The Vision
Addressing the Future
Calm down, the vision isn’t a drug-induced hallucination beyond the doors of perception, nor a divine revelation. No, I’m talking about the future. How to make natural conservatism a reality.
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.