Natcolasis

Natcolasis
Basic Information
Aliases	National Collective basis
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Collectivism Egoism Utilitarianism Spiritualism Amaterialism Semi-Post-Scarcityism Class Dealignment Relative Moderatism Pragmatism Paternalism Semi-Voluntary Delusion
Influenced	Ziółkowskiizm

Natcolasis, a condensed form of "National Collective Basis," serves as the philosophical foundation of Ziółkowskiizm. It posits that human nature, initially driven by egoism, has progressively evolved towards collectivism as a means of self-preservation. This evolution culminates in the national collective, seen as the most refined and innate state of being for humanity. Additionally, Natcolasis contends that, in the grand scheme of things, economic policy holds significantly less importance than social and civic policies. Instead, it emphasizes that the optimal solution to economic matters is found in the long-term approach of fiscal federalism.

The development of the man

Humanity embarked on a transformative journey from a primitive existence as just another species of animals to emerging as a burgeoning civilization, marked by two distinctive traits: collectivism and spiritualism. Before this shift, humans, like all living creatures, were driven by a basic form of egoism — a primal instinct to survive, find enjoyment, and reproduce. While some higher-order life forms exhibited rudimentary forms of collectivism, such as wolf packs or elephant families, what truly set humans apart was their gradual embrace of spiritualism and idealism.
This spiritual awakening prompted humans to contemplate matters beyond mere survival and reproduction. They pondered questions about what lay beyond death and how the world would progress and function once they were gone — considerations that other animals, aside from their reproductive instincts, did not share. This transformative process led to an evolution of human egoism, from a basic drive for survival and reproduction to a more sophisticated and pragmatic form that included the pursuit of societal development.
Notably, humans already exhibited a preference for quality over quantity in terms of reproduction. However, with the belief that the world continued after their demise, humans sought to establish systems and conditions that would enhance the quality of life for future generations. Recognizing the limitations of individualism or small familial groups, they understood that the older generation's knowledge could be lost, or they might be vulnerable to attacks by larger tribes.
In essence, humans grasped that they could not achieve their full potential by pursuing egoism individually. Instead, they realized that by working together, they could collectively attain a satisfactory portion of their desires. This realization spurred the formation of advanced collectives with shared interests, a development that was further propelled by the eventual invention of language within these collectives.
This pattern of evolution continued over time, progressing from tribes to villages, communities, and ultimately to collectives overseen by chiefs, counts, or dukes. However, as some of these leaders devolved into oppressive individualism, exploiting the land for personal gain, people began to recognize the need for a new form of governance. The concept of the nation emerged, where collective membership was based on language, ethnicity, or shared spirit rather than being subject to rule by a potentially benevolent or malevolent monarch within a specific territory.
This final step allowed the collective to fulfill the natural ego of its members while remaining large enough to be meaningful and useful.

Well Who's the leader now?

In the grand evolution of Humanity, particularly in Europe's context, the final stage had been reached: the formation of national collectives. However, a pressing issue arose - what should the national collective do if faced with a tyrannical king or one who served the interests of another collective? The people's resounding response was revolt, which ignited the flames of the French Revolution. Yet, an even more complex challenge loomed on the horizon: the daunting question of leadership.
Initially, the people rallied behind Jérôme Pétion de Villeneuve, but this support proved short-lived. Those who followed him spiraled into radicalism and totalitarianism, even surpassing the excesses of the monarchy. It became evident that these leaders, who stepped into the power vacuum left by the deposed monarchs, were not loyal to the nation but rather to their own ideologies and governments. Their actions were driven by a desire to eradicate any trace of monarchist sentiment, leading them to lose sight of the original purpose of the revolution. Instead of pursuing justice, they embarked on a vengeful rampage against the very concept of monarchy itself.
Amidst this chaos emerged a figure who wasn't exceptionally radical or deeply embedded in the inner circle of revolutionaries. This man had defeated entire armies with his brilliant strategic mind, and he was unwaveringly devoted not to revenge but to the strength and prosperity of his nation. His commitment bordered on the almost radical, and his name was Napoleon Bonaparte. Fearing for his beloved nation, he returned from Egypt to France, fearing its impending collapse. In response, he staged a coup, eventually becoming the First Consul and later the Emperor. However, he didn't assume the title of Emperor of France, as France was more than just a royal title. Instead, he proclaimed himself the Emperor of the French, vowing to lead and protect the French nation.
The answer to the people's dilemma became evident: to shield the nation from both avaricious kings and vengeful radicals, a strong, authoritarian leader was needed. This leader had to genuinely believe in the nation, loving it from the depths of their heart. They had to possess spiritualistic values and reject materialism. Importantly, this leader had to hail from within the collective, yet not be excessively idealistic. The nation required an authoritarian, pragmatic, and staunch nationalist leader, and in Napoleon, they found the first of his kind.

Why not Further?

The idea of a national collective had taken shape, but why stop there? Why not explore the concept of pan-national collectives or even a global human collective? After all, wouldn't cooperation on a worldwide scale maximize utility for everyone? Well, no.
Pan-national collectives can work, but they require careful nurturing and a specific approach, as seen in the cases of Russia and China. In Russia, as the national collective was evolving as a form of organization within the population (not in terms of statehood, which came later in 1918), various ethnic groups within the Russian Empire influenced the broader Russian collective. These minority groups emerged from the process as sub-groups of the larger Russian collective, akin to how Silesians and Kashubians became part of the broader Polish collective.
In China, the Han Chinese assimilated and influenced other ethnic groups, compelling them to align more closely with the wider Chinese collective. This process was similar to Russia but more forced, leading to a more effective outcome. However, even these relatively successful pan-national collectives had their drawbacks. In Russia, this resulted in a less defined and more fluid definition of the broader Russian nation, leading to issues like the South Ruthenians' identity struggles and, ultimately, the Chechen wars/The Russo-Ukrainian war. In China, while they managed to avoid groups breaking off, they still face challenges, particularly with Tibet and Uighuristan.
Furthermore, pan-national collectives are not inherently stable and can lead to the disintegration of the collective and the partition of the nation-state, giving rise to future conflicts. For instance, China has experienced periods of warlord rule throughout its history, which highlights the risk of division within a pan-national collective. Conversely, Hungary, which lacks existing sub-groups within its collective, would face the arduous task of inventing entirely new collectives to support any potential partition. The Donbass situation in Ukraine illustrates the challenges of sustaining such divisions. East and West Germany, on the other hand, swiftly reunified after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
As for the notion of a pan-human collective, its unfeasible. Finding a common interest shared by all of humanity is an insurmountable challenge because collectives typically thrive on competition and the need for a common interest against something or someone. Moreover, collectives necessitate a level of competition, and unless extraterrestrial beings suddenly appeared, a global human collective remains impractical and potentially dangerous. Even if it were achievable, the rewards of reaching a common interest would be spread so thinly that individuals would receive minimal benefit, ultimately leading to the natural disintegration of such a collective. Achievements are celebrated when they belong to a specific country, are interesting when attributed to a geopolitical bloc, but become meaningless when everyone has accomplished them.

Why is everything going wrong now?

The date is September 1st, 1939, and the clock reads 4:45 a.m. On this fateful morning, the Kriegsmarine's battleship, the Schleswig-Holstein, opens fire on the Polish military transit depot at Westerplatte in the Free City of Danzig, situated on the Baltic Sea. Little do people realize that the world is about to descend into an ever-accelerating downward spiral.
The roots of this calamity trace back to the humiliation suffered by Germany after World War I at the hands of the Entente powers. This humiliation left the entire German nation nursing a deep-seated anger, akin to the seething rage that preceded Napoleon's rise in France. The Allies, too, are fearful, having triumphed in the war but finding themselves at a loss when dealing with a resolute and vengeful Germany.
The Allies devised a plan — a scheme to strip the German nation of a significant part of its identity by replacing community-oriented and collective practices with individualistic and hedonistic ones. The goal was to destabilize Germany, pushing its people into a syncretic, primal-modern state of mind, where their focus would shift away from societal development. Instead, they would become consumed by the present moment and sensory stimuli. This strategy yielded short-term results, leading to widespread degeneracy during the Weimar Republic.
However, such a drastic deviation from human nature ultimately triggered a swift and extreme swing in the opposite direction. The rise of the National Socialists, hyper-nationalists seeking revenge and domination at any cost, was a dark chapter in history. Fortunately, their efforts did not succeed, and things returned to a semblance of normalcy.
Nevertheless, the hypernationalism displayed by this conquering country left a lasting impact on the Western psyche. Although nationalism remained the norm, it began to carry the bitter association of genocide and imperialism. Seeds of anti-nationalism were sown, setting the stage for the Cold War. Initially Both sides maintained their policies, but a mutual desire to avoid an all-out nuclear confrontation prevailed.
This status quo persisted until the Vietnam War, during which the defeatism within the anti-war movement led some soldiers to adopt anti-government stances. These stances were later co-opted and distorted by social outcasts, criminals and degenerates who called themselves hippies, who espoused anti-nationalist and individualist beliefs. While these ideas failed to resonate with the broader population, they did play a role in the election of Richard Nixon, who aimed to counteract the influence of the hippie movement.
Unfortunately, Nixon's presidency was marred by the Watergate scandal, leading to his resignation. Seizing the opportunity, the hippie movement began to infiltrate American society from within, transforming the USA into a proponent of anti-nationalist, pink capitalist ideals. This led to the Soviet Bloc becoming more nationalistic further deepening the ideological divide.
The United States, founded under unique circumstances, failed to evolve past the notion of leadership collectives, despite the transition from kings to presidents. Unlike Europe, Asia, and Africa, which relied on language, ethnicity, or shared spirit as the basis for their evolved collectives, the USA placed the government at the center of its collective identity due to it lacking any other shared traits.
At this juncture, the situation could have been manageable had the Soviets won the Cold War. However, they did not, and the USA continued exporting anationalism and societal devolution worldwide. Western Europe already felt its influence, and this trajectory threatens to exacerbate mental health issues, spiritual erosion, and a loss of cultural identity in the Old World. Meanwhile, pink capitalist tycoons amass wealth in the USA.
Unless there is a concerted effort to alter the current course, the world faces the peril of further decline.