On “Pan-Germanic Socialism and Animal Rights” (Pt. I of II)


While I am familiar with Pan-Germanic Socialism’s positions on Animal Rights, I doubt most people are fully aware of why the ideology is supportive of Animal Rights, let alone its implications beyond the obvious pro-Environmentalist ones. There is a philosophical argument being promoted in that aforementioned section in “Der nationale Sozialismus” where Rudolf Jung had discussed about the topic in passing. How it ties in with Göring’s statements can be inferred from Jung’s justifications for “Animal Welfare” as part of his proposed Municipalization Policy:

“One should not forget that animal abusers above all have a predisposition towards criminality. In this sense, animal welfare is also human welfare.”

What most people do not realize is that there is far more to the metaphysical logic, and how it relates to what Hermann Göring in this ARPLAN Post. In essence, when Pan-Germanic Socialism advocates for Animal Rights, it is consciously doing so to express a philosophical opposition toward “Humanocentrism” or “Anthropocentrism,” the Enlightenment belief that humanity is the center of everything within the universe. It claims that because humanity is meant to be independent from and superior to nature, humanity has a Natural Right to exploit nature itself. Conventional Liberal Capitalist interpretations of “Human Rights,” since they are also interrelated with the concept of “Natural Rights,” can be traced back to this sort of Enlightenment thinking and its relationship with three well-known Liberal Capitalist philosophies, “Utilitarianism,” “Egalitarianism,” and “Positivism.” Since its origins stem from the Liberal Capitalist perversion of Natural Law, it makes sense for Göring to be insisting that both problem and solution are to be found in legal jurisprudence. Göring appeared to be confident about his own assertions that I am convinced that Pan-Germanic Socialism’s stances on Animal Rights should be understood more broadly as part of its own legal theory.

How do we begin to comprehend what I will be referring to as “Pan-Germanic Legal Theory (PGLT)?” Regardless of whether you, Bogumil, consider yourself religious or irreligious, there is still a very fine distinction between Natural Rights and Legal Rights. Unlike Legal Rights, because they are legislated and passed by the State, Natural Rights is derived from “Natural Law,” which is a legal framework whose basis is moral and therefore meant to be applicable to all of humanity. Natural Law, given its origins in Theology, derives itself from our conventional senses of right and wrong based on our epistemological perceptions of Divine Law (whose basis is derived from the Catholic Church vis-à-vis St. Thomas Aquinas).

To be honest, I am not at all suggesting that Natural Law in itself is inherently antithetical to Pan-Germanic Socialism or any Socialism for that matter like National Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism. If Pan-Germanic Socialism is somehow opposed to Natural Law, then why was Jung invoking Freedom of Conscience in the contexts of Der nationale Sozialismus Chapters “At the Gates to the Future” and “The Concept of Freedom and Defensive Readiness?” Those Chapters could never be written without some basis in Natural Law. In fact, it is clear to me that PGLT is capable of respecting Natural Law so long as Natural Law itself is capable of being detached from the Liberal Capitalist concept of Natural Rights.

Legally speaking, we cannot have Liberal Capitalist legal jurisprudence without Natural Rights. This legal jurisprudence operates on the notion that because humanity originated from what it calls a “State of Nature,” the “Civil Government” must act as the intermediate between the “Private Citizen” and the “Civil Society.” I have referred to this phenomenon on my Blog as “State of Natural Rights” because of its legal implications being socioeconomic, financial and technological:

“Could something as Alienable as an Unnatural Right be repurposed into a ‘Natural Right’ and convince everyone into believing that it is somehow ‘Inalienable?’ The ideological language is implying that Nature itself constitutes as its own government outside of a nation-state’s legal jurisprudence. If anyone is willing to believe in that, they are also capable of adopting the same mindset that enjoys theological pastimes like conspiracy theories, alternate histories, parlor games, investment speculations, economic sanctions, and labor strikes. This ‘State of Nature’ is in fact about as ‘natural’ as a Derin Devlet (Deep State), a Shadow Government, a Vehmgericht (Extrajudicial Court of Contract Killers), Secret Societies, Offshore Banks, Black Markets, Terrorist Cells, Political Assassinations, Military Coups, and Smoke-Filled Rooms. I mean, why would criminals not want to establish their own parallel governments? The Commission of the American Mafia is an often overlooked example since the Castellammarese War, the Castellammarese War itself continuing the Prohibition introduced by Amendment XVIII.

But the ‘State of Nature’ concept is capable of coexisting under legal and illegal contexts. Its illegal context claims that ‘Nature itself’ is somehow capable of exhibiting the ‘human consciousness’ of an actual criminal. The legal context, meanwhile, suggests that this ‘human consciousness’ is incapable of being free and secure on a deeply subconscious level, compensating this apparent unfreedom and insecurity by projecting them onto reality itself through the Freedom-Security Dialectic. Here, we find all of the ideological justifications for Liberal Capitalism because we are left assuming that somebody is psychically and psychologically enslaved by a ‘Shadow Government’ operating on dubious legal claims of ‘Natural Law.’ From the purview of Jungian Psychology, is it too much of a coincidence for the oldest conspiracy theory in existence to be consistently about a ‘Shadow with its own Government?’”

Therein lies the fundamental problem with Natural Rights as far as Pan-Germanic Socialism and most Socialisms in general are concerned, and why PGLT should have no issues whatsoever with Natural Law. Not everyone in any conceivable social group operates according to the same legal and moral understandings of right and wrong. Our everyday notions of right and wrong, like legal and illegal, does not occur within Nature nor does it occur in a vacuum divorced from Reality itself. These notions are in final analysis the end result of a consensus forged by the social relations between the Individual, their Volksgemeinschaft and other Volksgemeinschaften.

As for the topic of PGLT, it needs to have its own follow up comment.


Categories: Philosophy

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: