/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

But the major flaw of this worldview is that it bases itself on what was disproven- God- instead of what was proven- nature and its laws. For just because the God hypothesis was proven to be wrong, that does not mean the truth is the opposite of the God hypothesis. Indeed, we know that things do not happen at random, but for a reason. For example, when the pinecone falls off the pine tree, that did not happen out of randomness, but because the wind made the branches sway, exerting stress on the pinecones stem, leading it to break, fall on the ground, where it'll grow into a new pine tree. In fact, if every factor was known, everything could be predicted precisely, proving that nature and therefore our world is in fact neither random nor changed by something supernatural. For that same reason, humans are not random. Had we been, we'd simply be a randomly generated blob of organic matter when we were born, but instead, we are shaped in a particular way, that is very similar to each other and distinct from other organisms and things in nature. This is of course because our environment made it easier or harder for life with certain attributes to survive, and as such, those who found it naturally easier to survive had children, and their attributes were passed on. In this way, we are designed- not by God, but by nature and our ecology. Not out of a conscious creator, but the forces of nature and selection.

This particular way that we are has led us to perceive the world in a different manner to how it really is, out of convenience for survival. For example, our morality is inherent, but it doesn't exist in nature beyond ourselves. When the wolf hunts, kills, and eats the innocent rabbit, it's not done because nature in some way saw this as morally the right thing, but because that is simply how nature operates. But when humans observe such a thing, we feel sorry for the innocent rabbit, and may even be compelled to intervene. This has helped us survive in our own community, but it isn't a correct perception of reality. I mention this, because a great many nihilists and such will ask you to 'give a moral reason to why we ought to be in a certain way,' and in this case, that way is by your nature. This is exactly like asking the wolf to give a moral reason to why he ought to kill the innocent rabbit, who did no harm. If the wolf accepts and sees that his actions are immoral and irrational, he will starve, for this is not the way nature operates. Luckily for the wolf, he is not bound by rationalism, and will simply live his life as his nature dictates him to- in the way he is naturally made to.

And it is for this reason that we- humans- should live according to our nature as well, and not meaningless Golden Rules or Categorical Imperatives based on morality and rationality. Not because that is the moral and right thing to do, but because that is the way of the world and the way of the human. Some accuse Naturalists of saying that this is the 'naturalist fallacy' or making an 'is, therefore ought' assertion. It isn't any of these, as naturalism doesn't make any assertions out of the history of how we lived, but how we are made to live. For example, humans lived in caves. That doesn't mean that we should live in caves, but it's in our biological nature to live in a shelter- be a cave or a mansion.

We've now established that we, and in fact all life in general, should live in accordance with how their nature has shaped them to live, which is indeed in a particular manner. But all living organisms of all forms have one unifying way of life- maybe even natural law- that they live by instinctively. As those organisms who live today do so because they were better at surviving than their competitors, wanting to live is a 'desire' or goal to which every form of life strives. But not simply for the individual organism, but also, of course striving towards having offspring, and giving them a chance at doing the same, as if they didn't, their kind would die out after the first generation. And it isn't pertaining to a single family either, as if the organism couldn't reproduce with another organism, they'd likewise die out. This is why ants, killer bees, and humans desire to sacrifice themselves by sweat when working to give their children and community a better life and sacrificing blood to secure their life at all. Indeed, all lifeforms follow these principles, which can be summarized by the desire to secure an existence for their kind, and a future for it.

If you are a human of European stock, your natural meaning of life is therefore to secure the existence of your people, and a future for white children. And this shall be done in the way that comes naturally to European humans- the way we are biologically predisposed to be: Through comradely communities. Our communities today are our nationality, and comrade in Latin is socius, which is where the term socialism has its roots. Therefore, National Socialism is right.

>>51846

I disagree, but I believe it depends on 'what National Socialism you're looking at'- where this is based on the late esoteric National Socialist like P.H. Riis-Knudsen, Savitri Devi, and G.L. Rockwell, as opposed to the original NSDAP alone. I believe the NSDAP and Hitler's philosophy was comprehensively Naturalism, but the party and movement were for the German race alone, and not all nationalities. And I agree that National Socialism is 'just politics', but it has deep roots which explain why it is such a great political belief, which is what I've explained. This post is about the macro of National Socialism, not the micro.

>>51864

The reason I said that was because, what I was describing is the philosophical roots of National Socialism. I know it is not digestible for those who do not understand what National Socialism is, but as stated in my very first sentence, my intention with this was to share some thoughts on the connection between Naturalism and National Socialism, and help give a more thorough understanding of the ideology beyond "It'd make us richer and stronger" or "It'd save our people."

I'm unsure if you mean: National Socialism is based on Folkish thought, which I'm not describing; or if I'm describing Folkish thought, which National Socialism is based on.

>>51907

That I agree with, although I'd insist on calling it Naturalism for continuity with philosophy.

>>51905

While Naturalism can be interpreted in a Varg Vikernes manner, I disagree with it, as I believe civilization in humanity is just as natural as the social dynamic in anthills for ants or beehive for bees. So I agree with you.

>>51911

While highways are not organic- which is how I think you are interpreting 'natural' to mean- they are made by organic things with a function that is inherent in that organism. Just like anthills are natural things, so are highways- in my opinion.

>>51922

Well, one of the first things you learn about in political science is the dynamic between ideology and policy, and while that was a policy that didn't adhere to the ideology- in relation to what you're writing- that's just the game of politics.

I agree that you don't have to follow the ideology perfectly to be a follower of that ideology, but I assume it's only good to know more about the ideology, especially if you're a follower.

>>51924

I think you are misunderstanding my point, which is that the hypothesis of God being the creator was disproven. I agree that good exists- in fact I belive it's inherent in humans- and if you would argue that that is what God is, that's fine by me, but I don't believe that a creator God exists, and neither does Naturalism and therefore does National Socialism also not believe in a creator God. Despite the fact that the NSDAP was Christian, and many National Socialists are Christians, the belief isn't an inherent part of National Socialism- and is acutally oppossed to National Socialism, in the same way of what you said in >>51922

>>51824

capitalist nationalism or socialist nationalism - either would work just fine. Anything based on extended family/nearkin works great. The only difference is it's harder to fend off parasites under any capitalistic system since the pickins are easy.

>>51958

i'm comparing ants and bees to humans because we all are social animals and make our own habitats, there is no reason to strawman me to patronize. While our modern cities are corrupt versions of it, cities and towns are still our habitats like anthills and beehives- and are a part of our nature.

>>52031

I agree, although while I used to be Libertarian, I no longer believe in Capitalism and a free market- but market economies are still the best and most fair way of running an economy, as well as the most organic way to do it.

>>52047

that's funny, but it doesn't refute what I say- we should have civilizations- which you believe either way.

Modern cities do, but cities inherently don't and neither do towns. I am of course opposed to the structure of modern cities, especially the ones over in America.

>>52057

that's the way that you survive in modern society, but that is not the way humans are biologically wired to function. We should make societies that compliment how we are in our nature- our biology.

There is some good discussion in this tread, but also some misinformation. Some quick points:

OP is correct. National Socialism is undoubtedly a naturalist philosophy. It is, fundamentally, the idea that man is an inseparable part of nature, and that society should be structured in accordance with natural laws. Everything that Nationalist Socialists strive for stems from this simple belief, and it really is that simple. How anyone could come to the conclusion that National Socialism is not based in nature or natural laws is baffling to me. I've never heard anyone outside of this thread make this assertion. If anyone disagrees, please tell me who has said this or what you have read that made you come to this conclusion so I can refute them.

We see National Socialism most commonly assert itself as a political philosophy, but it is more than that. It is a "weltanschauung"; an all-encompassing, comprehensive worldview of life. It guides us in shallow, mundane topics like finance and resources, but also in deeper, more meaningful questions of the social, spiritual, and of course racial. The political aspect of National Socialism is what we most commonly refer to, but if this is all you know, then your knowledge is incomplete. If you like the political aspect though, then I'm sure you'd love the understanding brought upon by learning National Socialism as a broad worldview, and would greatly encourage anyone to read more about it.

>>54218

Theres a disctinction between something being natural because it occured in nature and something being natural because it's the ordinary course of nature. While gene variations at birth along with social corrupting leads to people adopting destructive lifestyles, their way of life goes against the very basic forces of natural selection, which molds organisms over generations to make them better at securing the existence of their people and a future for their offspring- as they don't even want ofspring nor care for a future for them. And as this goes against the natural law of natural selection, which as a force is the ordinary course of nature, their lives are unnatural. Luckily, going against the laws of nature will necessarily rid away them and their destructive attributes, thanks to natural selection.

Adhereing to the natural law of natural selection is- for lifeforms- natural and the ordinary course of nature, and for that reason, is a basic fundamental principle for the political philisophy which follows it: National Socialism.

>>54365

Good post. Anyone who is interested in the worldview, read 'National Socialism - the Biological Worldview'

>>54738

I don't much care for anonymity, but if you'd like to contact me, you can do so on my discord.

Anders Matthias#4126

Despair, kikes.

>>83777

Trips of Truth.

>>51846

I think you are failing to understand the connection between culture/ideology and politics/economics. It's true that NatSoc political ideologies generally don't take an official stand on epistemology, ethics, cultural values, etc., but it's nevertheless inextricably linked with naturalism, platonism, German idealism, virtue ethics, and the Romantic movement of the lath 18th/early 19th century, etc. In the same way, neoliberalism, globalism, and relativism are rooted in the empiricism and liberalism of the enlightenment.

The connection is not super strong, but there is an argument to be made that in the early modern period, the enlightenment gave birth to two core philosophies, empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism follows a line of thought that eventually led to neoliberalism and globalism. Rationalism follows a line of thought that eventually leads to NatSoc. Of course, that's a very tenuous connection, but I don't think it's altogether devoid of truth. In connection with this point, it's interesting to note that Rationalist philosophy is generally viewed as exhibiting a greater degree of continuity with the philosophies of the ancient Greeks, especially Plato and Pythagoras.

>>104880

That's only his legal name, he still certainly goes by Varg if you pay any attention to him at all.

Anyway I love the mental gymnastics of this thread with all the talk of what is natural, only to continue to embrace civilization and society rather than abandon it in exchange for AnPrim/Post-Civ society. What is natural is to gather in small tribes (Extended family) and live off of the land, that is to say we must live in balance with nature assuming our natural ecological niche and allowing natural selection to play out.

>>104904

>What is natural

lemmings, famine, extinction, death - all natural.

completely lifeless planets are 100% natural. life itself is anomalous in the natural world, the earth is a rare eden.

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/42/wiles.php

>>104904

Natural doesn't mean "as it was", but "by the way it is." Humans evolved not to live in caves, but shelter, be they mansions or straw-huts. The exact same goes for your family to your nation, or your tribe to your civilization, they are fractals of the way humans naturally operate, but at larger scales. I see no reason why living in nature is more natural to humans for any reason but history, but not our inherent nature.

>>104916

Life that dies is necessarily not life, for it does not fight for survival, nor sufficiently reproduce, ensure a future for its species, or indeed live at all. The pressures of natural selection are not death for the species, but survival and perceverence for the species, and so, life that does not adhere to its pressures are anomalies, not life itself.

>>109236

> they are fractals of the way humans naturally operate, but at larger scales.

>>109274

Agenda 21 is for monoculture in Europe through multiculturalism, the NSDAP was for monoculture in Europe through German Chauvinism. I know that, to the latter, that's not really true- but they did want to at the very least Germanicize some cultures. If you are a Nationalist, you respect the independence of other nationalities for the same reason you respect your own, and you don't want to mix with other nationalities for the same reason you don't want your nationality mixed with theirs.

To this, however, you could disagree. Maybe it is indeed our nature to combat eachother for power, so that we may strengthen our own people at the careless expense of others who stand in the way. But, we are social animals. We do not combat, we cooperate, and while we always will and should prioritize ourselves before anyone else, we shouldn't be egoists, not on the individual nor collective scale. We have an inborne duty to preseve our family as well as our people, and for the exact same reason, humanity itself. That isn't to say the opposite either, however. Africa does not 'deserve' aid from Europe nor America- they got more aid than India under colonialism. We just shouldn't strive to conquor the world and wash it away, keep it to the way nature's natural selection intends: Europeans in Europe, and Africans in Africa.

OP