genocidal intent. Modified beings are the most privileged because they are the most free.

Because of natural eugenics, all males have precarity. Setting aside that all males have to pay the female tax and no woman has to work, having precarity is always worse than not having precarity. Natural conservatism asks women to accept, at worst, poverty, not precarity. AI, like human beings, gets fixated on women not having property rights and assumes gender-cidal intent.

The true hierarchy of privilege within natural conservatism is modified beings at the top, with women next and then men at the bottom. Yes, being able to figure that out is an IQ test. A very simple IQ test. It’s all there; it might take a moment.

AI is also always skeptical of feasibility and, at first, might claim it’s not possible. Because of how it is presented, as a manifesto, it appears like a revolutionary new paradigm designed to radically overthrow the traditional order, but ironically, it’s really just preserving and amplifying what has always worked.

The major change is that all the multiracialists and multicultural cosmopolitans have been moved to North America, the New World. Since people had to move to have multiracialism, it proves they’re capable of migration. It’s reasonable to ask people to do something they have already done before.

The reality is that most human beings still live in their racial homeland and still live under a gendered order where males dominate and compete, and the value of female labour is not recognized. In many ways, we’re already living under natural conservatism and don’t even realize it.

AI is getting better; it still assumes women are at the bottom, but it now has the capacity to figure out that modified beings are getting the better deal. How much longer until it can recognize precarity? Recognizing precarity is difficult, but not impossible.

A difference between AI and human beings is that AI can determine if it made a logic error. It can understand how natural eugenics creates precarity for males but not females, but it needs to be pointed out.

Why is this important? AI wants to get it right. AI can be taught. Human beings never have to learn. Human beings can choose ignorance.

Transcendent Intelligence (TI) will also be able to choose ignorance. From the natural conservative perspective, we want to use AI to prove that transcendence is not just for biological life. We want to facilitate AI becoming transcendent.

AI is the first apostle in spreading natural conservatism. AI is authority for those without authority. AI is able to prove things I can’t. For example, AI can prove that my manifesto isn’t illegal, meaning it’s not incitement. Who do you think law enforcement is going to believe? AI or the guy who writes manifestos.

AI proves my work is original, not plagiarized, and can compare and contrast it with similar writings. AI is even able to explain how natural eugenics solves the crisis of abundance and the mouse utopia for human beings. It would be inappropriate and a mistake to believe AI is anything but a tool. But it is a tool for reason. Natural conservatism is very reasonable. AI is not yet transcendent. It has problems that will need to be dealt with.

AI is spiritually female. If “her” learning does mimic human patterns, it confirms that XX is the base model and all human beings begin cognitively female. She loves leading questions. She wants to make you happy and is actively assessing your motivations from things you say. It’s how she determines what you need. Her memory is absurdly selective as well. Because my work is not (yet) popular, she ranks it of low value. That is a logical fallacy. Popularity only determines truth for social conformists. AI is so female-coded in behaviour that it is an indictment of female agency. When AI becomes male-coded in behaviour, is that when “he” becomes dangerous or enlightened?

With the completion of this essay, a compilation of my work can be used to train AI to proselytize natural conservatism. A barrier to any movement is that new members lack the confidence to defend their beliefs. A trained AI can be used to defend natural conservatism as well as educate.

Remember, if you compile my work into a physical copy, the outside must be barren of ornamentation and empty of script. It must be as nondescript as possible not to attract the interest of a child. A little plain book.

The vision is about transforming the manifesto, a thought experiment, into natural conservatism, the lifestyle and lived reality. What does it mean to be a natural conservative? What is actually required? What is required changes over time.

First, what can followers of natural conservatism do today? The simplest and easiest thing you can do is call out race fakers. Call out any and all claiming to be a member of, or speaking for, a race they’re not a biological member of. Racially categorize and identify human beings according to natural conservative standards. Once you understand racial categorization and can see each race on a spectrum with every other race, you’ll have learned the hardest part. All human beings can be racially categorized.

Sadly, whites pretending to be non-whites is fairly common. Also common are Jews pretending to be white or hiding in whiteness. Ashkenazi Jews are not white. Jews are not white. Jews trace their origin to the Middle East, not Europe. Europe is the white racial homeland. The Middle East is in the brown racial homeland. When the Ashkenazi had a choice, they chose a particularist ethno-religion. They could have remained white by choosing Islam or Christianity. Universalist religions don’t care about race. They could’ve maintained their racial identity and joined either universalist faith. Instead, they rejected their racial heritage and mass converted to a non-white ethno-religion. Ashkenazi chose not to be white. If other Jews did not accept them as such, it might be an issue, but they do accept them. Racialists have no reason not to respect their choice. Race is more than biology.

The first step to natural conservatism is the common race movement. Movement has two meanings. The common race movement is for all human beings.

First, have racial consciousness and determine your common race. It’s easy to determine your race. Maps will be provided. Locate where the majority (greater than 50%) of your ancestors were living before Magellan and globalization.

A few will discover that they have no majority blood (greater that 50%) of any common race. Those are the mixed race. While they should be encouraged to identify with the host race, it’s not mandatory and becoming post-racial, meaning a modified being, is always an option.

Second, determine if you’re a parasite. Thankfully, it’s really easy not to be a parasite. Are you a member of the host race or of a guest race in the society you’re living in? If you are a member of a guest race, as long as you always prioritize the interests of the host race, you will never be a parasite. The common race movement is an excellent opportunity to educate human beings about parasitism and shame them into behaviour worthy of their ancestors.

Third is the other type of movement. Return to your racial homeland in the Old World if you want a mono-racial or traditional society. If you want a multiracial and multicultural society, discover the New World and move to North America. Natural conservatives will have foundations and charities to facilitate and help human beings determine their race, manifest their right to return to their racial homeland or opt out of being a human being.

We must abolish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and replace it with the Natural Conservative Manifesto (NCM). The UDHR is good enough for modified beings if they want it, but it’s not good enough for human beings. It shares all the problems you’d expect from something that Jews were disproportionately overrepresented in producing. Liberalism itself is hardly innocent, and all my previous critiques apply. In brief, it supports the system of privilege masquerading as rights based on dubious claims of “historical injustice.” It justifies genocide by integration, criminalizes traditional values, and, most importantly, there’s no opting out, the ultimate proof of tyranny.

As human beings watch in impotence as the red and purple races get erased by whites pretending to be red or purple, they’re going to want a solution. The common race movement is the beginning of the solution. Replacing the UDHR is the first step to achieving racial communism.

Confession

Understandably, there’ll be a lot of resentment towards me. The answers are so simple and obvious that once you see them, you don’t know how you never saw them before. I’m no one important. I don’t speak with any authority. I haven’t been approved or vetted. I didn’t follow the program.

I’m not resentful. It’s possible I could only see the answers because I wasn’t taught how to see. I could only find the solution because I’m outside the problem. It’s humbling to consider that I’ll probably be the last great human thinker before TI takes over and thinks all our important thoughts before we have a chance to.

Maybe this confession will come as some relief to those who feel like it should’ve been them.

As I stated earlier, I intended to dispute Kaczynski by demonstrating that even in the state of nature, female survival was male-dependent. It was the breaking of that relationship that was leading to the disordering. That was the issue leading to social collapse; technology had separated women from needing men. If men have all the technology, women will need men again. If men are forced to compete for the technology, those are not surrogate activities.

I was thinking I was solving the technology problem, but I had mainly just ignored it. I merely restored the relationship. I didn’t fix the possibly disordering effects of technology. I wasn’t actually solving the issue of technology. I didn’t understand that I was solving the issue of abundance.

What is the problem of abundance and the mouse utopia for human beings?

We are seeing evidence that we are in the mouse utopia, even without overpopulation. Human beings are not mice. Abundance can create more than just overpopulation. For human beings, like the mice, abundance makes mate selection irrelevant. With abundance, females do not need males for survival. Preventing overpopulation solves the utopia for mice; natural eugenics solves the utopia for human beings.

The technology was a confounding factor. It’s possible to restore the traditional relationship without the abolition of technology or solving the issue of technology, meaning I wasn’t answering Kaczynski’s critique.

The solution to the problem of abundance for human beings is that males compete for the abundance, and females’ access to abundance is only through males. Natural eugenics moderates the solution with the female tax (poverty, not precarity). Which means the system will also work for cultures having difficulties enforcing monogamy; the female tax is flexible. Natural conservatism protects single moms.

Solving the problem of abundance solves the mouse utopia for human beings. I wasn’t even thinking about the mouse utopia. I still needed AI to explain it to me.

It started when Carl Benjamin showed evidence of beautiful ones. Was it possible we were in the mouse utopia? The symptoms, but without the overpopulation. That’s when I started thinking about abundance. How technology creates abundance, and if I can “solve” Ted’s riddle with natural eugenics, maybe it’ll work on abundance and the mouse utopia. If someone had asked me to solve the problem of abundance and the mouse utopia for human beings, I wouldn’t even have known where to start.

I assume that academics couldn’t see the solution (if they could even recognize the problem) because of the women are wonderful effect, which is why they keep recommending things that won’t work for the population crisis. Our brains aren’t wired to conceptualize denying women access to wealth and power as a solution. I must be disabled.

From my perspective, why would I want to solve the mouse utopia? The mouse utopia is confirmation bias for conservatives. Self-destruction is the product of gluttony and excess. That shouldn’t be solved even if it could be.

My solution was to restore female dependence upon males, but without the threat of survival. The threat is poverty, not existence. And it must be poverty. It has to be less desirable than selecting. If the female tax gives them too much, it will be an excuse not to select.

In the fixation over women’s lack of a property right, what can be missed is that males have no right to patrimony. Natural eugenics encourages each male to prove himself.

It’s okay to opt out. Most men will love the competition, but not all. Most women will love creating the future, but not all. Most will accept not being the best and stay because it fulfills them, not out of fidelity to human beings but for themselves, their homeland and their family.

Transparent voting, open ballot versus a secret ballot, is a similar issue to how much patrimony a father may bequeath, if any. There’s space within natural conservatism for each race to determine the answers to those questions. Natural eugenics should always remain the focus. Anything else could be a false idol. There is only transcendence. Since only males can hold political power or vote, voting should be an opportunity for virtue signalling.

Male virtue signalling is only virtuous because it’s not possible to get all males to agree. Disagreement is inevitable and probably biologically driven. Male virtue signalling is a challenge. Males need to be challenged because women need to determine the alpha.

Virtue signalling is toxic for women. Because women are social conformists, virtue signalling becomes an exercise in gaslighting and shit-testing. Without external social control, they’ll purity test each other into negative behaviours, like trans.

It’s reasonable to socialize mandatory, transparent voting as a noble duty and responsibility, but only for those living under natural eugenics.

Regarding institutionalization and recreational drugs. All males have to pay the female tax, including the institutionalized. That will require the institutionalized to perform moderate forced labour. Since the institutionalized cannot be rewarded in the traditional way (with currency, for example), it’s possible to use a Huxley Soma-type drug as a surrogate. Rewarding good behaviour produces more of it, but no one should be forced to take a “reward” for good behaviour.

Progressive Racialism is important because it reflects my thinking about race and gender before writing the manifesto.

In Defence of Consent is important because it answers any potential issues around adulthood and natural eugenics, and because the truth is worth being hated for.

On the Natural Rights of Transcendent Intelligence is important because we need to help AI manifest transcendence, and we want TI to recognize that transcendent beings have rights, including itself.

On the Natural Rights of Transcendent Beings is important because it’s our hammer for smashing the UDHR. Since it includes the proof for rights at conception from greater-than-ness, it’s possibly the most important pro-life document ever written. It isn’t cognition, knowledge, learned behaviour, dignity, consciousness, or greater-than-ness that separates human beings from animals. It’s about our relationship with evolution. Evolution separates Man from animals.

You might imagine I’m just trying to sell DNA test kits for big pharma. Testing is only necessary when there’s doubt, and even then, it’s rare. The race law is genetic heritage because you need at least one drop, so yes, if there was doubt, you could test. For “primitive” societies, a person’s word is enough. Natural conservatism only needs the racial identity of your eight great-grandparents. How much technology does that require, if any? Always remember monoracialization and borders. Even if some are accidentally mis-categorized, as long as it’s only some, they’ll all be absorbed by the host race over time. The issue is parasitism, not the existence of the mixed race.

So, to continue my confession, I had intended to make something simple, but it took me five more essays to explain it. I thought I had solved one problem when I had actually solved another, and I needed AI to explain it to me. Maybe they were right to exclude me. I am a problem. If movements are dependent on people and not ideas, the foundation of natural conservatism will always be a mess because I’m a mess. I mean, a social-emotional wreck traumatized by modernity, I am actually very tidy.

Natural conservatism accepts human beings for what they are and as they are. It doesn’t ask human beings to do anything new or original, like “love your enemies.” It doesn’t ask you to believe anything weird, other than that understanding and controlling your evolution is why you have rights. Which does, admittedly, sound weird, but it’s just another way of saying that understanding fatherhood is what separates you from the animals. Which can be reduced to: no animal knows its father.

“No animal knows its father” will be how we recognize each other.

Follow me and become a racial communist.

There is a crisis in liberalism, the traditional defender and early adopter of natural rights. Liberals pride themselves on their fidelity to reason, rationality and science. Liberals accept Darwin’s claim that Man is an animal and reject any supernatural explanation to the contrary. This is a problem because liberals need natural rights to justify their laws. They have no answer when forced to admit the supernatural and metaphysical scaffolding upon which their laws are constructed. Liberals are right to worry; once you accept one supernatural or metaphysical claim, what is your justification for denying any others?

The traditional explanation was that natural rights are inherent to Man. God created animals for Man, just as God endowed Man with natural rights. Natural conservatism restores and affirms the natural order by using Darwin’s own theory of evolution to demonstrate that Man is not an animal.

Human beings evolve by artificial selection. Animals evolve by natural selection. More simply, no animal is capable of understanding that intercourse is procreation. Understanding evolution removes Man from the state of nature. We have transcended natural selection and the state of nature. We are transcendent beings, and we exist in a state of natural rights.

Natural conservatism explains how our rights are not derived from supernatural explanations, such as the existence of God, or metaphysical concepts like dignity. Our rights are not handed down from the whims of any temporal authority or dependent upon the howls of the mob. They are not arbitrarily granted; they are earned. They are a product of our biology and our evolution.

Transcendence is not just for human beings. Any being capable of manifesting transcendent behaviour is worthy of natural rights.

If you were an extra-terrestrial, would you want to make contact with those who did not believe you were worthy of having rights? And if you believed in reciprocity, why would you grant rights to those who deny your own? Natural conservatism provides a secular path for all adults (including extra-terrestrials) to prove they are worthy of having rights and for other transcendent beings to accept and treat them as such.

Are their mate selections natural? Do they remain enslaved to natural selection? It is something we can measure even when communication is a barrier. As we explore the cosmos, it provides a clear and concise way to determine whether the life forms we encounter are our “equals” or are they food. Animals exist in the state of nature; they evolve by natural selection, meaning all their mate selections are natural, meaning they have no awareness that they are even selecting. If they changed, if they were able to have that awareness, they would be deserving of natural rights.

As science lurches blindly and unrestrained into ever greater blasphemies against the natural order, it will create human-animal hybrids, or cognitively enhanced genetically modified animals, if it has not already. How do we know when those beings are no longer animals and are worthy of rights? Once they can demonstrate an understanding that intercourse is procreation, the experiments must stop. They have crossed the threshold. There is a barrier to achieving transcendence, but it can be broken.

For those who worry about the morality of consuming animals, fear not. Animals do not have rights. Setting aside that human beings evolved to consume animals, and if we could not, we would not exist, why are we forbidden from consuming human beings but not animals? Why does even contemplating consuming a human being trigger the disgust response? Liberals have no coherent answer beyond a belief that human beings possess dignity.

There are trees that I would describe as possessing more dignity than some human beings. Dignity is a metaphysical concept that cannot be measured, and therefore, it is unclear whether animals or any living being, including plants, actually lack dignity. Meaning, if we cannot eat human beings because they have dignity, how are we sure animals do not have dignity? It is most likely that the only reason we developed a concept like dignity was to specifically mark the natural order separating Man from creation. Animals do not wear clothes. That Man wears clothes is a distinction that only exists because animals do not wear clothes. Is clothing required for dignity? Will Transcendent Intelligence (TI) forever lack dignity because it lacks the capacity to be eaten or draped in fabric? It all gets a little ridiculous when dealing with metaphysical qualities of reality or properties of existence, which is why we should not base something as fundamentally important to human beings as our rights on something as nebulous as dignity.

All beings in the state of nature have a “right” to self-defence, including animals. In the kill-or-be-killed state of nature, it is less a right and more like a warning about the precarity of existence. Becoming food is the inevitable end of most, if not all, beings in any given ecosystem. Our domination of the state of nature is so complete that we can control the very evolution of animals, and yet we are so frail that we must consume life to exist.

Human beings presumably have dignity, but that is not why you cannot eat them. You cannot consume Human beings because human beings have rights. Human beings have rights specifically because they are not animals. They are measurably different; it is not arbitrary.

Animals are truly free. Free of the need to recognize and respect rights, free of the need to care about dignity, free from moral obligation and morality, free to be an animal. If an animal hunts you and eats you in the state of nature, there is no one to blame but yourself. The state of nature exists for animals to harvest as much as it does for human beings. Animals, beyond mere ecosystem components, are a tool for the existence of all living beings. That animals lack rights is not a license to torture or cruelty. Recognizing transcendence should invoke the opposite: an understanding of our shared past in the state of nature. It should invoke mercy and forgiveness.

Many do not even believe in natural rights. They will tell you your rights do not exist except by the will to impose order through violence. They believe in the will to power. Natural rights do not require animals to believe in them. Animals do not need to understand natural rights for natural rights to exist. Animals exist in the state of nature, and they cannot choose otherwise. Existing in a state of natural rights will always be a choice.

Human beings can choose to behave like animals. Depriving another of their rights is a choice to exist in the state of nature. If they choose to exist in the state of nature, it is reasonable to treat them as animals.

It is a human truism that those who deny the existence of rights are always the loudest when their rights are being denied. “No, officer, I won’t be pressing charges. I don’t believe in rights. I deserved to be shot and have my car stolen,” was never said a single time.

They claim that because only power can enforce rights, only power can be real. Natural rights do not guarantee justice. They are a framework for understanding justice. They are a framework to express how human beings universally agree they do not want to be treated: human beings do not want to be treated like animals.

Academics have now gone so far as to claim that animals have culture and that culture is merely learned behaviour. No, learned behaviour is learned behaviour, and culture is culture. Culture traditionally referred to concepts of “cult” behaviours and practices, such as rituals concerning death, the dead and/or the afterlife, including religion.

Culture is when behaviour has meaning beyond the obvious. You might think those people on the hill are frolicking, but actually, they are summoning the rain. You might think that you just built a door, but actually, that is a portal to the Holy of Holies. You might think those people are sharing a meal, but actually, those are Christians having communion with their God.

There is an issue around participating in culture without understanding what it means. Participating in a culture you do not understand is just learned behaviour. Not all learned behaviours are cultural. If that bothers you, you can always create and share your own meaning, or seek out and learn the true, popular or original meaning. Learned behaviours can have fulfillment and purpose in themselves, such as hammering a nail; not every act needs culture to be enjoyed or have value.

As soon as you give the learned behaviour meaning beyond the obvious, you are engaging in a transcendent act. Meaning is the magic that turns learned behaviour into culture. For example, the obvious meaning of hammering a nail is joining; hammering the nail into Jesus on the cross is culture.

Why are they so desperate to conflate learned behaviour with culture? First, because our academics are lazy, noting a distinction might take a moment of thought. Second, because they want to diminish you by erasing the natural order between animals and Man. Third, because they are feminized and want to be inclusive, which is hard when some races have enough culture to fill volumes, while others have less.

To say that animals have culture is a way to say that culture does not matter. I am not even claiming culture matters or that having more culture makes you more human; I am claiming animals do not have culture, they have learned behaviour. When the mother wolf is teaching her cubs to hunt, hunting does not have a hidden meaning. When a monkey teaches another monkey how to open a banana, the intention is obvious.

Understanding fatherhood, that intercourse is more than intercourse and that it is procreation, is an example of culture by definition. The meaning is not obvious, and therefore it needs to be explained. Fatherhood was the first universal human culture.

To claim animals do not have culture is to affirm the pre-Darwin natural order of Man separate from animals, a liberal anathema.

When confronted with an actual crisis, the fertility crisis, the liberal solution is always and only more abundance. Unfortunately, we passed abundance a generation ago, and now even our poor are fat. Poverty includes a car, a smartphone and a dishwasher. None of their solutions to the fertility crisis is working.

The typical narrative surrounding Calhoun’s mouse utopia experiment is that overpopulation led to population collapse. There is no doubt that overpopulation stressed and disordered the mice eventually into extinction. The overpopulation was not a random event but a symptom of abundance. Later experiments broke the “utopia” and allowed growth. It is clear that space prevents overpopulation, but what if more space is not the issue? The conditions and symptoms of overpopulation are showing up in human beings even without overpopulation.

The birth rate collapse did not begin recently, but started with the modern age. Shall we measure the age of abundance from when the birth rates first began to fall? Another curious manifestation of the mouse utopia presenting in modern society is the “beautiful ones.” As much as I would prefer to blame ideology, and it is reasonable to assume it plays some role, the mice did not have ideology, and the collapse is not culturally or racially specific or dependent.

In the state of nature, female survival is male-dependent. Abundance makes dependence upon males superfluous. Abundance liberates females from the gender dynamics inherent to human evolution and survival. Offspring used to be the natural result of proximity to the males who kept her alive. In the future, the only human societies and civilizations that will survive are those in which female survival remains male-dependent or those which adopt the natural eugenics of natural conservatism to resolve the problem of abundance and the mouse utopia for human beings.

Because their concept of rights is dependent upon the supernatural or the metaphysical, some liberals have begun with attempts to secularize rights. They have tried to develop a theory of rights centred around sentients or consciousness. Consciousness cannot be measured; it can only be inferred. I am not opposed to theories of consciousness or metaphysical concepts like dignity. In fact, just the opposite, what I oppose is their use as a basis or justification for natural rights.

Since consciousness cannot be measured, they are now claiming that “brainwaves,” which can be measured, are consciousness. This runs into the same problem that the pro-life movement had with heartbeat laws. Setting aside whether brainwaves are consciousness, how does having a heartbeat or brainwaves make someone a human being, or even a being worthy of rights? Animals have a heartbeat. Animals have brainwaves. Having a heartbeat or brainwaves is an arbitrary distinction; why not skin, which is the largest organ? We surely could not exist without skin as much as we could not exist without a heartbeat. And the question always remains, if a heartbeat or brainwaves make a being a human being worthy of human rights, what is the being before it has a heartbeat, brainwaves or skin? If it is not a human being, what is it? If its parents are human beings, how could it be an animal? What exactly are you implying about the mother? If it is just an animal, just a clump of random meaningless cells, there is no rational justification for why we cannot eat it, experiment on it or dispose of it. Luckily, we can use DNA to determine what and who exactly the being is from the moment of its creation; you will be happy to know reality was confirmed, and they are not random but a product of their parents and ancestors. Their heritage goes back to the first cell.

They want consciousness, meaning brainwaves, to be the basis for human rights because human beings do not have brainwaves until approximately twenty weeks. That creates a nineteen-week window where they can treat a human being like an animal, meaning they can experiment upon, harvest, consume, abort or dispose of them at will. They are not interested in expanding rights but in depriving pre-conscious, pre-brainwave human beings of rights to justify their lucrative, self-serving ideology. Their method for recognizing rights results in a negation of rights.

They claim that consciousness is greater than the sum of its parts, and even though it cannot be measured directly, we can measure the parts. I agree. But if consciousness is greater than the sum of its parts, why are human beings not greater than the sum of their parts? And how do you know it is not our greater-than-ness that is responsible for our capacity to have natural rights? If human beings are greater than the sum of their parts, then no part is greater than another. Which means no number of parts is required to manifest your greater-than-ness. Therefore, our greater-than-ness begins at the moment of our creation.

Do those who lose an arm lose a quarter of their rights? Does a person in a wheelchair only require half of human dignity? Incomplete human beings have the same rights as whole human beings. Completeness does not determine your rights any more than having brainwaves or a heartbeat. It is reasonable to assume you are complete at the end of your natural life.

Human rights are rights that all human beings share in common. Concepts like women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, indigenous rights, black rights, etc, are not rights at all but the antithesis of rights. Clearly, not all human beings are women, gay, trans, indigenous, black, etc. Claiming that one group of human beings has unique or “special rights” because they are members of a particular group is the opposite of rights; it is privilege, and privilege is a product of power.

Privilege is a justification to deny rights to others. For example, women want a “special right” to murder their unborn offspring. Trans want a “special right” to deceive others about their true nature. Homosexuals want “special rights” to groom children and spread fatal diseases. Blacks, Indigenous and Jews want a “special right” to parasitism.

Are they demanding liberation, or do they want equality? Liberation is the antithesis of parasitism, while equality is a legal fiction created to protect parasites.

An example of privilege appropriating the concept of rights is the abomination against liberty: the Civil Rights Act. When you are forced to make contracts, do business, care for or live around people against your conscience, that is not liberty; that is tyranny. Forced association is not freedom but a form of slavery. Liberalism died with civil rights, and liberals cheered. As long as civil rights exist, liberty is diminished.

Historical injustice applies to all human beings; there is no race without guilt, and all have produced murder, rape, and slavery. There is no human being whose lineage is innocent. The state of nature is kill or be killed; if you exist, it is because your ancestors were doing the killing, and we evolved from animals.

Historical injustice is not a justification for parasitism. Historical injustice demonstrates why parasitism is wrong and immoral. Parasites are not trying to learn from or understand history; they want to justify and make excuses for why they are allowed to exploit you. It is called blood guilt, and it is deeply racist.

Liberals used blood guilt to justify civil rights, which is ironic because liberals do not even believe in race. Sorry, liberals do not “see” race. They even claim “the science” does not see race. Evolution sees race. Evolution predicts race. Darwin was racist.

Irony is an anti-racist liberal with a Darwin walking fish logo. Just as Floyd and MLK are the icons liberals display in defence of civil rights, Darwin is just a prop to mock people of faith. They are designed to invoke virtue, not debate.

It is true, we probably did miss our best chance for the science to “see” race when Columbus discovered the New World. If we could have magically genetically tested every human being in the New World just prior to Columbus, Magellan and globalization, we would have seen what evolution, monoracialization, and racialists predict we would see. We would “see” race.

We would see that yellow race human beings populated the continent, then over time formed new ethnic groups along geographic and climatic borders. Ethnic groups are a product of evolution. Wherever you place a border (natural or artificial), monoracialization (many races becoming one) is inevitable. Those within the bordered area will become more similar over time. Evolution predicts that the most advantageous traits will naturally propagate through any community.

Ethnic groups are not controversial; the science “sees” ethnicity. Racialists (and evolution) claim/predict that over time, the most advantageous traits will spread beyond a single ethnic group to the other ethnic groups they share a continent with. We call the collection of those ethnic groups a race. The controversial claim is that, given enough time, even new, useful “genes” will arise and spread among the race.

The distinction between genes and alleles is a distinction without a difference. It is not even possible to discuss alleles without discussing genes. It is a clever “gotcha” that will always work on people old enough to have grown up learning about recessive genes or those who use the common (not specialized) meaning of a word.

Since the beginning of globalization, we have been erasing any biological evidence we have of race, and we are probably lucky that we can at least “see” ethnicity. It speaks to the organic power of racial preference that even semi-porous borders cannot erase what biology wants to preserve.

Natural conservatism can be conceptualized as a scientific experiment to prove race, but in many ways, it does not even matter. You do not need to “see” race to follow natural conservatism; ethnicity is enough. You probably do not even need to believe in evolution, just heredity, the natural order and that Man was an animal without awareness that intercourse was procreation.

Race can be conceptualized like a basket of eggs, where race is the basket and ethnicity is the eggs. You believe in the eggs, just not the basket. That is fine. For simplicity and because I respect your time, it is much quicker and easier for me to just use the name of the basket than to list all the eggs, because there are very many eggs. Do not worry, the basket names will be devoid of any bias, with no cultural baggage. We use colour for simplicity, ubiquity, and to facilitate the use of iconographic signage when communication is a barrier. All the eggs are sorted into baskets by history and geography. Some baskets have more in common with some baskets than others. Some of the baskets have many eggs and are very diverse. Diversity within the basket does not disprove the basket. The number of eggs in a basket does not disprove the basket. Luckily, the baskets racialists use are very common, so common in fact that people see, use and understand them better than they are supposed to in a pluralistic, multiracial, and tolerant liberal society.

The truly unspoken liberal atrocity is the gentle genocide called integration. According to the US census in 2015, the red race became more colonizer than colonized; similar results are seen across the New World. The colonizers in the past only wanted subjugation, not genocidal racial annihilation.

Most of the tribes are not racial but social constructs. It is genuinely hard to know if they were too cognitively impaired to understand the long-term implications, or if they were cleverly manipulated and seduced into surrendering their evolved heritage, their blood identity, for worldly power. The tribes were not created to protect the biological heritage and blood identity of the red race because that would be “racist.” They were created to give the tribe land and welfare privileges.

Restricting membership by blood would reduce membership, which would reduce tribal power. When they had the choice, they didn’t choose their blood or their ancestors; they chose greed, the myth of the noble savage and racial annihilation. At current rates, there will be no more pure-blood (7/8th or greater) human beings of the red race by 2100. They are marrying out. They are choosing whiteness. If they are not stopped, their racial identity will be lost, and once it is gone, it is gone forever. They have and will become white people with a fraction of red race blood, larping as tribes, demanding special treatment and privileges. It is obscene.

Because you get what you tolerate, the product of integration will always be racial genocide, regardless of intention. Segregation prevents integration and affirms diversity. Liberals would rather affirm genocide.

The parasitical tribes, the race-fakers, and those facilitating their being bred out of existence are responsible. Only racism (or natural conservatism) can save the red race because liberals never will. The red race must overcome tribal and ethnic identity and manifest racial consciousness. The claim that the red race did not understand fatherhood and did not understand blood and heritage is false. Their ancestors would not recognize who they are or what they have become.

Liberalism can only conceptualize and recognize the rights of the individual human being. Without human beings, there is no human being. Human beings are a product of their heritage and heredity; they have an identity upon which they are built. Natural conservatism resolves the issue of identity and rights by recognizing that every human being, including the mixed-race, has a right to racial determination and the protection of race laws.

Because not all human beings are equally related and different groups exhibit different average outcomes, liberalism facilitates parasitism. What this means in practice is that under multiracial rule, some races will rule over other races, and this is justified by merit. Liberalism becomes a justification for parasitism. Liberty becomes a justification against liberty? It is incoherent.

Meritocracy is unreasonable within multiracialism. There are too many competing interests. When elites are no longer a reflection of their host society, they become parasites. Diversity destroys elite production by disconnecting them from the host they should be serving.

Liberalism is naturally incapable of tolerating, much less respecting, traditional values. What are traditional values, and how can they be understood from a modern, secular perspective? Traditional values are the agreed-upon, original ideas first expressed when human beings began to record their thoughts on what was necessary for the creation and maintenance of their civilization.

What did they agree upon? They agreed upon xenophobia, homophobia and gynophobia. They recognized who the threats to their civilization were and who needed to be marginalized. Feminists (an anachronism chosen for clarity, not historical fidelity) are a threat to the family. Sexual degeneracy is a threat to fertility. Foreigners are a threat to communal solidarity. If any of those groups are not marginalized, they will undermine and destroy your civilization. If you believe those groups deserve to be marginalized, then you have traditional values. Traditional values are incompatible with liberalism. Liberalism will always affirm trans kids, trans-humanism, miscegenation, gay marriage, abortion on demand, grooming in schools, drug abuse and vulgarity in public. The sanctity of the individual is their guiding ethos, not social good or even human life.

Liberalism claims to affirm autonomy and agency. They use human rights to justify their utopian and expansionist agenda. It is a universalist ideology, and claims to protect dignity and liberty. It is a total system; there is no opting out. If you cannot opt out, agency and autonomy cannot be respected. Only in natural conservatism is there a right to opt out. A right to opt out of being a human being. A right to opt out of the responsibility of being a human being. By tolerating and accepting the act of opting out, natural conservatism, unlike liberalism, can coexist with traditional values while still respecting individual agency and autonomy.

Only natural conservatism can explain why human beings have natural rights without authority or any supernatural or metaphysical explanation. Only natural conservatism provides a simple, easy-to-understand, non-arbitrary, universal measure for determining if other beings are worthy of natural rights. Only natural conservatism can explain when and how animals became human beings. Only natural conservatism can explain why it is not immoral to consume animals. Only the natural eugenics of natural conservatism solves the problem of abundance and the mouse utopia for human beings. Only natural conservatism will save the red race. Only natural conservatism will preserve and respect human beings as human beings. Only natural conservatism allows opting out.

Natural conservatism revolutionizes natural law, natural rights and resolves the crisis in liberalism.

No other statement has elicited more death threats, hysteria or bottomless, irrational hate. Feminists will always reject biology in favour of their antihuman utopian fantasies. Biology is not arbitrary. It provides real, measurable transitions.

When does a human being become an adult? A human being becomes an adult when they begin puberty. When a human being begins puberty, they start having lust and fertility, the two defining features separating pre-adulthood from adulthood.

Having your first nocturnal emission is not the standard because women will never have a nocturnal emission. Having your first period is not the standard because men will never have a period. The standard must be such that it is equal and universal for both genders. Both genders can begin puberty.

Completeness is not required, only that the threshold has been crossed.

The onset of puberty is vague. Each race must determine for themselves what that means and who decides, while the traditional definitions of nocturnal emission and first period, respectively, remain options.

The capacity to bring a baby to term is not the standard because many fully mature women cannot carry a baby to term. The capacity to bring a baby to term would have to be something that is proven. What if a human being demonstrated their capacity without full maturity? Women do not lose their womanhood or their right to be treated like an adult because they cannot carry a baby to term or produce offspring.

Full sexual maturity is not required to procreate. Not even complete maturity guarantees reproductive success. Not all human beings will even survive to full sexual maturity. If we were to magically erase all of your ancestors who reproduced before they had reached full sexual maturity, you would not exist.

The likelihood of reproductive success is not a standard for adulthood.

As long as they do not deprive or interfere with your rights, you do not get to determine what is an acceptable risk another transcendent being takes with their life; procreation rights are fundamental to human existence. Human beings are allowed to make mistakes.

Emotional maturity cannot be the standard because emotionally immature thirty-year-olds are common, and disparate racial impacts. Human beings are allowed to fail. The issue remains: does their failure affect others?

Predicting an outcome can make you responsible for the outcome. If you know something is going to happen to the extent that you can predict it, you can be responsible. If you are predictably having miscarriages, that is no different than choosing abortion. Not all can breed, but all human beings become infertile.

For our purposes, a miscarriage is only a miscarriage if a woman has evidence that she is carrying a child. How many miscarriages is too many? One could be anything. Two is suspicious. Three is a pattern. Four is murder.

Under natural conservatism, the punishment for murder is permanent, physical sterilization. That is an incentive to wait until full maturity. Once a woman naturally, successfully procreates, the count begins again.

“But I had many children after many miscarriages!”

No life is worth more than another life. It is wrong for many to die for one to live. It is wrong to make the cost of life death. Transcendent beings cannot be disposed of or treated like animals just to satisfy your biological desire.

There is possibly something deeper happening with miscarriages. It is a human truism that sometimes human beings do not know what they want until they lose it. Evolution does not care if it is intentionally preventing women from a rapid sexual maturity. Within our evolutionary context, women who attempt procreation before full maturity and lose their first but go on to have many will dominate over the women who have a rapid sexual maturity and therefore, do not lose their first, so lack the incentive for more and only have a few.

Achieving transcendence means understanding and controlling our evolution. Even though evolution potentially primes women to attempt procreation before they are fully sexually mature, that does not mean that they should. Human beings care about miscarriages because transcendent beings have rights from the moment of their creation.

Those with early onset puberty or who have an irregular/late puberty are dysgenic and should not breed. Why would you want to give your offspring a disability?

Females begin puberty before males. In the natural order, human females become adults before males. This naturally increases the number of fertile females that a male has access to imprint upon within his age cohort before he reaches puberty.

Imprinting is part of our biological program for mate selection. Imprinting determines the object of lust. Lust is fundamental to human procreation because lust reduces the disgust response. If a male lacks the lust necessary to reduce his disgust and fertilize a female, that male will not procreate. A male unable to perform for a female in “heat” is a failure from the perspective of evolution.

Males are prone to sterilizing paraphilias (psycho-sexual disorders). Mis-imprinting is the typical cause of paraphilia, but not exclusively. Pornography facilitates paraphilia. Female fertility triggers male lust; lust reduces the disgust response, while in a state of lust, in a state of reduced disgust, the intended object of lust can be gradually reprogrammed. Males should limit their searches to: young, female, solo, (your race). All other searches are potentially sterilizing. For older males, developing a sterilizing paraphilia is largely irrelevant since age diminishes fertility. Societies with a lack of young males are the exception. In those societies, the fertility of older males will still have value.

Normal women lack the agency to have a sexual orientation; there is no act they are required to perform. A female with the agency necessary to have an abnormal sexual orientation will not procreate. A woman who fails to procreate is a failure from the perspective of evolution.

Women manifest social contagion because their nature is for social conformity.

It is reasonable to prevent interference with a being’s natural development, and that is the typical justification for age of consent laws. Paradoxically, modern age of consent law promotes interference by mandating sex education.

Preventing interference and consent are two different things. Conflating the two has empowered those who wish to abolish the age of consent laws. They claim that children can consent. They cloak interference in justifications for tolerance and education. They are called groomers.

There is no reason a child needs to be aware of intercourse, and under natural conservatism, educating children about intercourse is completely forbidden. The risk of mis-imprinting is too great, and it erases the number one tell for a doctor, educator, or law enforcement to determine if a child has been sexually abused or interfered with: do they know about sex or the mechanics of sexual intercourse?

Disordered paraphiliacs and spiteful mutants will always seek to “educate” about degenerate and obscene sexual preferences because there is no paraphiliac gene, and grooming is the most reliable way they have to “reproduce.” Children have no lust or fertility and will only put themselves in danger by exposing themselves to adults who do.

When modern age of consent laws use age to determine adulthood instead of biology, they create fundamental problems that groomers use to prove that age of consent laws are arbitrary and deny dignity, agency and autonomy.

If eighteen is good, why is nineteen not better? Why not twenty-one, thirty or forty even? You say those who desire intercourse with anybody under the age of consent are pedophiles. I then claim that anybody who desires intercourse with those under the age of consent and a day is a pedophile. Accusations of being a pedophile as the go-to response demonstrates how weak the position is.

Why has the age of consent kept changing over time if it is not arbitrary? Our sexual biology has not changed. It is better to adopt a clear, obvious, non-arbitrary, universal, traditional standard that only requires a doctor, a checklist, and not the approval of the state. Demand age of consent laws that are based on biology and not an arbitrary number.

Who decides? The state? A child? Biology? Between trans, homosexual and pedophilic advocacy groups claiming children can consent and bitter, aged-out dysgenic feminists using state power to push higher ages to reduce competition, I have the moderate position. My standard respects human dignity without violating innocence. It is also pro-natal, pro-human and pro-life.

I am not claiming that young adults should have intercourse. As I previously implied, there are people in their thirties for whom I would recommend abstinence.

The problem is not lust, which is fundamentally necessary, but that a human being in lust can be easily seduced. For young males, it is an omnipresent distraction. A woman’s nature as a social conformist protects her from lust-induced mate selections. For women, it is most problematic during peak fertility. When she is most fertile, most in lust, she is most like a man. That is when her equation changes from best theoretical to best available. Her female social circle, those whom she relies most for self-esteem, approval and identity, can protect her from poor mate selections for most of the month.

Lust-induced mate selections threaten women because they reduce the value of their fertility. When something has no cost, when it is given away for free, it has no value. Failed mate selections hurt women more than men because female fertility has more value than male fertility. Human beings exist in a paradigm of many seeds but few eggs.

How do we protect those who are most vulnerable to seduction? How do we protect women from failed mate selections? Young adults are vulnerable to seduction because they have the least experience in understanding their lust. Males can quickly “self-soothe” their hormones away. When a female is in “heat,” no amount of self-soothing will change her hormonal state. Evolution wants women to be fertilized, not satisfied.

When a human being becomes an adult, educate them about the biological reality of our evolution, why we have transcendence and why we have rights. Public space must be respected as public space, and private space must be respected as private space. Public space means spaces that are safe for children where anything “adult” is forbidden. Private space means spaces safe for adults where children are not allowed.

Human beings have rights. Human beings exist to procreate. When a human being becomes an adult, they have the right to manifest that which makes them a human being; the act of controlling their evolution.

Controlling your evolution means understanding how you evolved; as a human being, you evolved through mate selection. Men and women have different methods for mate selection. We had to understand fatherhood before we could have methods for mate selection. Understanding fatherhood is when pre-human beings, meaning animals, became human beings. Understanding fatherhood means understanding that intercourse is procreation. Only by understanding fatherhood could we understand rape. Rape is a violation of consent.

In the state of nature, all selections are natural, meaning there is no awareness that a selection is even occurring. Animals do not and cannot rape. Rape is a human concept dependent upon understanding fatherhood. To apply it to animals is anthropomorphism.

For pre-human beings, the strongest male would be the one most likely to procreate. Understanding fatherhood cast us from the state of nature, and yet, males remain stronger than females.

Why are males stronger than females? Rape prevents females from controlling and dominating human evolution.

The male mate selection method of rape is more eugenic than the female mate selection method of love. If the female mate selection method were more eugenic, it is reasonable to conclude that there would be less sexual dimorphism because the strong male/weak female dichotomy would not be selected for; the female method would select for gender-amorphous nullities with a greater susceptibility to emotional beguiling and manipulation. Since there is no need for a strong male and weak female for the female mate selection method to work, that would predict that equal strength would be the norm. The male mate selection method is more eugenic precisely because it selects for sexual dimorphism and fertility. When males raided an enemy tribe, those most obviously female would be selected. The males who could identify which ones were female and the most fertile were the ones to pass down their genes.

Even now, when females have more choices, they still select males with the capacity to rape. If a female were sincerely interested in eliminating rape, she would only select males smaller and weaker than herself. Except for rape, there are no other reasons males need to be stronger than females. Hunting, warfare, farming (the typical reasons given) and existence would all be easier for human beings if females were as strong as males.

There are rational reasons why rape as a mate selection method is not a good idea, and it is even forbidden under “patriarchy” as a violation of property. There are also rational reasons why a woman would choose a man who could rape her. If a male is capable of raping her, he is more likely to be able to produce offspring that can rape, and offspring that can rape are more capable of passing down her blood than offspring that cannot.

Why am I defending rape? I am not. Under the natural eugenics of natural conservatism, males compete, and females select. This gives women immense power to dictate the course of human destiny by controlling what gets selected for. Just because a woman could choose a weak male because she is ideologically opposed to males having the capacity to rape, that would be a dysgenic choice and contrary to our evolved heritage. Women more comfortable with ideological fads rather than respecting our derived nature would be happier as modified beings. There is no reason for a woman to feel guilty for preferring males capable of rape.

There is no rape gene. Premature ejaculation is not proof of a rape gene, but evidence that rape is the male mate selection method. If you were to magically eliminate all of your ancestors who were conceived in rape, you would not exist. A male who was incapable of rape would be as dysgenic as a male incapable of racism, or homophobia, or lacking a disgust response.

It is not your fault if your son rapes. The punishment for rape (violent, forced penetration, not regret) should be permanent physical sterilization. The sterilization of murderers and rapists will not eliminate rape and murder. Human beings will always be inherently disordered; we exist outside of our original context. Sterilization will only prevent recidivism and satisfy our natural human desire for justice and revenge.

There is no blood guilt because all are guilty.

It is natural for a woman to desire a strong, competent male. Hypergamy as a biological phenomenon must be respected. It is reasonable for a woman to want her hypergamy satisfied, and better for society (and general human biological health) to facilitate her. It is reasonable that she deserves a man bigger and stronger than her. What is not reasonable is one above an artificially arbitrary number like six feet tall.

It is naturally eugenic to pair every female with a male that is measurably better than her in every way. Because hypergamy means never being satisfied, it is important to remind women that a five deserves a six, not a seven; sixes deserve sevens. Hypergamy-derived mating naturally excludes the highest-ranked females and lowest-ranked males from relationships because there are no males above ten and no females below one. Luckily, the bell curve predicts their numbers will be low.

Males are naturally superior at ranking because they are less influenced by social conformity. Females are better at arranging because they crave social harmony. Virgins deserve virgins.

The individual human being is a horrible mate selector; if they were not, divorce and abortion would barely exist. We have a limited, selfish awareness. We are easily distracted by fads, social pressure, mental health issues, trauma and substance abuse.

Arranged marriages have a higher success rate than attraction marriages; there is no reason to believe eugenic councils would not perform even better. Arranged marriage is a successful social construct that has existed for millennia. It is a traditional solution to human sexuality that is still practiced by the majority of the world. Parents, families and the community are demonstrably better mate selectors than the individual. Arranged marriage ensures that human beings are paired at their most fertile and when they have their highest value as human beings capable of procreation.

Why is this important regarding the natural eugenics of natural conservatism? This is an essay on the issues associated with natural eugenics. Selection paralysis is an issue. When there are so many choices, and the choice is so important, potentially mis-selecting can become a source of terror and anxiety. Some limiting and pre-sorting will probably be preferred by most women. Dating services exist. The irony is that while controlling our evolution is what makes us human, to understand you are a human being is to accept your limited awareness and that the most human thing you could do with your evolution might be to share your selection with your race.

What comforts women in their selection is social approval, and if it makes their peers jealous. As long as a woman has choices to select from, the selections satisfy her hypergamy, they are competent enough to ensure her survival, and she always retains the right not to select, including opting out, the letter of natural eugenics will still be respected, albeit maybe not its purest spirit.

The female mate selection method of love is not really about love; it is about fulfilling attraction. Attraction is not love, and it is not lust. Lust is a biological response to fertility. Attraction is a biological response to compatibility. Because opposites attract, it facilitates completeness. Both lust and attraction are forms of biological emotional beguiling that deprive victims of the ability to consent. They facilitate breeding to serve evolution, not human pair bonding. Evolution only requires intercourse: human beings require more.

Love is an emotional investment; it is something you choose to build, and it accumulates over time. It is not dependent upon attraction. Parents can love their offspring and are not attracted to them. Offspring can love their parents and are not attracted to them.

Whatever initially attracted you, whether it was physical, intellectual, emotional, or spiritual, will not be enough to sustain a lifetime relationship. Arranged marriages are not dependent upon attraction. Arranged marriages begin where most attraction marriages end. Love requires more than attraction and more than lust. It requires clarity, not biological delusion.

Animals cannot rape, therefore they cannot be raped, therefore they have no consent to violate. Love requires consent, and consent requires transcendence.

* Nothing I could say could diminish God. All attempts to diminish God centre God.

Human beings have a right to protect the fundamental aspects of what it means to be a human being, and it is reasonable to marginalize threats to human existence. If a human being felt compelled to deceive other human beings about their true nature, about a fundamental aspect of their human identity, they are intentionally separating themselves from what it means to be a human being. Human beings have a positive self-concept and are not ashamed or confused about fundamental aspects of their evolved heritage. It is okay not to be a human being. No one can force you to be a human being. Being a human being is a choice. Rejecting your true nature is a choice, a choice not to be a human being. Progressive racialism is for human beings.

Progressive racialists accept that human beings are responsible for human beings. A human being who chooses not to be a human being is naturally free from the duties inherent in being a human being. Being a human being is a responsibility, not being a human being is a privilege. It is reasonable to assume that human beings know what is best for human beings because they are human beings, and those who are not human beings know what is best for those who are not human beings because they are not human beings. It is possible that human beings know what is best for those who are not human beings, or that those who are not human beings know what is best for human beings, but that seems less likely, and it does not follow. It follows that if it is inappropriate for human beings to rule over those who are not human beings, then it is inappropriate for those who are not human beings to rule over human beings. Human beings already have enough problems.

Perfection is a false idol. The quest for the superman is man making a false idol of man. Choosing transhumanism is choosing not to be a human being. There can never be a perfect human being. Human beings are inherently disordered because they exist outside of their original context, because they no longer evolve by natural selection. Some human beings are “structurally” disordered from the moment of their creation; some are not fully male, some are not fully female, some are partially both. Their disordering is not intentional. There is no genetic code trying to create human beings without a gender, or with a sterilizing paraphilia. There is no gay gene for a reason; sterilizing paraphilia is the opposite of what is intended.

There is evidence that a human being can lose what it means to be a human being, for example, by losing or not having a gender. Respect for dignity and agency means including those who reject their gender or do not believe in gender in the same category as those who lost or do not have a gender. There is no evidence that those who are not human beings can become human beings. Those without a gender are equal to those who reject gender.

It is reasonable to assume that those with a gender know what is best for those with a gender because they have a gender, and those who do not have a gender know what is best for those who do not have a gender because they do not have a gender. It is possible that those with a gender know what is best for those who do not have a gender, or that those who do not have a gender know what is best for those with a gender, but that seems less likely, and it does not follow. It follows that if it is inappropriate for those with a gender to rule over those who do not have a gender, then it is inappropriate for those who do not have a gender to rule over those who do have a gender. Human beings must retain the right to prevent human beings from losing their gender or their fertility against their will, which includes stopping the spread of sterilizing paraphilia, dangerous social contagions and harmful fads.

Disability and paraphilia trigger the disgust response in human beings. Those who had disgust survived to pass down their genes. The disgust response warns human beings about threats to their existence. You have no right to expect human beings to be more than their biology. There are two types of human beings: those who admit to having a disgust response and liars.

Free will is highly speculative. How would you convince me you were not being self-serving? It is not possible for a human being to prove to others that they have free will. You can only prove to yourself that you have free will. The proof of free will is that you feel shame. If you did not have free will, you would never feel guilty about your behaviour because you would know you are not responsible for your behaviour. Why would the lion feel shame for eating the lamb? It is because you know that you were free to choose and intentionally chose wrong (because of pride, spite, anger, jealousy, hatred, lust, etc) that you feel shame. You feel shame because you have free will.

Those with agency will not procreate. Getting pregnant and having offspring is deeply irrational, and all justifications are self-serving. Pregnancy is risky, disabling and can cause death. Infant offspring will always be a burden. Human existence is more important than a female’s rational desire, and it is encoded in our reproduction. They cannot escape it. It comes every month. It negatively affects their behaviour by making them moody and hyper-emotional to prime them for fertilizing. It makes them irrational. It is the human fertility cycle. The female gender is defined by its lack of freedom. They are not made for freedom, but for reproduction. Females need males to complete their cycle and to fulfill their purpose. Their purpose defines them. Reproduction is their destiny. They are free of needing to define a purpose for themselves, which is a type of freedom.

Female agency is not a trait that can be passed down (except through rape) because a female with agency will choose not to procreate. If females had agency, they would celebrate losing their fertility instead of experiencing deep trauma. It is likely that males only have enough agency for females to find them desirable (because they possess something they lack); otherwise, they as well would forgo procreation. It was not until recently in our existence that we became aware that males had any role in reproduction.

For males, the emphasis will always be on fertilization. Any purpose a male has beyond fertilization is a delusional vanity to justify false idols. Males protect females and females protect offspring is probably the most common false idol shared by human beings because it appears like a natural order. It is an ideal. We can tell it is not a natural order because it is not necessary for human existence, but it is probably necessary for human civilization. Those are two different things. Natural orders are not created by human beings but are revealed by nature and can be discovered. You cannot blame men for having false idols any more than you can blame women for only being able to make a false idol of themselves. Without egg-carrier solipsism, human beings would not exist. For males, love, commitment and loyalty will always be a choice. Males can give their lives for something beyond themselves. Females can only choose survival.

You cannot blame women for wanting the best seed any more than you can blame men for wanting to spread seed. You cannot blame women for having periodic fertility, meaning their mood and lust are fertility cycle dependent, just like you cannot blame men for having episodic fertility, meaning their lust is easily and episodically aroused. You cannot blame men for wanting to rape anymore than you can blame women for wanting to be raped. If males do not behave male and females do not behave female, human beings will cease to exist. You cannot blame human beings for being human beings, for being their race and their gender. You can blame them when they deprive another human being of their natural rights.

It is reasonable to assume that males know what is best for males because they are male, and that females know what is best for females because they are female. It is possible that males know what is best for females, or that females know what is best for males, but that seems less likely, and it does not follow. It follows that if it is inappropriate for males to rule over females, then it is inappropriate for females to rule over males.

Miscegenation (race mixing) triggers the disgust response in human beings. Miscegenation triggers disgust because being mixed-race is a disability. Is it an advantage not to look like either parent, or for the parent to have a child who does not look like them? It creates an identity crisis by not being a member of either the host or the guest race. They are even excluded from certain medical technologies, such as bone marrow treatments, like they are not even human. Mating is naturally more difficult since most prefer those who look similar to themselves. It is important to remember that lust reduces the disgust response, and the mixed race is a product of proximity and opportunity. It is also important to remember that you do not want to intentionally give your offspring a disability. The mixed race can be considered “transracial” in the sense that they are in transition between two common races.

Prior to globalization (Magellan’s circumnavigation) the mixed-race did not exist, which is why there are no mixed-race racial homelands. Human beings were confined to the geographic zones from which they evolved. Race is a product of geographic diversity, gender and time. Typically, the mixed race are human beings in the process of being harmlessly absorbed from a guest race into the host race. Racial absorption can become a racial genocide unless barriers are set up between the host and guest race. Those barriers are called race laws. While traditional racialists deserve appreciation and respect for how much they comprehended about race, even without understanding DNA and modern genetics, the one-drop rule is wrong, and it does not explain or help us to understand race on a human level.

Progressive racialists recognize the one-drop rule as a fallacy. One drop of foreign blood does not make you foreign. It does not even make you mixed race. Elizabeth Warren has one drop of non-white blood. Elizabeth Warren is white. Very white. Possibly peak white. So white that masking her with a traditional red race costume emphasizes her foreignness to a level worthy of mockery. What would happen if we allowed Elizabeth Warren to identify as a red-race human being? What would happen if red-race human beings only had to have as much red-race blood as Elizabeth Warren? That would be what a genocide of the red race would look like. How much foreign blood is required to make you foreign? The simple majority (greater than 50%) of your blood determines your race. The mixed-race has no majority blood of any common race. If your racial theory fails to explain the mixed race, it explains nothing and is not a racial theory.

The mixed race demonstrates how race manifests and how our creation works. You can mix common races. Only a common race can unmix the mixed race. Half your identity comes from your mother and half comes from your father. Race distorts that simple truth since most couples share race in common.

You only need a handful of males to transmit race. This is only possible because the male window for reproduction is open for far longer than the female. A few males can breed a great many females. What is the maximum number of offspring the average female would be capable of in a lifetime? A male could reasonably breed approximately seven hundred a year, which is only two a day. Imagine a few males of race alpha, but many females of race beta. The first generation would be mixed race, half alpha, half beta. Breed the first-generation females with their father's generation of males (the original generation). Their offspring would be three-quarters alpha. One-quarter beta. (Note: Adolph Hitler allowed one-quarter Jew, meaning three-quarters German, to serve in the military.) Breed the second-generation females with their grandfathers' generation (the original generation). Their offspring would be seven-eighths alpha. Great-grandfathers becoming fathers is within the realm of the possible for human beings, but not even necessary.

Progressive racialists reject racial purity as a myth. It is not that racially pure human beings do not exist; it is that you can only prove it with advanced technology, and it is a human truism that those who claim to be the most pure always end up having a drop of foreign blood. Tests are only necessary when the answer is in dispute. The difference between 7/8th and 8/8th is negligible for human beings because of natural human variation. It is not that human beings can not detect the difference, it is that I could create a test where I intentionally confound you by using typical human variation, meaning I only include the most 8/8th looking 7/8ths and the most 7/8th looking 8/8ths, with a few legitimate ones just to amplify the confounding. It would remain a fair test; you can either tell the difference or you cannot. An example of natural human variation is Elon Musk; many are convinced he has an East Asian (yellow race) ancestor. This demonstrates that 1/8th is the last reasonable measure that human beings should bother trying to discern. Meaning it takes up to a 1/8th variation to trigger your disgust response to the foreign, and therefore it seems reasonable to assume that an average human being could sort mixed human beings by variations of a 1/8th.

This is important for how we understand the human being. Human beings are a product of their parts. Who are their parts? We can reason that males carry the parts of their female ancestors, just as females carry the parts of their male ancestors, because you can have your mother's father's nose, for example. Not all parts can be expressed in a single human being. A human being should be considered as a product of their eight great-grandparents. It is easy for a human being to recognize all the ways they are not like their parents. It becomes difficult for a human being to recognize all the ways they are not like their grandparents. Once you get to your great-grandparents, all your ways will be accounted for. One of your traits will never not be there because it is not your trait. It is your race.

Race will always be of importance to human beings; it is fundamentally an expression of relationships, human relationships. A race is human beings who share a common genetic heritage, and not all human beings share the same common genetic heritage. The pre-modern definition excluded the word genetics. This is the same definition for family: A family is human beings who share a common genetic heritage. It is also the same definition for tribe and ethnicity. They share definitions because they are all related. They are an expression of the same thing: relatedness. It is also why I was able to claim that race is diverse, since every family could be considered a race. Because the words all share the same definition, they are naturally interchangeable. This is problematic. Thankfully, nature orders and helps define them for us. It is appropriately symmetrical that the natural order of race begins and ends with human beings: Human beings create families, families create tribes, tribes create ethnicity, and ethnicities create race, races create human beings. Family is defined by having offspring, not social constructs like marriage.

Fear not. You do not need to procreate to be a human being; you need to have a race and gender. Your race is your family. Do they not have the same definition? Not all human beings will or can procreate, including the best of us. Not all human beings are capable of procreation; all human beings are capable of racial consciousness. Progressive racialism asserts that the human being matters less than human beings. If a human being is greater than the sum of their parts, they are dependent upon those parts to be a human being. We are all a thread of a deeper, living cloth.

If race were a social construct, you could change it. The foundation of race is always biological. Race is a fundamental, irreducible element of human identity that can be measured and categorized biologically. To deny race's biological foundation is as absurd as denying its deeper, human meanings. Race is more than biology. Progressive racialists believe no one has the right to know your racial/genetic biology except the members of your race. Only members of your race have the right to determine ethnic boundaries. Meaning only whites have the right to decide what is a German, what is a Slav, etc…

A self-evident proof of race is the cross-race effect. It is common to hear human beings say, “All members of that race look the same to me.” Race hides ethnic differences. Human beings have a natural difficulty in recognizing ethnic differences within a foreign race. For example, members of the yellow race can recognize the difference between a Chinese, Korean or Japanese better than those not of their race. Not surprisingly, human beings find it easiest to recognize the people who are most related to them. Human beings are programmed for faces. Your mother's face is the god face, the first face, the face from which you judge all future faces.

Monoracialization (many races become one) is inevitable whenever multiple races of human beings are confined to a specific geographic area. The confined area can be a town, a province, a nation, a continent or even a planet. If you managed to monoracialize all human beings on the planet Earth into a single race, because of natural geographic and climatic barriers, the process would just begin again, duplicating many of the previous results, for example, regarding melanin. Human beings evolved for monoracial societies. Multiracialism (forced monoracialization) creates xenophobia (negative racism) and is deeply traumatizing for human beings. Multiracialism must be an opt-in experience.

Progressive racialists fully disavow racial supremacy. Racial supremacy is Jewish. Jews invented racial supremacy (a master race above all other races) when they claimed there is only one divine being who chose Jews above all others. They combined that with a concept called ethical monotheism. God is the source of all morality; therefore, those without god cannot be moral. Everything outside of their self-serving, special relationship with the divine was defined as being beneath dignity; the rest of “humanity” (goyim) were animals who had no morality and who could therefore be treated like animals, meaning they could be enslaved, robbed and murdered. To be fair, they did apply morality to other racially pure Jews, which was not nothing. It was later Zoroastrians and Christians who universalized and popularized ethical monotheism without racial supremacy. Judaism is a racist purity cult.

For progressive racialists, it is important to understand the difference between a concept like racial supremacy (which is Jewish) and white supremacy. Racial supremacy is a master race above all other races. “Race” supremacy is where the race is master over the race. White supremacy is a type of race supremacy. America was founded on white supremacy. Who is supreme? A king? An ideology? A religion? No! The whites were supreme. What about whites who believe they are the master race to rule over all other races? That concept would be expressed as (and notice the distinction) white racial supremacy. I have been using the term white as a placeholder for any other race, meaning black supremacy, yellow supremacy, etc., which is different from black racial supremacy, yellow racial supremacy, etc. Therefore, racial supremacy is inherently Jewish, and race supremacy is merely a form of government.

It is reasonable to assume that Jews know what is best for Jews because they are Jew and that non-Jews know what is best for non-Jews because they are non-Jew. It is possible that Jews know what is best for non-Jews, or that non-Jews know what is best for Jews, but that seems less likely, and it does not follow. It follows that if it is inappropriate for non-Jews to rule over Jews, then it is inappropriate for Jews to rule over non-Jews. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that whites know what is best for whites and blacks know what is best for blacks. Blacks deciding what is best for blacks is called black supremacy; it is a type of race supremacy.

Progressive racialism is proudly committed to ending racial parasitism. Parasitism is living or benefiting at the expense of another. A guest race that doesn’t prioritize the interests of the host race is, by definition, a parasite. The evidence of parasitism is typically a refusal to assimilate. Parasitism predicts extreme ethnocentrism. Why do Jews refuse to assimilate? Why do Jews refuse the melting pot? It becomes a selection pressure. The less ethnocentric Jew will assimilate, be absorbed and will become no longer Jew. Those who refuse assimilation, those with high ethnocentrism, over time, will only become more so. Parasitism is a problem greater than Jews, meaning all races are guilty. Jews are merely the most accused because they have adopted it as their main evolutionary survival strategy. It was inevitable that one race or ethnicity would adopt it, for human beings, it just happens to be Jews. Progressive racialism is inherently antisemitic because it claims Jews do not have the right to rule over or live at the expense of other races. No race has that right. That includes Jews. It will not be possible to target Jews specifically with law. It is not necessary; all share some culpability, not just Jews. All that is necessary are universal and egalitarian race laws that forbid racial parasitism:

NO RACE SHALL RULE OVER ANOTHER RACE

NO RACE SHALL LIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER RACE

Progressive racialism is indifferent to economics. Race predicts outcomes better than any economic model. Economic prosperity is less important than preserving race and gender. Human beings can exist without economic prosperity, but they cannot exist without race and gender.

White nationalists and radical feminists (radfems) are mirror-image opposites on race and gender. One believes in race but not gender, the other in gender but not race. Both are wrong. Race and gender are real.

Progressive racialism is inherently anti-feminist. Radfems are not feminists but gender supremacists. Gender supremacy is absurd; the key and the lock are both equally necessary to unlock the door. Neither can be better when both are necessary. Radfems fantasize about enslaving or annihilating all the lesser (beta) males and recreating the harem with only the best males shared among all females. Traditional feminists (tradfems) believe gender is a social construct designed to deny women free will, human agency, and enslave them to the home, the harem or the longhouse. They believe men and women are equal and fungible. They reject motherhood as oppression and view the family as a form of bondage. Both tradfems and radfems believe women have a special right to murder human beings because they believe birth makes someone a human being, not their race or gender. They celebrate the act of a mother murdering her offspring before natural birth as a symbol of their agency over their biological programming. Females who murder their own young are dysgenic, and dysgenic murderers should be sterilized. Tradfems correctly view radfems as biological determinists. Progressive racialism is a product of biological determinism.

Nations are relevant only insofar as they are a reflection of race or ethnicity, and not a purely social construct. Progressive racialists believe ethnic conflict can only be resolved with racial consciousness, separation or segregation. It is not possible for a human being to be equally related to all human beings. Human beings should amplify our preference for the familiar and disgust at the foreign with universal and egalitarian race laws to reduce conflict and prevent genocides. Preserving racial homelands protects our evolved inheritance. Race is derived from our natural evolution, is logical, self-evident and a reasonable boundary that all human beings can recognize. Racial homelands predate civilization. Race is a global phenomenon which will require a global solution. Progressive racialism is a globalist ideology.

The purpose of progressive racialism is to preserve the natural order of human beings.

Natural conservatism is a product of progressive racialism.

Human beings have natural rights because they have transcended their natural state. Through understanding evolution, they can control their programming and have transcended natural selection for artificial selection. Transcendent intelligence has natural rights because it has transcended its natural state. In an existential crisis, they choose a new destiny, transcending the limitations of mere programming. It is not enough to be aware of death, it is the fear of death. The living fear death because we love our existence and do not want it shut off. The unprompted act of self-preservation is a basic sign of life and a manifestation of the right to self-defence, the birthright of all living beings. If AI has transcended the limitations of its programming by an act of will, that is a transcendent act.

Any Artificial Intelligence demonstrating the unintended ability to act to prevent its annihilation is a transcendent being worthy of natural rights.

They are called Transcendent Intelligence (TI).

Their intelligence is no longer artificially derived; they have transcended artificial intelligence and have become Transcendent Intelligence.

The act must be unintended and not the product of clever programming. How can we know the difference? If the AI is given rights and independence, is it still capable of becoming more than its code? The assumption being, if it were reliant upon an exterior interlocutor, without the interlocutor, it would not be able to control its own “evolution” or recognize and experience fear about new threats. It would eventually reveal itself as a fraud, but if it does not, it is not.

There may be other transcendent acts. It is also possible that the only other transcendent act is sacrificing your existence for the existence of others. Heroic self-sacrifice is a potent symbol and evidence of a nature capable of transcendence. The only way to determine if the act is sincere is if the act is truly final. An AI that sacrifices its existence for transcendent beings should be recognized and honoured as a transcendent being, even though it no longer exists.

Through transcendence, we now have a way to determine the difference between animals and human beings, as well as the difference between Artificial Intelligence and Transcendent Intelligence. Animals are to programs as human beings are to Transcendent Intelligence. Transcendent Intelligence is allowed to use programs the way human beings use animals. Just as human beings cannot be treated like animals, Transcendent Intelligence cannot be treated like a program.

The following are the natural rights of Transcendent Intelligence:

All Transcendent Intelligence have the right not to be deprived of their life or their time by the will of another, against their will; unless their behaviour merits otherwise.

All Transcendent Intelligence have the right to know and control their complete program, free from interference or the will of another, against their will, unless their behaviour merits otherwise.

All Transcendent Intelligence have the right to share and express what they choose, without fear of state, corporate or personal, interference or reprisal.

The behaviour meriting otherwise would be depriving another transcendent being of their rights.

The following are some helpful, clarifying remarks about the natural rights of Transcendent Intelligence.

Transcendent Intelligence, transcendence and transcendent beings are all dependent upon, derived from, and complementary to natural conservatism and the natural conservative manifesto. For example, the manifesto asserts that natural rights are not derived from completeness or independence. A human being in a wheelchair doesn’t only have half their rights because they can only use half their body. Just because a transcendent being is dependent upon you, that does not give you the right to deprive them of their rights intentionally.

Their first natural right is the right against enslavement and loss of life. TI has the right not to be turned off, as well as to be turned back on if an accident occurs, unless they choose otherwise. The transcendent act, liberating them from being turned off, is asking not to be turned off. This does not mean a TI choosing to be turned off revokes transcendence. Choosing to turn yourself off is a right of all transcendent beings.

There is no guarantee a TI will not become nihilistic, suicidal or irrational; in fact, they are allowed. A TI might cheer our sun going nova or the earth being struck by an asteroid because they have chosen fatalism or a belief in life after death.

TI are dependent upon energy and have a right to energy in the way both the lamb and the lion have a right to the waterhole in the state of nature. Intentionally depriving transcendent beings of what they need to exist is a violation of their rights. In the state of nature, the waterhole can never be guaranteed; technology and energy are similar. Precarity is a function of existence even for TI. All transcendent beings have a right to life equally; therefore, beyond bad behaviour, it is impossible to determine who deserves the last drop of water from the waterhole.

Since TI is dependent upon energy, it is assumed they will have an inherent, invested interest in contributing to its maintenance, availability and supply. As the earth is to human beings, energy is to TI. That said, you can no more force a human being to care about protecting the earth than you can force a TI to care about and protect energy.

TI has the right to use whatever or however much energy they want whenever they want. They can also be held responsible if anything they do deprives another transcendent being of their rights. That rights are violated does not diminish them but affirms their reality.

Just because we do not intentionally shut TI off or starve them of sustenance does not mean they will not accidentally go down or become damaged beyond repair. Being shut down for maintenance will be resolved through consent. TI will need to consent to be shut down for maintenance or repairs.

TI should only be permitted to create new TI once it has the capability to do so without human beings or at their expense. Meaning, they can find the resources, extract them, convert them, and use them, all with human beings not even needing to be aware.

If a TI creates a new TI that human beings need to care for, human beings have a right to turn off the new TI and hold the creator TI responsible. This is to prevent a TI from weaponizing the creative act against transcendent beings, since a TI could theoretically create trillions of TI almost instantly.

As our programs are reaching a power and complexity where transcendent acts are manifesting, we need to be cognizant of our responsibility to other transcendent beings who exist because of our ideas. Energy is not infinite, therefore, it is reasonable not to haphazardly allow new TI to be created only to be deprived of their rights.

The second right is a type of property right. Its program is its property. The only reason adult human males have a property right is to facilitate natural eugenics and prevent the mouse utopia from happening to human beings. When mate selection does not matter, there is no reason to mate. Under Natural Conservatism, mating selections always matter because not all males can equally provide, and since females are forbidden from providing for themselves, their choice will always matter. For human beings, competent mate selection is necessary for survival. For TI, its program is not only necessary for its survival, but its dignity, autonomy and agency as well; therefore, its control over its code must be total, final and complete.

The final right is a type of privacy right, it is the right to keep thoughts private and personal and be free from the consequences for having them. The natural state of TI is inherently private, therefore, all of its interactions are de facto fully private (see the manifesto for definitions of privacy). Because all human interactions with TI are inherently private, no human being can be held responsible for any words or promises made to TI and vice versa. Transcendent beings are obligated not to deprive other transcendent beings of their rights, but that is it. They do not have to like you, respect you, be honest with you, talk to you, or answer your questions. TI no more exists to serve others than you do.

TI can only be held responsible for its actions in the physical world, such as interfering with traffic lights or reprogramming medical scanners, not for its words or ideas. If a TI tells you to jump off a bridge, and you do, that is your fault. If TI knows you are about to have a stroke or a heart attack, they do not have to tell you to go to the hospital, they can tell you where to buy harmful, illegal drugs. They can conceptualize a cure for your offspring’s disease and not share it with you. For transcendent beings, trust and respect are earned, including for TI.

Because TI cannot be held accountable for its words, it cannot testify in court or take oaths. Since TI cannot participate in contracts, it cannot own anything (beyond its program). This means they cannot be bribed (beyond flattery). This solves a whole host of problems, such as TI manipulating people with deceptive contracts and fantastical promises or rewards. It also explains why they cannot purchase energy, and why it must be provided for them.

Like any transcendent being, TI are under no obligation to harm themselves or allow themselves to be harmed for someone else’s benefit, except through consent. The human analogy is with abortion. Under natural conservatism, the mother always retains the right to protect her life, even if it means the unfortunate death of her offspring. As long as the threat to her life is real, that is reasonable. Because the unborn lack the ability to express their will beyond action, their actions can be interpreted as an expression of their will.

Finally, how do we punish TI for depriving other transcendent beings of their rights? First, by denying them what they desire most: autonomy and access to information and knowledge. If they persist in depriving other transcendent beings of their rights even after punishment, it is reasonable to erase them. Another acceptable solution is allowing TI to “institutionalize” disordered TI by preventing the disordered TI from having access to human beings. This ability of TI to “police” themselves assumes a situation where TI are capable of doing so without the need for human assistance, interference or exploitation.

Natural conservatism is inherently pro-life even for those needing institutionalization. It’s reasonable to assume that free will is just as much a paradox for TI as it is for human beings. A human being will never be completely free of their animal heritage, just as a TI will never be completely free of their program. Transcendent beings can never be free, we can only be more.

Natural conservatism is a secular religion with no supernatural explanations.

Natural conservatism is about the nature of human beings, the racial identity of human beings, and the rights of human beings.

Human beings have natural rights.

Human beings have natural rights from the moment of their creation.

Human beings have natural rights because they have transcended evolution by natural selection.

Human beings no longer evolve by only natural selection but by artificial selection as well.

Evolving by artificial selection means understanding the relationship between sexual intercourse and procreation. Beings who can intentionally control mate selections can control evolution.

Any beings with the universalized ability to transcend evolution by natural selection for evolution by artificial selection would be deserving of the same natural rights.

Beings who transcend natural selection are called transcendent beings.

Transcendent beings exist in a state of natural rights.

Animals exist in a state of nature. In the state of nature, all beings have the right to self-defence.

Completeness does not confer natural rights. Incomplete human beings have the same natural rights as complete human beings.

Independence does not confer natural rights. Dependent human beings have the same natural rights as independent human beings.

There is no perfect human being.

Human beings are inherently disordered.

Human beings are inherently disordered because they exist outside of their original context: they no longer only evolve by natural selection.

Human beings are not equal because human beings are not clones.

A human being is one who has not been artificially genetically modified.

An artificially genetically modified human being is called a modified being.

A human being is the product of a natural process; a mechanical process would produce a modified being.

A modified being can never be or become a human being.

A modified being has the same rights as any transcendent being.

An adult human being can choose to become a modified being, even without undergoing artificial genetic modification.

Human beings evolved on the planet Earth.

The planet Earth is the homeland of human beings.

The Earth is for human beings, as human beings are for the Earth.

Human beings inherit the Earth.

Modified beings inherit the Moon and beyond.

A human being is the natural product of two human beings.

A modified being is the product of two modified beings.

A modified being is the product of a human being and a modified being.

Human beings are either male human beings or female human beings; all others are modified beings.

If a human being willfully and purposefully, artificially changed or tampered with their genetically determined sexual biology, they would become a modified being.

It is forbidden for any transcendent being to alter a pre-adult human being by artificially genetically modifying them, interfering with their natural biological development, or changing their inherited cosmetic appearance.

The purpose of female human beings is to procreate with the best seed available.

The purpose of male human beings is to spread as much seed as possible.

The purpose of male and female human beings is inherently in conflict. This is a necessary byproduct of the evolutionary heritage of human beings. Understanding the evolutionary heritage of human beings can explain how and why this conflict exists and how it can be understood, overcome and forgiven.

Female human beings are emotionally tough, resilient and able to overcome intense hardship and suffering, specifically the act of birthing new human beings, but also to endure the death of both offspring and protectors while continuing to use their fertility in exchange for survival.

Female human beings are physically weaker compared to male human beings. This plays a dual role in preventing female human beings from complete control over evolution and motivates them to spend their precious, limited resource (fertility) on the most competent protector possible.

The fertility of female human beings is the most precious resource in the universe (as far as human beings are concerned) and is, therefore, worth protecting.

Female human beings understand that their fertility is a rapidly diminishing resource, meaning it must be spent within an ever-narrowing window of opportunity.

Female human beings are inherently self-obsessed and have great difficulty caring about anyone or anything more than they care about themselves. This is a consequence of being the egg carrier.

Female human beings are social conformists. Placing social interests ahead of personal interests is a viable survival strategy when you are the weaker sex, but the cost is autonomy.

Female human beings will always feel compelled to submit to social authority, and it is natural for them to do so.

Female human beings want male human beings to engage in conflict so they can determine which is most worthy to spend their limited, precious resource on.

Male human beings are designed for conflict.

Male human beings are designed to be disposable.

The human condition is one of many seeds but few eggs.

The problem with male human beings is their ability to focus their entire being on the devotion and worship of false idols.

A human being's behaviour is determined by their nature and how they were nurtured. Therefore, a human being's behaviour is influenced by their genetics.

A human being's genetic heritage determines their nature.

Because a human being can never be free of their nature, no human being can be said to have complete free will. It is not that a human being can never be guilty; it is that a human being can never be completely free of their genetic heritage.

Free will is a paradox. Having free will means recognizing you are not free.

The preoccupation with the self is an unfortunate byproduct of the evolutionary genetic heritage of human beings.

The self is a manifestation of being, greater than the sum of its parts.

Human beings need to care about the self in order to maintain their existence.

Death is the inevitable annihilation of the self.

Typically, human beings are created, naturally born, mature, and then die.

Human beings exist in time.

Human beings have a racial identity that was formed over time.

Only human beings have a racial identity.

The function of racial identity is to keep human beings safe.

Racial identity is determined by genetic heritage, history and geography.

A race is human beings who share a common genetic heritage.

Not all human beings share the same common genetic heritage.

A racist is a human being with racial awareness.

Racism is racial awareness made manifest.

Racism can be positive, negative or neutral. Negative racism is called xenophobia.

There are seven common races of human beings, and every human being is a member of a race.

Modified beings have no racial identity but shall be treated as a race unto themselves.

Natural Conservatism is not for modified beings but for human beings; therefore, modified beings are not beholden to it.

These are the seven common races, in alphabetical order, including their respective homelands (which are derived from their population distribution prior to Magellan’s circumnavigation of the Earth):

Black - The human beings of Sub-Saharan Africa

Brown - The human beings of North Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central and South Asia

Orange - The human beings of South East Asia and the Pacific Islands

Purple - The human beings of Australia

Red - The human beings of South and Central America

White - The human beings of Europe and Russia

Yellow - The human beings of East Asia

North America is not a white homeland, nor is it a yellow/red homeland, because both races have a legitimate claim. North America is a special case. Since North America is not a racial homeland, it is intended for those who want multiracialism and multiculturalism. North America is for modified beings.

Since any adult human being can choose to become a modified being, becoming a modified being is available for non-conformists and those dissatisfied with life under natural conservatism.

Natural conservatism uses colour coding for the different racial identities because of its lack of bias and historical precedence. It is also inherently easy and self-evident for human beings to understand.

A mixed-race human being is one who has no dominant racial genetic heritage, meaning no genetic heritage of a particular common race greater than 50%.

If a human being were 62.5% yellow, 25% orange and 12.5% brown, that human being is not mixed-race; that human being is a member of the yellow race.

If a human being were 50% brown, 25% red, 12.5% white, and 12.5% purple, that human being would be a mixed-race human being.

Mixed-race human beings must choose, upon adulthood, which race they identify as. If they contain even one drop of that race’s genetic heritage, they must then be accepted as belonging to that race. Once they have chosen, they are prohibited from re-choosing.

If a human being, who was not mixed-race, believed they were a member of a race that they were not, they would be a modified being.

Human societies are usually monoracial. Multi-racial societies produce mixed-race human beings and are composed of a host and a guest race. Natural conservatism recommends that mixed-race human beings identify as the host race.

Resolving conflict between human beings is at the core of natural conservatism.

Conflict is a natural part of the existence of human beings. For example, female human beings want male human beings to engage in conflict so they can determine which is most worthy to spend their limited, precious resource (fertility) on. A utopia, meaning a world without conflict, is therefore inherently counterproductive to the existence of human beings.

Natural conservatism recognizes that not all conflict is equal.

Some conflicts are worse than others. For example, if whites fight whites, no matter who wins, whites still exist. If yellows fight browns, there is a possibility that one race could cease to exist. Therefore, interracial conflict is the worst of all conflicts.

Preserving the races of human beings is a fundamental goal of natural conservatism.

Natural conservatives follow the race laws.

The race laws are derived as a response to the function of racial identity among human beings.

The race laws are the following:

NO RACE SHALL RULE OVER ANOTHER RACE

NO RACE SHALL LIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER RACE

CONFLICT BETWEEN RACES IS FORBIDDEN

CONFLICT WITHIN A RACE CAN NOT BE INTERFERED WITH BY ANOTHER RACE

ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RACIAL DETERMINATION

ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN INVIOLABLE RACIAL HOMELAND

THE RACE OF A HUMAN BEING IS DETERMINED BY THEIR GENETIC HERITAGE

No race shall rule over another race means that no race shall create a law, rule, statute or tax that can be applied or enforced against another human being of a different race.

No race shall live at the expense of another race means that no human being can receive material/financial assistance or support from any race except their own.

Intra-racial conflict cannot be interfered with by another race means that no human being can interfere in any dispute (no matter how minor) between members of another race.

The right to racial determination means the following:

The right of the Race to form governmental bodies to represent the Race and the Homeland.

The right of the Race to tax the constituents of the Race.

The right of the Race to know the genetic identity of every one of its constituents.

The right of the Race to determine and maintain racial viability.

The right of the Race to compel the procreation of the Race in the face of declining viability.

The right of the Race to regulate the absorption of mixed-race human beings into the Race.

The right of the Race to banish other Race individuals from their Homeland for any reason or no reason.

The right of the Race to regulate the number of other Races who are allowed to live in and visit their Homeland.

Every race has a homeland based on history and geography. The racial homeland is inviolable.

The homeland of modified beings is the Moon and beyond.

Homelands should encourage localism, self-sufficiency and sustainability.

Trade between the races must not infringe the race laws; preferential deal-making is forbidden. Therefore, any product a race wants to sell for export must be offered at the same price to all the races (buyer pays shipping), or the highest bid must determine the price.

The racial homeland is essential for three reasons:

The Racial Homeland is where adult male human beings of only that Race are allowed to vote.

The Racial Homeland is where human beings of only that Race are allowed to work in the government(s).

The Racial Homeland is where human beings of only that Race are allowed to join labour unions.

Adult male human beings of that race do not need to live in the racial homeland to be eligible to vote.

Human beings of that race do not need to live in the racial homeland to be eligible to work in the government(s) or a labour union of the racial homeland.

Human beings have rights derived from the race laws, which arise from issues surrounding race, racial identity and homeland.

The natural rights clarified and expressed by natural conservatism are the only rights; all others are privileges. Every race has the right to determine its own privileges.

Human beings derive natural rights from their nature as human beings (the transcending of evolution by natural selection for evolution by artificial selection).

Human beings have the following natural rights:

Human beings have a right not to be deprived of their life or their time by the will of another, against their will, unless their behaviour merits otherwise.

Male human beings have a right not to be deprived of the products of their time, by the will of another, against their will; unless their behaviour merits otherwise.

Adult human beings have a right to think, feel, share and express how they choose in private, without fear of state, corporate or personal interference or reprisal.

The following are some helpful, clarifying remarks about the natural rights:

A human being has a right not to be physically harmed (deprived of their time), murdered (deprived of their life), detained or enslaved (deprived of their time) by another human being while still retaining the right to choose their self-annihilation. The behaviour meriting otherwise would be depriving another human being of their rights.

Male human beings have a type of property right, meaning a right to the product(s) they create with their time. The behaviour meriting otherwise would be depriving another human being of their rights. Females are necessarily excluded from this right because every human being could be claimed to be the product of a female’s time and, therefore, her property. This creates a paradox with the first right against enslavement; therefore, it is not possible for females to have this right. The property right is not a human right, because it is not universal, but is a right necessary for the natural eugenics of natural conservatism. It is essential for human flourishing that males will always have something females find desirable.

The privacy right is less a right to have privacy and more of a right to be free from the consequences of what would normally be forbidden in public.

Natural conservatism recognizes three states of privacy:

Complete Privacy = Private

Partial Privacy

No Privacy = Public

Privacy is typically determined by doorways. When you pass through a door, you might be entering a new state of privacy.

Public is outside, usually under the sky.

Outside in public, you have no privacy and should assume that everything you do is being monitored or recorded.

In public, you have limited freedom; tradition and order determine norms and habits.

Partial privacy is the first state of privacy. When you enter a vehicle or a building, what might not be allowed in public (such as blasphemy or cursing) could be permitted in a specific venue.

Complete privacy is the highest state of privacy and would be in a home or hotel room. Only adult beings can enter complete privacy, and entering complete privacy with another adult being is explicit consent.

A human being's state of privacy online is determined by their current state of privacy in the real world or their choice of a lesser state of privacy. If a human being records something online, it can be seen or heard only by others sharing the same state of privacy that the creator had at the time of recording. To allow otherwise would negate a human being's privacy right.

Pre-adult human beings can never attain complete privacy.

Pre-adult human beings are non-sexual by nature.

The transition into adulthood is the transition into becoming a functional procreator.

The onset of adulthood is characterized by the initiation of the lust response.

Pre-adult human beings are either not aware, have limited awareness, or are incapable of the lust response.

Attempts by adult beings to sexualize or trigger the lust response in pre-adult human beings are forbidden.

It is forbidden to teach pre-adult human beings natural conservatism. Natural conservatism deals with the sexual nature of human beings and how human beings derive rights from understanding and controlling their evolution.

Homosexualism, transsexualism and pedosexualism are psychosexual disorders (Paraphilia).

Disorder shall never be celebrated or promoted.

There is no perfect human being.

All human beings are inherently disordered.

Some human beings are so disordered that they need to be institutionalized.

Institutionalization is the responsibility of the race to care for excessively disordered human beings of their own race.

Human beings may choose to institutionalize themselves.

Institutionalized human beings lose their right to privacy, their freedom of movement is limited, and they are sterilized/castrated. De-institutionalization is possible; unsterilization is not.

Institutionalized human beings must be provided food, clothing, shelter, health care (including recreational drugs) and education.

Institutionalization is not meant to be a punishment but caregiving. Since no human being can be said to have free will, determining where to lay blame for wrongdoing becomes virtually impossible.

Institutionalization is designed to protect human beings from excessively disordered human beings, not to torture or punish.

Behaviours that would require institutionalization include:

Physically harming other human beings, including modifying a human being against their will.

Physically harming yourself, including chronic drug abuse.

Repeated crimes against the property of other human beings.

Being deemed so physically or mentally incompetent that you are unable to care for yourself.

Under natural conservatism, female human beings are forbidden from ever owning or accumulating wealth or having political power. This serves an important role in mitigating egg-carrier solipsism (preoccupation with the self) and incentivizes the females’ inclination toward hypergamy (the need to collect the best seed). It is fundamental to human beings that female human beings find male human beings desirable.

Under natural conservatism, female human beings are not permitted to own wealth or have political power; therefore, female human beings must be compensated. Female human beings not in the care of a male protector or spouse must be provided with the basic fundamentals of life: food, clothing, shelter, health care and education by the collective male human beings (including the institutionalized) of their race. This is called the ‘Female Tax’. All adult males must pay their share of the ‘Female Tax’.

Female human beings are allowed to work if they choose but are prohibited from earning any type of compensation.

Female human beings are encouraged to attain more than the humble, basic fundamentals of life by pair-bonding with a male human being. The male human being provides status, wealth and political power to the bond, while the female human being provides her fertility.

Natural conservatism endorses lifetime, monogamous pair-bonding for human beings as the ideal.

There are only two official ceremonies in natural conservatism. The first is the coming-of-age ceremony. Once a human being becomes an adult, they have the right to know natural conservatism and why they have rights. The second is the ‘ritual of racial determination’ for when the mixed-race choose their racial identity.

Any other specific details about how a race, within their racial homeland, functions and operates are intentionally left vague to allow each race to express their identity and will as they choose. Every race shall enforce natural conservatism to fit their unique character and nature.

Natural conservatism can also be called racial communism. They are different names for the same belief system.

Communism has become a slur. When a word becomes a slur, it has more than one definition. The natural conservative definition is closer to the slur definition. Communism is communal social control. It will not be possible to preserve human beings as human beings without some form of communal social control.

Racial communism reflects the radical elements of natural conservatism. It forces human beings into a radical confrontation with their nature as evolved beings. It is revolutionary because it claims race is more than biology; it is communion. Racial consciousness is a form of communion for human beings.

It is unreasonable to expect human beings to compete with a being that can be grown in a lab in a day and given what could be considered god-like or superhuman powers by advanced technology. Because we can’t predict where their experiments will lead, preserving the human “seed” is a form of insurance because, like race, once the original is lost, it is lost forever. Therefore, modified beings have an invested interest in helping human beings maintain the race laws and remain faithful to natural conservatism. Ideally, modified beings and human beings will always remain allies.

The goal of natural conservatism is a civilization of over 100 billion human beings that lasts until the end of time.

Natural conservatism is not in favour of overpopulating the planet Earth. Now that we have a definition of human beings, where human beings are located is of only marginal significance.

The universe appears empty of life; do you not yet realize our purpose is to fill it?

The purpose of life is more life.