On the Natural Rights of Transcendent Beings
Solving the Crisis in Liberalism
No single human being is more responsible for overthrowing the natural order than Charles Darwin. Darwin abolished the natural order by using evolution to explain the link between Man (human beings) and animals. The consequences have been devastating. If Man is an animal, he can be treated like an animal, and animals do not have rights.
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.