THE FUTURE: TOTALITARIAN TECHNOCRACY A NAZBOL MANIFESTO ADDENDUM In this chapter I finally want to talk about the future. Usually when you ask people which ideology they believe and then ask them which ideology they think will be triumphant in the end, they will answer the same thing twice. That's because most people believe that their way of thinking will eventually win out and triumph over all the other ideologies. They essentially believe in Hollywood style "happy ending". At least "happy ending" from their point of view of course. I am not one of those people. I am strongly aware that there is a difference between what you want to happen and what will actually happen. Just because you want things to end up certain way doesn't mean that they will actually end up that way. Just because you want to win, doesn't mean that you will win. I consider it wishful thinking if people automatically assume that their own ideology will win in the end over all others. Even if you strongly believe that your ideas are correct, doesn't necessary mean that those ideas will dominate the political debate in the future. Truth doesn't always win. So even though I want the ideology of National Bolshevism to take over in the future, I don't actually think it will happen. So what do I think the future holds? Which social system do I think will dominate in the future? I think it will be Totalitarian Technocracy.
Now you might say that National Bolshevism is a form of Totalitarian Technocracy as well and I would agree with you, I certainly believe that a National Bolshevik state would be essentially technocratic, but in this case I mean a completely different kind of totalitarian technocracy. I think it will be Totalitarian Technocracy of no particular ideological flavor. Ideology-less totalitarian and technocratic state. It will be a system where ideologies ceased to exist. A system where the divide between right-wing and left-wing, capitalism and socialism, globalism and nationalism, all political and ideological dualities ceased to exist. There will be only one ideology, the only one allowed by the state and that will be loyalty to the state. Why do I think such system will triumph in the end? Because it is a natural evolution of things in my opinion. On one side you have extremist forces that are trying to take over and create a totalitarian state, on the other side you have people who are trying to prevent that by tightening the surveillance and usage of other Orwellian police state methods. Either the extremist win and create a totalitarian state or the other side will create one by trying to prevent that. In the end they will create the very thing they were trying to prevent the whole time. Sweet irony. It is Ouroboros, a positive feedback loop, a self-fulfilling prophecy. But, you say, if the extremists win, then they will create a totalitarian state that won't be ideology-less. And you are right, it won't be... at least not at first. But eventually even the most ideologically driven totalitarian state will turn into an ideologically hollow dictatorship which makes decisions purely on practical basis. It might take few generations to get there, but eventually it will happen. Just look at China.
But what about ideologies that want to dissolve the state, you say. What about Anarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism? If those won, there would be no totalitarian state, right? You're wrong. Even those ideologies eventually lead to state. If you dissolve the state, then what happens? The corporations will take over everything and they will grow bigger and bigger and eventually they will become the state. Eventually one mega-corporation will get so big that it will swallow up all the other corporations, monopolize everything and becomes a new state. Never doubt that a corporation that controls 100% of products on the market and has private military "security forces" so large that it can rival regular militaries will eventually start behaving just like the state. But what about non-capitalist anarchism? Isn't hope at least there? No. As I already explained in previous chapters: People will require security, that will lead to formation of voluntary "watch" of vigilantes, which will eventually turn into a police force and becomes a seed of a new state. The conclusion is inescapable. All paths lead to the same result: A totalitarian technocratic state. Actually you could see the whole history as a series of rises, falls and comebacks of totalitarian states. Every time a group of people rises against an oppressive totalitarian state and manages to take it down and replace it with a new system, eventually their own system turns into a totalitarian state itself. And the cycle continues. It never ends. Or at least it didn't yet. But maybe it might now. The technological era might allow the totalitarian technocratic state to remain in power indefinitely. Technological-totalitarianism might be finally the end of this never-ending cycle as the state can use super-modern technology to dodge any attempt at taking it down. Who knows, we will see.
What's a nazbol? I mean I know that it means that you're an ultra nationalistic communist, but in practice, does it just mean that ethno-Russian workers should rule Russia? ...or is there some edgy stuff that you do while you oppress all the other people?
>>234689 > ultra nationalistic communist Exactly. > does it just mean that ethno-Russian workers should rule Russia? Well... depends on your definitions. If your definition of ethno-nationalism is the standard Western definition of the word where ethnicity is a racial concept and a "race" is defined as a genetically closely related people, then... not really. Russian nationalism usually isn't very focused on genetics. In the eastern Europe, people usually define their nationality based on linguistics and common culture. The term "ethnicity" is seen as synonymous with nationality and isn't really widely understood as something that is about genetics in eastern Europe. In slavic countries people usually say that "if you speak like we do, and behave like we do, then you are one of us". (The only exception are gypsies who never really integrate into the main society, so even if they speak the language, they are seen as foreign element, since they don't behave like that majority of the population.) tl;dr Nationalism in eastern-Europe is complicated and usually quite different from your standard western ethno-nationalism But sure, NazBol people are definitely nationalistic (in some sense). And of course they do support workers and the working class. NazBol is a socialism party after all. Basically we hate rich people, we hate Germans, Brits and other Westerners, etc. Basically ultra-nationalism + anti-capitalism.
>>234690 What you describe sounds just like patriotism, and patriotism is usually a given in political ideologies, so I'd then equate it to just anti-capitalism then - maybe include the term "isolationalist", depending on if you want foreign trade to exist. You have a deep distrust for Russian capitalists, which I certainly can't blame you for: Russia is notorious for corrupt oligarchs who are valued above the law. You're much more sympathetic than your imagery gives you credit for.
>Which social system do I think will dominate in the future? I read your OP post but tl;dr the rest. But every person is fighting for their own needs and personal freedom, and that balances it out. Any society will always have the most amount of freedom possible, unless a good portion of their citizens do not care for personal freedoms. But socialists, communists, fascists, nazists, they will never win because they want to enforce their own version of what they think is best onto others, and the others will always fight back.
>>234697 > hurr durr muh FREEDOM (tm) will win You have no idea what's coming man...
If you want to guess about the future then the hero systems in all their various forms will be gradually replaced with something that supports increasing freedom; this is the fundamental desire that all humans work for. Society and culture is based on fiction, this fable is gradually eroded over time as perception increases, consciousness and the drive toward freedom also increases. OP is a fabrication: a deliberately false or improbable account of projected self interest. Adlerian Psychology: All problems are relationship problems. We seek release from interpersonal relationships, to be free from relationship problems. The courage to be happy also includes the courage to be disliked. Freedom is being disliked by other people. If you don't do what they want they dislike you. So we see that relationship is an imaginary contract, they don't last, and they are continually modified until someone leaves. At the beginning of a relationship is the time to also make an escape plan knowing the above.
>>234703 Unfortunately for you, you can't quit your relationship with the state.
>>234703 > All problems are relationship problems Yeah, because if you are a starving child in Africa, then you're having a relationship problem with food. XD Idiot...
>>234708 The carrying capacity of the planet has been exceeded by 6 billion people. We were warned more than 25 years ago that population has to be below 2 billion to be sustainable. If you think there is someone to save stand up and exercise your backbone by trying to teach black people something, anything that will change things. But be careful you will probably end up in a hole dead as a thank you for interfering in their low IQ dreams of Kangs n Sheeit. They just want the gibs and obviously you are a ghetto boy too. There is no one to help, nothing to get, nowhere to go, nothing that can be changed, beyond the coming plagues to thin the rest of the herd. What it comes down to now, and this has evidence in the past, the smart ruthless ones will live and the imbeciles will die. This should be self evident but this idiot has to point it out reality to you; ... improve your vocabulary while you're at it.
>>234709 The carrying capacity of the Earth is actually 10 billion people, so we are only at 75% of the maximum carrying capacity of the planet right now, you uneducated racist fuck.
>>234709 Also your argument is absolutely unrelated to the previous topic and it is not a counter-argument to my point, which is that not all problems are relationship problems. You should admit defeat regarding the discussion of that topic. Or maybe you still want to argue that starving people have relationship problem with food and that people with cancer have relationship problem with their cells and that people who lost their legs during a car accident have relationship problem with their limbs... You are full of shit and you know it...
>>234710 Carrying cap. is below 2 billion, ...you will need some evidence to go with your retardation this time. >>234711 If the people you want to save are to stupid to eat then they will die, the end. Go eat your deep fried boogers Gomer.
>>234711 Since you are quite dense between the ears I looked it up for you. relationship ~ noun 1. (`relationship' is often used where `relation' would serve, as in `the relationship between inflation and unemployment', but the preferred usage of `relationship' is for human relations or states of relatedness) a relation between people the relationship between mothers and their children 2. a state of connectedness between people (especially an emotional connection) he didn't want his wife to know of the relationship 3. a state involving mutual dealings between people or parties or countries
>>234712 > Carrying cap. is below 2 billion, ...you will need some evidence to go with your retardation this time My source for the number 10 billion is the UN World Population Report from 2001. What is your source for the number 2 billion? I bet you made that number up.
>>234713 Nobody asked you for the definition of the word "relationship". I asked you to demonstrate that every problem in existence is a relationship problem. >>234714 How is that evidence for anything? How is that even related to the topic? Am I talking to a random sentence generator here?
>>234716 No one asked you for more boogers.
>>234715 All that proves is that the UN is worthless and full of imbeciles. ~Greta If you knew how to research I guess you would have found it already, have some science. Overpopulation is Solvable https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/story/overpopulation-solvable Current Population is Three Times the Sustainable Level https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANPaAHhfNck
Jacques Cousteau, the internationally respected oceanographer, explained to the UNESCO Courier in an interview in November 1991: “The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics—it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer.” He then added: “This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
>>234718 ...continuing... And then of course I have to include Hans Rosling, because he presents the statistics for understanding these problems, they aren't as simple as they seem. Hans Rosling asks: Has the UN gone mad? https://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-end-poverty/ The Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
I've seen this logo somewhere, is that the human adaptation of "Anonymous in Industria" ?
Jews Thailand Terrorists Capitalism Racism Climate Trump Pedos China ISIS Conspiracy Iran Niggers Brexit Clinton Homosexuals North Korea Virus Hitler Hate USA Nazis Aliens Epstein Liberals Virus Stalin Immigrants Allah Fascism blah blah blah Jews Thailand Terrorists Capitalism Racism Climate Trump Pedos China ISIS Conspiracy Iran Niggers Brexit Clinton Homosexuals North Korea Virus Hitler Hate USA Nazis Aliens Epstein Liberals Virus Stalin Immigrants Allah Fascism blah blah blah Jews Thailand Terrorists Capitalism Racism Climate Trump Pedos China ISIS Conspiracy Iran Niggers Brexit Clinton Homosexuals North Korea Virus Hitler Hate USA Nazis Aliens Epstein Liberals Virus Stalin Immigrants Allah Fascism blah blah blah Jews Thailand Terrorists Capitalism Racism Climate Trump Pedos China ISIS Conspiracy Iran Niggers Brexit Clinton Homosexuals North Korea Virus Hitler Hate USA Nazis Aliens Epstein Liberals Virus Stalin Immigrants Allah Fascism blah blah blah Jews Thailand Terrorists Capitalism Racism Climate Trump Pedos China ISIS Conspiracy Iran Niggers Brexit Clinton Homosexuals North Korea Virus Hitler Hate USA Nazis Aliens Epstein Liberals Virus Stalin Immigrants Allah Fascism blah blah blah Jews Thailand Terrorists Capitalism Racism Climate Trump Pedos China ISIS Conspiracy Iran Niggers Brexit Clinton Homosexuals North Korea Virus Hitler Hate USA Nazis Aliens Epstein Liberals Virus Stalin Immigrants Allah Fascism blah blah blah Jews Thailand Terrorists Capitalism Racism Climate Trump Pedos China ISIS Conspiracy Iran Niggers Brexit Clinton Homosexuals North Korea Virus Hitler Hate USA Nazis Aliens Epstein Liberals Virus Stalin Immigrants Allah Fascism blah blah blah
>>234721 Pretty cool logo. I like it. I would have used it in the cover if I knew about its existence.
>>234718 >>234719 You don't get it... This is carrying capacity of the planet assuming the current level of living standards. The maximum carrying capacity of the planet is something else entirely, since it assumes that living standards could be lowered and resources could be used more efficiently (eating insects instead of cows, etc.)