>inequality between races, men, men and women, etc I've always felt that these categories are unorderable and unequatable, hence my unusual dislike of 'shallow racism' and attempts to apply strict order to these attributes. You can generalize and say that men are generally better at certain things than women (e.g. physical feats of strength, spacial awareness), for example, but to say something like 'whites are more powerful than asians' is subjective, value-based and most importantly context-based. Are they more powerful physically? Intellectually? Influentially? Socio-economically within America? On average, or the small groups who climbed to the top? Your answer depends on what you value most and which groups you are discussing, and even then is inherently extremely generalized. Comparisons like 'better' and 'more powerful' when applied to large groups like sexes, races and countries are nearly always too complex and inconsistent to be treated seriously. Order is a human lens. Nature is chaos. Natural Order is an illusion we created to try and rationalize nature. Just like most consciousness, it's an extreme oversimplification we make in order to create patterns, inevitably not all of them are rigorous or even correct.

>From my view it seems to imply that the Jews are ‘rightfully’ (according to natural justice) in power now that's actually a perversion of natural order, jews are not strong and they have cheated their way to the top by asserting control over those actually at the top ... US, like with a pack of wolves where the alpha has been infected with a brain controlling bacteria so it does it's biding. While this happens natural it's not to be confused with the natural order. It's a disease. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/meet-the-parasites-that-control-human-brains https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-parasites-14791/

>>777 >rubba dub dub muh chaos Go away redditor.

>>777 (checked) >You can generalize and say that men are generally better at certain things than women I always say that men are different from women. This is of course a truism to an extent, but it's something that's often ignored or overlooked today. We are different, we have different roles, different ways of conducting ourselves, etc. Men and women are complementary. Even within the two categories of men and women, there is of course variation, but there are generalizations that can be made, obviously. It's the same with races. Of course not all white people are geniuses who accomplish great feats and invent things. Many are subhumans, but the historical record supports that it is the white man which has spawned the greatest examples of higher humanity from time to time (in terms of creativity, intelligence, beauty and all else). Inequality exists both within groups and between groups. We must view our race like a flower bed. Sometimes weeds come up and attempt to choke out the flowers, preventing them from blooming and reaching their fullest potentials. I disagree that nature is full of chaos. From the standpoint of the modern technical mindset and the over-regimentation and mechanization of our society, it might appear like meaningless "chaos", but there is in fact lots of order and purpose embedded within nature. Nature works according to owns laws and is carefully balanced in terms of its parts. Then there is of course the regularity of the motions of the planets and other bodies in space. If someone were raised in an environment where they were raised in an eternity of darkness, and were to suddenly behold the light of day for the first time, they would be blown away by what they saw and could hardly die the conjunction and interrelation of all creation and could hardly deny that it was just by chance that things came to be. Of course, it does not necessarily have to be an ex nihilo creation by an Abrahamic personal god, but it is hard to deny, I think the existence of a force or intelligence in nature that men could call "God" if they so desired. >>780 They are not strong in any classical sense of the term. You're right that the parasite analogy is the most apt for the Jews, and people have obviously made this comparison for millennia now. They always work through cloak and dagger, subversion and all kinds of underhanded tactics. This is of course how they conduct themselves, not to say that we should let this happen. People have long noted that the Jews have an aura of "unnaturalness" around them different from any other race. I wonder why that is. There's even a term for it that I came across not to long ago to describe such claims - "environmental anti-semitism". Even Abraham was a rootless kike, a stranger on Earth, a stranger to the soil who worshiped a God that was wholly other from his creation.

da pee pee gibs it, the vee vee gets it. if you cant give it, if you cant get it, then you dont exist. what more is there to understand?

>>821 >Inequality exists both within groups and between groups. We must view our race like a flower bed. Sometimes weeds come up and attempt to choke out the flowers, preventing them from blooming and reaching their fullest potentials. It absolutely does, however my experience leads me to believe that race is one of the lesser influences, easily confused with the far more influential context of a persons upbringing. Before colonization and globalism, race and nations were an effective proxy for culture, societal development and other factors. The other plants in a flowerbed (or rather, trees in a massive forest) are certainly an influence, but what about soil quality, so that the plants can thrive with better potential? The wind and rain they have to struggle against? My opinion is that the environment someone is raised in is a far more important factor than race, however race is used as a proxy for societies and cultures, which is increasingly less accurate. My country hasn't had a history of slavery, ghettos and a recent history of race war with black people, so they get raised in the same schools and have the same opportunities as other races. They don't act like American niggers. The difference between black people and niggers is the socio-economic environment and culture they are raised in. Case study: The Roman Empire. The reason that West Europe whites got completely owned isn't because they were naturally inferior, it's because they didn't have the historical and cultural development of Roman,Greek and other Mediterranean regions. You can't pull the 'parasite' excuse when they militarily conquered Gaul using advanced technology and tactical understanding. Their art and philosophy is still relevant today. Their historical experience, as a society, was far superior to the whites. Nowadays, they are far less relevant to technological advancement and culture. My point is, race is a factor but not one of the most significant factors in the hierarchy of societies, it is simply a convenient approximation that is increasingly less relevant. There are many factors better to hate or -cide than race. >>792 ok you convinced me im wrong

>>1663 >It absolutely does, however my experience leads me to believe that race is one of the lesser influences, easily confused with the far more influential context of a persons upbringing. Upbringing is a factor, but I don’t know if I’d overrate it. Nature trumps nurture, otherwise we’re quickly going to tumble into absurdities akin to what E. Michael Jones says where if Africans had only had the Catholic Church they’d be like Europe, or if we just give these niggers our oh-so-great Western culture they’ll suddenly be model citizens and just like us. This is obviously laughable from some basic reflection and from looking at where the result of this type of thinking has led us. Culture is downstream from race. It’s like when people make the mistake that in believing that Judaism causes the issues with the Jews and not the other way around, i.e. Judaism is a product of the behavior and nature of the Jews themselves. It’s clear that transporting Africans over to the New World and integrating them slowly into civilization has done nothing to change their behavior, predilections or innate natures. They are still low IQ savages. Now I won’t go as far as you go, but the environment / cultural and the like can obviously result in some changes. For example, I believe that American cultural in particular is utterly decadent and subversive, bringing out the worst traits and enslaving the populace to base instincts and desires. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that this mythical land of good niggers that you live in doesn’t have that many niggers in it. Because problems only start to set in when they take over your neighborhood, your city, your entire country.

>>1663 >the laws of nature don't apply to humans >muh magic dirt https://www.unz.com/akarlin/northern-europes-late-development-as-argument-against-race-differences-in-iq/ There are no Black majority areas that are as functional as say, Okinawa.

>>1667 I'd go as far as to say that the understanding that man is not separate from Nature and is subject to its laws is one of the most important teachings of National Socialism. Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf, which deals with these issues, is in my view a key chapter in Hitler's worldview.

A lot of the NatSoc talk about living in accordance with the Laws of Nature reminds me of the debates of the Sophists in ancient Greece who saw nature as authoritative for correct human behavior, but differed on whether traditional morality as accepted at the time was a product of nature itself or a mere piling up of norms and conventions contrary to nature. I've found the nomos (convention) and (physis) distinction they made helpful in my own thinking about these things, and it is clear that the vast, vast majority of our conventions today are completely opposed to the Laws of Nature, and we see the results of such attitudes and practices today only too clearly. In a way it's appropriating the idea of "social construct" but in a way that is topsy-turvy compared to the leftist use of it and wholly opposite of their goals. Of course though, not all conventions are directly harmful or contrary to Nature, and this must be kept in mind.

>> > absurdities akin to what E. Michael Jones says where if Africans had only had the Catholic Church they’d be like Europe, or if we just give these niggers our oh-so-great Western culture they’ll suddenly be model citizens it's even more absurd that we tried exactly that, Rome's missionaries were all over the place and we exported our culture to all four corners of the globe. It just didn't work. Until today everything that works in those third world shitholes is literally made by Westerners and has been brought to them during colonialism.

>>2403 >Until today everything that works in those third world shitholes is literally made by Westerners and has been brought to them during colonialism. And what a disaster this has been for the White race. I have discussed this at length in the Ethnoglobe thread (>>1259) and elsewhere, but if you want a good short account that was remarkably prescient, look into Oswald Spengler's Man and Technics to see how right he was about the decline in the power of the White race and the dissemination of industry and technology to non-whites. Almost all notions of "progress" (to where? For how long??), whether they be the White man's alleged "civilizing mission" or modern capitalist efforts to destroy all native traditions in habits in favor of turning every man, woman and child into a consumer wage-cuck have been disastrous.

>>1667 >>muh magic dirt what the fuck do you even mean

>>2424 I'd assume he's referring to the view that environment is more important than race.

>life defined in terms of struggle The struggle for existence undeniably exists, but individual humans feel it far less than racial collectives as a whole. Within the racial collective - in a healthy one at least - there is a cooperative and national socialistic spirit. Races struggle against other races. Each nation functions like a lone predator on the prowl, battling with other organized collectives for Lebensraum, resources and at the most fundamental level, existence. Internal concord within, ruthless struggle without.

>>780 >that's actually a perversion of natural order It's just the course of nature. There's no injustice in nature. The current state we're in is the result of the weakness our people showed to the kikes and the kikes used that opportunity for their own gains. Nature favors those who take the opportunity to be victors in the universal struggle for survival.

>>4141 >but individual humans feel it far less than racial collectives as a whole. Within the racial collective - in a healthy one at least - there is a cooperative and national socialistic spirit. Races struggle against other races. So do individual ants experience it far less than the colony as a whole. However, self-sacrifice of an ant in a fight is not equal to self-sacrifice of a human since the latter is fertile. The ants seem to be more 'aware' of the higher importance of the colony over themselves due to the milions of years of evolutionary programming. This is one of the reason for them to be more selfless, the other one is different social structure (for example: the existence of sterile casts). In humans, while undeniably similar in-group preferences exist, it's more complicated due to more complex social organization. You can see how over the course of history racemixing between conquerors and defeated occured. Not to look far - Aryans. Indian peninsula, Tocharians, Aryans in the middle east. Hell, the mongolian admixture in Russians or Ukrainians, moor assimilation in Iberia. My point is that while natural in-group preference exists in people, racemixing existed because it was seen as inappropriate or weird and not as detrimental in the long term to the population. And this is why we need to be religiously racist. We have already seen how racial mixing lead to degeneration of Vedic civilization.

>>6080 I've been meaning to get more into reading about insects like ants, termites and bees at some point in order to see if I can glean some useful insights into human societies. Insects like these are definitely far more social than humans. A real redpill on this topic was the idea of "organic individuality". I'm not sure how much biology focuses on this today, but back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries they used to talk about there being various "levels" of individuals. A first order individual was a unicellular organism, the most fundamental form of life. Complex organizations of multiple cells differentiated into kinds functioning as a single unit were labeled as "second order individuals". This obviously included everything from insects, humans, dogs and beyond. Above that though they had the concept of a "superorganism" which was a collection of multicellular organisms which function more or less as a single unit. A lot of scientists even today seem to use this term for beehives. The superorganism analogy can be roughly used for humans, but like you hint at it, it's not a perfect fit. I agree with this Japanese biologist from the 20th century Oka Asajirou who said that humans find themselves in a sort of transitional state between two levels of organic individuality, between the individual and the superorganism. We're social beings, but imperfect ones. Only at times such as in total war can we see a sort of higher, self-sacrificial sociality. >And this is why we need to be religiously racist. We have already seen how racial mixing lead to degeneration of Vedic civilization. I agree. I have great respect for the ancient Vedic civilization, but it appears that they were so focused on the spiritual that they neglected the material and undermined the very root of their prosperity, which was biological. Part of it may have merely been ignorance of the effects, but this was fatal and must be prevented at all costs. A healthy in-group instinct needs to be inculcated repeatedly among the masses to the extent that a race-mixer is classed in the same level as child-molesters and other scum.

Any thread on the Natural Order is incomplete without a link to the 88 Precepts. https://archive.org/stream/88Precepts_937/88Precepts_djvu.txt

>>777 >Order is a human lens. Nature is chaos. Natural Order is an illusion we created to try and rationalize nature. Just like most consciousness, it's an extreme oversimplification we make in order to create patterns, inevitably not all of them are rigorous or even correct. This is the dumbest shit I've read on here. You must be an anarcho-cuck.

>The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans, which care only for the species and seem ready to sacrifice the individual. Quoted by Mussolini in “The Doctrine of Fascism” https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf >it is not the individual, but only the species that Nature cares for, and for the preservation of which she so earnestly strives, providing for it with the utmost prodigality through the vast surplus of the seed and the great strength of the fructifying impulse. The individual, on the contrary, neither has nor can have any value for Nature, for her kingdom is infinite time and infinite space, and in these infinite multiplicity of possible individuals. Therefore she is always ready to let the individual fall, and hence it is not only exposed to destruction in a thousand ways by the most insignificant accident, but originally destined for it, and conducted towards it by Nature herself from the moment it has served its end of maintaining the species.” t. Schopenhauer

im dissapointed that this thread is 4 months old and only has ~20 posts in it. this thread should be at the top of the catalog everyday and we should be on the 4th one by now.

>>10009 That's why I bumped it again recently. The good thing is that I think that many people here on /fascist/ understand this topic fairly well. I hardly see any real denial of the Natural Order or its importance for our people. There's definitely more to discuss though, I think.

I really wish there existed a book like Ragnar Redbeard's Might is Right that addressed the group elements of Social Darwinism. I've thought about trying to write it one day, I think it's needed. Redbeard's not wholly wrong, but he's too individualistic.

>>10010 they seem to know pajeet doctrine and the state of weimerica better

>>10233 Honestly, I only think the Pajeet religion posters are two or three people. The concept of Dharma and its Aryan origins are most of the draw or reason for having interest in them, at least for me. Once one understands that all pre-Abrahamic religions were natural law religions, more or less, many things become clear.

im going to stir the pot here just to get conversation going. this is an important topic. how can we really know or prove what is or isnt "natural"? how can we know what is the natural law? we say things like race mixing and homosex is unnatural, but its proponents will say and have been fed the line that its natural to be gay, and supressing that would be unnatural. they would say that if a White and a black feel romantic attraction it would be unnatural to make them suppress it. what really is the natural way? how can we explain this and prove it?

>>10394 I usually look at it through a Cosmotheist-influenced framework. The workings of Nature seem to be working towards higher and higher forms of life, more intelligent forms of life, more perfect forms of life. This isn't necessarily a linear process as one can see from one look at the world around them. It likely isn't even a process with a reachable end-goal, but still, from what we know of Earth and the Universe before us, there is a notable tendency of evolution from less complex to more complex, to lower levels of consciousness, to higher levels of consciousness. Is it ultimately true? I do not know, but I think it answers more questions than it brings up. If this is the purpose of the Whole, of Nature, it is simultaneously the purpose of everything that exists within Nature's embrace, that includes us. We all have a will to live, and a will to reproduce, and a conflict of wills produces the universal struggle for existence in which the strongest survive and the weak and unfit perish. The goal of all life is to live, and to flourish, to live on through one's descendants'. Hardly anyone could call becoming weaker, sicker and more unfit "good" or "desirable" - this aversion is almost instinctual. Who would want to become less fit for life? This is the lines that our societies should be organized on. We wish to become stronger, more fit, more healthy and more perfect. To me this is a beautiful goal, one I see in line with Nature at large. With many things described traditionally as "against Nature", we can judge them by their fruits. Homosexuality brings AIDs, STDs and does not contribute to the continuance of life or the betterment of our people into the future. Luckily the individual is irrelevant to Nature, it is the race or species' survival that bears the ultimate important, thus the homosexual should be rooted out. Race-mixing can be looked at the same way. It is a step down, a decline, in my view a contravening of the ultimate purpose of Nature. With trannies, it's filth founded on the false idea of "gender" - ultimately gender in their sense, as a social construct, is irrelevant, sex is what is important to Nature, and sex is founded on a natural division of labor within the human species for the continuance of the species. They should be rooted out as well for this reason, as well as for corrupting the youth. Notice in how all of these cases - homosexuals, race-mixers, and trannies, all who contravene Nature end up creating their own hell. The faggot becomes ridden with STDs, he is resented by his family, and for the grand finale, he dies out and the wheel of Time rolls impassively on over such a failure. The race-mixer sacrifices the entire lineage of his race leading up to him for sexual pleasure and attraction to lower varieties of humans, producing inferior offspring. If enough race-mixing happens in the society, the society loses the basis for its prosperity and reverts into a lower and more degenerated form, unable to be repaired. With trannies, they realize that mutilating their bodies does not bring them happiness, it drives them to suicide, destroys families, others feel disgust innately at their actions, and they even look hideous, just like everything against Nature. They create their own hell on Earth and reap the fruits of their deeds. Hope that explains some things, I could write a lot more but I don't want to TL;DR

>>10402 >We all have a will to live, and a will to reproduce, and a conflict of wills produces the universal struggle for existence Not all. How can nonWhites have the same aim as us when we're opposing them?

>>10447 >How can nonWhites have the same aim as us when we're opposing them? I’m not sure exactly what you mean in reference to what you greentexted. If you’re talking in regards to the will to survive and to reproduce, in Nature we see that the gains of one always come at the expense of another individual or another group. Mutual satisfaction is not the norm, it is the exception. There is a conflict of ends. If you’re referring to Cosmotheism and the idea of the Universe having some goal or tendency, it literally doesn’t even matter if niggers partake in the same nature as parts — they’re still shitskins and lower than us, not our equals at all, and anyone who would racemix with them would be committing racial suicide. Pierce used a good metaphor in regards to this, with the human body being analogous to the Whole – Every wart pimple on our body is part of us and partakes in our nature, just like how every part of the Whole partakes in the nature of the Whole. The overriding importance is the particular role a thing plays, HOW it serves. Not everything serves this purpose, just like how pimples and warts serve our body, i.e. not at all, they’re blemishes. Niggers and other subhumans are blemishes on mankind, on Nature, and though they are products of Nature, they are NOT inviolable or sacres, we are active participants in the Whole, and all of Nature tramples on and devours other parts of Nature. This is the way of things. Cosmotheism is the quest for a the higher man, and we as the highest race on Earth have the right and the duty to trample down any obstacles in our path.

>>10452 >highest race on Earth have the right and the duty to trample down any obstacles in our path. How?

>>10454 We need to gain power in the West. It’s fruitless if things can’t be changed at a societal level. If I had all the answers I’d surely be letting everyone know here. The main thing people need to be doing is organizing IRL to help our people. I plan to do this soonz

>>10456 So like Turner Diaries? First the West then murder all nonWhites as the Earth gets conquered

>>10457 The argument can certainly be made for “Ethnoglobe”

I bought this a while back and just started reading it today. It's really short, and written by a kike. He basically has claimed so far that the "right" appropriated Darwinism for a long time and "perverted" it into Social Darwinism, which was used to justify unbridled capitalism and things like eugenics. The real flaw in this is that, yes, this was a real phenomenon, but not the only use of Darwinism by the "right". Darwinism, as this book itself argues, can point to cooperation as well as competition, and there have been people who are regularly given the name "Fascists" or "Proto-Fascists" today like Oka Asajiro and Ernst Haeckel who had highly nationalistic and collectivistic interpretations of the struggle for existence among gregarious animals like humans. Totally neglected so far, and I'm over half way through this 70 page book. The Jew claims that evolution carries no moral loading whatsoever, and that we can't refer to any idea of good or bad changes, degenerations or improvements. He rejects it out of hand just because of "muh naturalistic fallacy", appealing to Hume, but neglecting that this so-called "fallacy" was literally used for thousands of years beforehand, and nature was viewed at least partially as a source of values. There's been some funny quotes from Marx sprinkled in which notes that Darwin apparently had a "bourgeois" reading of nature when he sees divisions of labor and competition (lol).

>>10642 (samefag) Finally took the time to finish this up. Honestly, it was a decent book despite the length and obvious leftist slant to it. He pointed out some things that were very surprising to me though. I did not expect him to affirm that there is a fixed human nature (at least over a long period of time), that ethnic identification is natural, and that hierarchy is universal in human societies. He even says that sex roles have very little variation across humanity. Singer says that to deny human nature or to claim that we are infinitely malleable is to risk disaster. It starts to sound based, but since he's writing from a leftist viewpoint, he still wants to cram these facts into the mould of "leftist values", i.e. siding with the weak, oppressed, and downtrodden, including animals. Some of the stuff he wrote about achieving a more cooperative society was interesting, and how everyone pursuing their own rational self-interest can lead to the harm of everyone involved were interesting. Overall, it was a good read. I'd recommend it. His book can be twisted into National Socialism more than it could gay slave morality. I read it like three sittings, but I obviously took my time since the post I'm following up on is from nearly 2 weeks ago.

>>11592 >siding with the weak, oppressed, and downtrodden So we side with the strong. Then what about those who need help. Not everyone in a racial group is born with the same iq and mentality.

>>11618 >So we side with the strong It more means that we don't see any inherent problem with at least some kinds of hierarchy, privilege and true exceptionality . Slave morality is a morality that hates and resents all things of this kind, that wants to level everything, to drag down those who rise above the herd. Today we see all sorts of rhetoric that is based on nothing more than "you're privileged, therefore you should feel bad about yourself and cater to us non-Whites, fags and freaks!". A healthy nation is a cooperative nation, otherwise it tears itself apart over petty internal differences - it's the same with a family; a harmonious family is stronger and happier than one which is constantly full of dissension, bickering and backstabbing. A nation reconstituted on our principles must take the idea of natural hierarchy into account, as well as the cooperative spirit. This said, we will not foster an environment conducive to parasitism. We will help people get back on their feet, give them what they need to have a good chance to prosper, but we won't hold their hand forever. This poster I have attached has the byword of this spirit "a Volk helps itself". The atomistic egoism of today is irreconcilable with the Völkisch attitude. We will have a morality of improvement though, not stagnation. To cull the dysgenic for the sake of the whole, and for the sake of future generations, though, out to be a duty, no matter how much moralizing over the value of their lives there may be.

>Adolf Hitler was literally an evangelist of love. His words, his actions, his entire existence is testimony to his selfless love of his Folk. Anyone who takes the time to honestly examine Adolf Hitler’s speeches and writings can readily see the great love he had for his Folk. His actions proved his words. Everything that he did was done for benefit of the Folk. The welfare and higher evolution of the Folk is the only reason for the existence of National Socialism. Every aspect of National Socialism, no matter how small or insignificant, is for the present or future benefit of the Folk. Every decision was based on the answer to one question: Is it good for the Folk? https://nationalvanguard.org/2019/06/the-eternal-laws-of-nature-love-and-national-socialism/

>>10642 Well he's not wrong about it being Capitalist apologetica

>>11736 Not necessarily. Read this book if you want to see what I mean. The guy the study is written about is a 'proto-Fascist' Japanese biologist who was part of the Social Darwinist tradition. Taking into account the fact that humans are social animals, and theories such as organic individuality, his type of Social Darwinism is a far cry from individualistic pro-capitalist Social Darwinism. In fact, this thinker was directly opposed to capitalism, as it led to materialism and atomized individualism, breaking the organic bonds of society, and how it made money the sole measurement of individual value. Anglo-American Social Darwinism was little more than individualistic capitalist apologia, but the German tradition was more how I described, collectivistic, nationalistic and racialist. Shorter paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41488416