/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

>>177790

The Political Situation

Nature has programmed mankind with a powerful and primal motivation to defend and promote themselves individually and also their families, tribes, and nations. Why care about the people of these groups instead of any other person? Firstly, because nature has programmed you to value them more than others, and secondly because you cannot care about everyone in a world where zero-sum competition exists. That would lead to cognitive dissonance. Someone who has resisted the corruption of the modern world and still responds to these essential human motivations is a righteous man.

If someone doesn’t defend and promote themselves, they are suicidal and self-destructive. If someone doesn’t defend and promote their family, and instead allows them to be exploited or killed, they are an abomination. By abomination I mean something that has deviated significantly from the regular pattern of nature with negative consequences, compounded with the failure to fulfill the duty nature has prescribed for males with a mate and offspring. If someone doesn’t defend and promote their tribes or nations, they are traitors. All of these failures are the result of weakness. Whether through fear, cowardice, ineptitude, or naivety they all represent a fundamental emasculation.

A righteous man with his masculinity intact should recognize that the defense and promotion of these entities within the framework of natural law is a matter of survival or death/exploitation. Therefore, he ought to defend and promote them by whatever means necessary to the best of his ability. On the level that we are concerned with, the best way to defend and promote oneself and one's family, tribe, and nation is to completely destroy their human enemies. Striving for anything less is to deserve whatever the consequences of that weakness produce, namely the death of oneself and the people one is trying to defend. Complete destruction and defense/promotion of all kinds require no justification because in a competition for survival there are no rules and all those involved have no more claim to life than the other. Complete destruction means outright slaughter and any action along the way aimed at damaging one’s enemies.

For an individual, family, tribe, or nation to defend and promote itself is essentially success, while the opposite is failure. As has been demonstrated, the complete destruction of one’s enemies constitutes the complete success of the entity in question, at least where competition is concerned. Aiming for anything less than complete success is a destructive weakness that opens one up to the consequences of failure, that is; the exploitation and death of everyone that you love. If we therefore are to slaughter our enemies, we must know who they are.

The central categories of enemies are threatening out-groups, traitors, and criminals. Traitors are an enemy, because out-group enemies are a constant threat and traitors destroy the necessary unity and cohesion a group needs to combat the out-group, on top of whatever direct damage their treason inflicts. They must be completely annihilated. Criminals, of the violent and sexual variety especially but also those financial or corporate types whose actions can inflict devastating consequences on the body politic. The most common objection to their complete and necessary annihilation is the imprisonment option. Imprisonment diverts resources that could have been utilized for life saving medical procedures on the women and children of the people to individuals guilty of heinous evil against the people. This is treason, and therefore not an option. The final category I will address is the threatening out-group. In a competitive situation, one group will win and the other will lose, and according to the reasoning throughout this document the contending out-group must be completely destroyed.

>>177792

Psychological Response

The type of response to natural law I have outlined recognizes that destruction is an inevitable part of human existence, so people ought to channel it away from themselves and towards their enemies in order to secure their existence. The alternative responses are either outright suicidal, as is seen in leftism, or sporadic and ineffective, as is seen in conservatism. If suffering and destruction are inevitable parts of the human experience, and humans live in competition to avoid this, and humans care about others by empathizing with them or “sharing their pain,” then you cannot care about everyone without becoming an emotional wreck. No one has the strength to identify with and care about the entire world, to let the suffering of every person affect them on a personal level. Of course, when we see suffering it affects us anyways, which is why dehumanizing far off people is necessary, along with the active demonization of one's enemies to psychologically inoculate yourself against what you will do to them.

The categories of self, family, tribe, and nation are established based on the level of identification one has with other people. The self identifies completely with the self, and is genetically and biologically identical. The family is based on the sexual union with a mate producing offspring who are entirely derived genetically and biologically from the parents. The tribe in its original formation refers to a group of people of the same nation living in the same area and often intermarrying. The nation refers to a political element composed of or based on ethnic identity.

The character of the righteous man who defends himself and the groups he belongs to is defined by the embodiment of the strength and power necessary to do these things. He rejects weakness and cowardice in himself. This is not to say that he worships strength and power to the exclusion of weakness and vulnerability in themselves; they are, after all, just tools. Tools that he uses to defend the women and children of his family, tribe, and nation, whose vulnerability and tender weakness are the reasons he uses strength and power to crush their enemies. The masculine function is to protect, provide, and lead the women and children. It’s like a garden surrounded by walls of stone and equipped with sharp spades for weeding; the purpose of their strength and destructive ability is solely for the preservation of the delicate beauty of the flower inside. They’re not ends in themselves. An immense source of political corruption is when people forget who and what they’re fighting for, and instead become possessed by the desire for power alone.

In the same spirit, this philosophy doesn’t intend to produce feelings of excessive anger in its adherents, despite outside perception to that effect. The performance of a necessary task, the task of success against nature and competition, is not necessarily tied to any emotional state. Granted, anger is the primary motivation given to us by nature to do these things, but reason is also a sufficient motivation, allowing the necessary actions to be carried out with reluctance or no emotion at all. I advocate anger only as it is useful in motivating the collective, but for the cooler heads I advocate a mechanical disposition. This consists, whatever the initial motivation, of a realization that what is necessary must be done, and after the solidification of this view, an efficient and unfeeling machine-like performance of the task. This is because of the damaging and corruptive nature of prolonged anger or agitation. It may be argued that this mechanical attitude is more damaging, but this attitude, of someone who is able to accept things as they are and do what is necessary simply because it is necessary, without all the associated primal emotional convulsions, is precisely what I’m trying to promote in this essay.

>>177958

>>177790

glow harder faggots

>>177790

>This is a purely theoretical work, an exercise in thought

This is deconstructionism. You use words to manipulate reality. It's not a new concept, it has been around for ages.

>>178476

OP here:

I have no intention to manipulate anything with my words. The truth is I'm writing a character for a novel about a political radical, and I thought I'd get some takes on his philosophy from people on the edges of politics.

>>178992

So you're trying to provoke other people with your words because you are too much of a coward to do it yourself?

>>179689

According to the logic of the essay, total extermination is defense.

>>180692

Why do I get schizo-posting for this pragmatic and straight-forward essay?

Guys, nothing will happen in our lifetimes, get over it. There won't be no collapse.

You can avoid 90% of it by moving deep into the country and becoming a hermit and a luddite.

Our children and granchildren will probably avoid globohomo too if they want to. But at some point our descendants WILL be forced to get chipped, live in pods and eat the bugs, if anything because there won't be any more rural land and it will be that or be turned into soylent.

We won't live to see that day, and there's nothing we can do about it either. You can't stop the progress of technology and civilization. At some point there will be a technological setback when the oil runs out, but in the long term scientists will figure a way to fuck us up anyway.

The only possible way this doesn't happen is if there's full scale global nuclear war that set us back thousands of years, but I doubt it.

>>180767

Being demoralized means that you haven't fully committed yet.

>>180767

or you can just take the seethepill and larp as le epic reddit ripandtearman

>>181495

What have you done?

>>179646

Why do you sage schizo faggot?

bumping for other anons takes