/natsoc/ - National Socialism

>Violence is the supreme authority all other authorities is derived from.

>It's is the natural law and to think that it does not apply to the different human species inhabiting this planet is utter retardation and suicidal.

That's absurd. Violence becoming the supreme authority is a death sentence for civilization. Such a philosophy is a path to utter ruin and constant destruction. We lost in 1945 because we were too aggressive and too bloodthirsty.

>This world is a continous battle for survival and it's resources.

You clearly have little to no knowledge of economics. Yes, competition for resources is important for things like innovation and efficiency; but collaboration is equally critical. The pie is not fixed, and the game is not zero sum.

> And why should they deserve our pity and be allowed to live when in every other instance in nature the weaker gets purged

Biology, too, seems a field you have a limited and wrong-headed understanding of. Weakness *dies off*. More often due to not reproducing than combat. That's "survival of the fittest" - reproducing and adapting, not wanton murdering.

I'm fine with Imperialism, so long as the costs are not outrageous, and we don't disgrace ourselves like the barbarians we will claim to rule. But your reasons for supporting it are so wildly wrong, so completely unrooted in any legitimate science or art, and so overwhelmingly misinformed, that you would do the movement a service by never speaking another word about politics for as long as you live.

>>2445

>We lost in 1945 because we were too aggressive and too bloodthirsty.

No. We lost because Hitler was too much of a pussy to destroy England when he had the chance.

>but collaboration is equally critical.

We need niggers to survive?

>>2442

I agree with you OP. The world belongs to us.

>>2451

>No. We lost because Hitler was too much of a pussy to destroy England when he had the chance.

There was no chance for him to destroy England. At no point did an amphibious invasion of the island make even the slightest military sense, or else the trigger happy loon would have done it. There was no reasonable chance to destroy Russia, especially not by splitting his Army in 3, but he did it anyways; how grave do you think the prospects for an invasion of England must have been to dissuade him?

We lost because, instead of being content holding onto France and fighting England, we had to go to Russia too. We got too aggressive and launched ourselves into one of history's greatest military disasters.

But hey, it's also super important that we just endlessly rape and raid, right? Who cares if its rational or has some other point? Mindless violence FTW!

>We need niggers to survive?

Not what I meant, and we obviously don't. However, we also aren't in "continuous battle with them for survival and resources", and there is no reason to believe mass warmongering racial crusaderism is a needed to survive and thrive ourselves.

OP has some points, but there's several factors affecting us that are going to stop us from taking over anytime soon. Firstly, liberalism and democracy is the social norm. As was the Nazi party's ideology, democracy is weak. In western countries that's all there is, thus where UKIP for instance has 13% total vote, but fails to gain more than one seat. Secondly, the white population growth rate is slowing down. If this is not reversed, we will die out as a race by 2100. Thirdly, Europe hasn't closed it's borders to the influx of immigrants fucking up the culture of the homeland.

>>2445

>We lost in 1945 because we were too aggressive and too bloodthirsty.

im guesing you dont realize who massacred people the most in wwii and after it