Post by Ken (INTJ) on Aug 20, 2018 4:31:25 GMT
All those who wish to participate in this round of production will need to respond to this thread within 2 days with a written evaluation. At the end of the week, we will vote numerically (using either this system or aarvoll's system). The winner of that voting process will determine the topic for the next round.
The question is: how should an organization be structured?
When we examine the right wing today, we see a lot of wheel spinning, reinventing the wheel, and making the same mistakes over and over again. There is little inter-generational education, little learning from the past. In some senses, the right wing is less organized, less disciplined, and less resilient than ever before.
Most right wingers exist within a subculture of media entertainment. Whatever is interesting, edgy, trendy, entertaining, memetic, and comedic is what captures interest.
Of course, propaganda is meant to be all these things. However, once someone is a true believer in the principles of right wing thought, propaganda is no longer a method of utilizing that person's talents and knowledge. Propaganda for the initiated is merely a hug-box, hedonism, self gratification, a morale booster.
THE SVALBARD EXAMPLE: ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SCHOLASTIC ORGANIZATION
Svalbard is an Artic island north of Norway with a population of 2,000. It is more populous than Greenland, but instead of being mixed with Inuits, the residents of Svalbard are ethnic Norwegians. It is a functioning society with infrastructure and a local government, largely independent of Norway. Svalbard is demilitarized and deregulated due to international agreements which give all member countries (including China and Russia) access to coal mining on the island. You don't need a visa to settle there, and you can buy land without Norwegian citizenship. There is no welfare system in place, so no refugees will go there. The only taxes are local taxes. If 2,000 "radicals" traveled there, (libertarian, anarchist, nazi, or otherwise) they would control the government.
Will 2,000 radicals move to Svalbard? The reality is that they haven't.
Millions of Americans describe themselves as white nationalist, communist, libertarian, or "radical." Many of them shout slogans like "live free or die" and proclaim that they would give themselves for the cause. This is just empty rhetoric and social signaling. The truth is that people join radical movements because they are angry at the world and blame "the system" for their own messed up lives. Becoming a "radical" is a convenient way to blow off steam by confused people who don't know how to solve their own personal problems. Sometimes this improves their life by giving them a new purpose, but it does not necessarily change society.
Most actions of "self-sacrifice" are self serving and do not change the course of history. Street fighters will tell you they are "putting their lives on the line for the cause" when they are really just adrenaline junkies who enjoy a good rumble. The thrill of political extremism is much like the thrill of cocaine. Being edgy, upsetting "normies," trolling, going outside the mainstream, being a "rebel just for kicks" is ultimately self serving and represents no higher calling.
Those who achieve real change will not necessarily be those who are chasing the thrill of extremism. They will be careful, methodical, disciplined, and patient. The group which succeeds in achieving sovereignty for itself will not be the one which best organizes street fighters, but the one which is capable of moving 2,000 people to Svalbard.
Of course, Svalbard itself is not the goal, but it is a good example of what a truly disciplined organization would have the capacity to achieve. The only reason that this many people would sacrifice their lives to live on an island like Svalbard is if they had a powerful enough religion to motivate them. For those who are intelligent, this requires a powerful metaphysic. For those who aren't, this requires a powerful hierarchy and authority structure.
Authority is simply derived from propaganda, which is the art of rhetoric, emotional conflation, and repetition. The average person can be propagandized to follow almost anyone and anything. The key element is then to capture the intelligent people first and foremost, and then to propagandize the masses. This can only be done with metaphysics.
What is needed, then, is a scholarly and academic organization to discover a powerful metaphysic as the basis for a world altering religion. We may consider Christianity as the necessary exoteric exterior of this metaphysic, but understanding the criticisms of atheists and pagans, we must delve deeper than mainstream evangelicalism, biblical literalism, and Israel worship.
On the right, radix journal and counter-currents were the biggest attempts toward a scholarly and spiritual right. Counter currents can be applauded for surviving the alt-right street-fighting clown show. However, its telos is not right wing in nature:
"There are people who insist on combining White Nationalism with a list of Right-wing add-ons—Christianity, paganism, radical Traditionalism, holocaust revisionism, etc. [...] There is a difference between a political ideology and a political movement. A political ideology is defined by philosophical first principles. A political movement is defined by its goals and assessment of political realities. [...] If our movement is to grow, we need to discourage such sectarian tendencies. Currently they are of the Right, because that’s where our movement began. But Left-wing sectarianism will inevitably emerge as our movement grows to encompass the whole political spectrum."
The difference between a religion and a race is that a race is a result or product of evolution, and religion is a process or tool to direct evolution. Race is the object of religious thought. Nowhere can this be clearer than in the example of egalitarian fanaticism and the vast denographic change in formerly European lands. But such changes happened previously in history, in the reverse, with the religious competition and fervor of the 16th century and the contemporary colonialism. The only way to reverse demographic trends is by addressing their religious roots. And that requires organization.
Before one can reshape the religious landscape, "Svalbard readiness" must be achieved. This will require a progressive build up over time which will start with more superficial and simplistic topics of study.
If we assume that all this theorizing is a pipe dream, such a goal might still inspire useful projects. A centralized community with a sense of purpose, direction, and interdependence could motivate individuals to produce works that they might otherwise not. Having an organized community which demands production fulfills the natural human desire for intellectual pressure. Many geniuses work best under pressure.
The key starting elements are:
1. Direction
2. Production
3. Evaluation
4. Selection
5. Speciation
The director element demands a style and subject for content, which must then be produced by content creators. This content is then evaluated by the production team, and finally the qualitative analysis must be reduced to a quantitative selection. The winners of this selection then become the directors for the next round. Speciation allows for multiple directions to emerge once the group exceeds a certain size -- say, 14 people.
For example:
Each research team could be composed of at least 7 people. They have one week for research, one week for production. During evaluation, everyone votes for someone else. At the end of 14 days, the votes decrease by half, plus one for institutional weighting.
Voting: (everyone voted for A, A voted for B)
A 1+6
B 1+1
C 1
D 1
E 1
F 1
G 1
Halving: (divide score by 2)
A 3.5
B 1
C 0.5
D 0.5
E 0.5
F 0.5
G 0.5
Contribution weighting: (add 1 simply for contribution in the round)
A 4.5
B 2
C 1.5
D 1.5
E 1.5
D 1.5
G 1.5
Voting: (everyone voted for A, A voted for B)
A 4.5+9.5=14
B 2+4.5=6.5
C 1.5
D 1.5
E 1.5
F 1.5
G 1.5
Halving: (divide by two)
A 7
B 3.25
C 0.75
D 0.75
E 0.75
F 0.75
G 0.75
Contribution weighting: (add 1 simply for contributing ; G did not contribute)
A 8
B 4.25
C 1.75
D 1.75
E 1.75
F 1.75
G 0.75
In the most extreme case, a consistent last place producer would get a vote of nearly 2 after many rounds of voting. Meanwhile, the first place winner could progressively get a higher vote, but if that producer stopped producing, their vote would exponentially decrease quickly. It would be difficult to attain a score above 12, and if obtained, it would very quickly be halved if that person did not maintain first place.
When criticizing my telos and mathematical execution, keep in mind that participants will be expected to put forth their own model which they think is superior.
Tuesday edit:
How I imagine this week to end: on Tuesday the 28th we should have submitted all our evaluations. By Wednesday the 29th, we will vote on whose system of organization was best. Then on Thursday the 30th, we will begin implementing that system and choose a director. That director will be responsible for formulating or reformulating the topic for the next round, which they can submit on Saturday the 1st of September. If we grow in size, the director could choose the runner up to become a second director so we could have two concurrent production projects. Directors would be responsible for planning the schedule for the following week (september 7th to the 14th) based on who volunteers to join the round. Rounds could also last 2 weeks instead of 1 week -- but that's at the discretion of the voters this week and the director they choose to help formulate our norms. I see the benefit to both a regular biweekly schedule, but also the benefit to flexibility.
The question is: how should an organization be structured?
When we examine the right wing today, we see a lot of wheel spinning, reinventing the wheel, and making the same mistakes over and over again. There is little inter-generational education, little learning from the past. In some senses, the right wing is less organized, less disciplined, and less resilient than ever before.
Most right wingers exist within a subculture of media entertainment. Whatever is interesting, edgy, trendy, entertaining, memetic, and comedic is what captures interest.
Of course, propaganda is meant to be all these things. However, once someone is a true believer in the principles of right wing thought, propaganda is no longer a method of utilizing that person's talents and knowledge. Propaganda for the initiated is merely a hug-box, hedonism, self gratification, a morale booster.
THE SVALBARD EXAMPLE: ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SCHOLASTIC ORGANIZATION
Svalbard is an Artic island north of Norway with a population of 2,000. It is more populous than Greenland, but instead of being mixed with Inuits, the residents of Svalbard are ethnic Norwegians. It is a functioning society with infrastructure and a local government, largely independent of Norway. Svalbard is demilitarized and deregulated due to international agreements which give all member countries (including China and Russia) access to coal mining on the island. You don't need a visa to settle there, and you can buy land without Norwegian citizenship. There is no welfare system in place, so no refugees will go there. The only taxes are local taxes. If 2,000 "radicals" traveled there, (libertarian, anarchist, nazi, or otherwise) they would control the government.
Will 2,000 radicals move to Svalbard? The reality is that they haven't.
Millions of Americans describe themselves as white nationalist, communist, libertarian, or "radical." Many of them shout slogans like "live free or die" and proclaim that they would give themselves for the cause. This is just empty rhetoric and social signaling. The truth is that people join radical movements because they are angry at the world and blame "the system" for their own messed up lives. Becoming a "radical" is a convenient way to blow off steam by confused people who don't know how to solve their own personal problems. Sometimes this improves their life by giving them a new purpose, but it does not necessarily change society.
Most actions of "self-sacrifice" are self serving and do not change the course of history. Street fighters will tell you they are "putting their lives on the line for the cause" when they are really just adrenaline junkies who enjoy a good rumble. The thrill of political extremism is much like the thrill of cocaine. Being edgy, upsetting "normies," trolling, going outside the mainstream, being a "rebel just for kicks" is ultimately self serving and represents no higher calling.
Those who achieve real change will not necessarily be those who are chasing the thrill of extremism. They will be careful, methodical, disciplined, and patient. The group which succeeds in achieving sovereignty for itself will not be the one which best organizes street fighters, but the one which is capable of moving 2,000 people to Svalbard.
Of course, Svalbard itself is not the goal, but it is a good example of what a truly disciplined organization would have the capacity to achieve. The only reason that this many people would sacrifice their lives to live on an island like Svalbard is if they had a powerful enough religion to motivate them. For those who are intelligent, this requires a powerful metaphysic. For those who aren't, this requires a powerful hierarchy and authority structure.
Authority is simply derived from propaganda, which is the art of rhetoric, emotional conflation, and repetition. The average person can be propagandized to follow almost anyone and anything. The key element is then to capture the intelligent people first and foremost, and then to propagandize the masses. This can only be done with metaphysics.
What is needed, then, is a scholarly and academic organization to discover a powerful metaphysic as the basis for a world altering religion. We may consider Christianity as the necessary exoteric exterior of this metaphysic, but understanding the criticisms of atheists and pagans, we must delve deeper than mainstream evangelicalism, biblical literalism, and Israel worship.
On the right, radix journal and counter-currents were the biggest attempts toward a scholarly and spiritual right. Counter currents can be applauded for surviving the alt-right street-fighting clown show. However, its telos is not right wing in nature:
"There are people who insist on combining White Nationalism with a list of Right-wing add-ons—Christianity, paganism, radical Traditionalism, holocaust revisionism, etc. [...] There is a difference between a political ideology and a political movement. A political ideology is defined by philosophical first principles. A political movement is defined by its goals and assessment of political realities. [...] If our movement is to grow, we need to discourage such sectarian tendencies. Currently they are of the Right, because that’s where our movement began. But Left-wing sectarianism will inevitably emerge as our movement grows to encompass the whole political spectrum."
The difference between a religion and a race is that a race is a result or product of evolution, and religion is a process or tool to direct evolution. Race is the object of religious thought. Nowhere can this be clearer than in the example of egalitarian fanaticism and the vast denographic change in formerly European lands. But such changes happened previously in history, in the reverse, with the religious competition and fervor of the 16th century and the contemporary colonialism. The only way to reverse demographic trends is by addressing their religious roots. And that requires organization.
Before one can reshape the religious landscape, "Svalbard readiness" must be achieved. This will require a progressive build up over time which will start with more superficial and simplistic topics of study.
If we assume that all this theorizing is a pipe dream, such a goal might still inspire useful projects. A centralized community with a sense of purpose, direction, and interdependence could motivate individuals to produce works that they might otherwise not. Having an organized community which demands production fulfills the natural human desire for intellectual pressure. Many geniuses work best under pressure.
The key starting elements are:
1. Direction
2. Production
3. Evaluation
4. Selection
5. Speciation
The director element demands a style and subject for content, which must then be produced by content creators. This content is then evaluated by the production team, and finally the qualitative analysis must be reduced to a quantitative selection. The winners of this selection then become the directors for the next round. Speciation allows for multiple directions to emerge once the group exceeds a certain size -- say, 14 people.
For example:
Each research team could be composed of at least 7 people. They have one week for research, one week for production. During evaluation, everyone votes for someone else. At the end of 14 days, the votes decrease by half, plus one for institutional weighting.
Voting: (everyone voted for A, A voted for B)
A 1+6
B 1+1
C 1
D 1
E 1
F 1
G 1
Halving: (divide score by 2)
A 3.5
B 1
C 0.5
D 0.5
E 0.5
F 0.5
G 0.5
Contribution weighting: (add 1 simply for contribution in the round)
A 4.5
B 2
C 1.5
D 1.5
E 1.5
D 1.5
G 1.5
Voting: (everyone voted for A, A voted for B)
A 4.5+9.5=14
B 2+4.5=6.5
C 1.5
D 1.5
E 1.5
F 1.5
G 1.5
Halving: (divide by two)
A 7
B 3.25
C 0.75
D 0.75
E 0.75
F 0.75
G 0.75
Contribution weighting: (add 1 simply for contributing ; G did not contribute)
A 8
B 4.25
C 1.75
D 1.75
E 1.75
F 1.75
G 0.75
In the most extreme case, a consistent last place producer would get a vote of nearly 2 after many rounds of voting. Meanwhile, the first place winner could progressively get a higher vote, but if that producer stopped producing, their vote would exponentially decrease quickly. It would be difficult to attain a score above 12, and if obtained, it would very quickly be halved if that person did not maintain first place.
When criticizing my telos and mathematical execution, keep in mind that participants will be expected to put forth their own model which they think is superior.
Tuesday edit:
How I imagine this week to end: on Tuesday the 28th we should have submitted all our evaluations. By Wednesday the 29th, we will vote on whose system of organization was best. Then on Thursday the 30th, we will begin implementing that system and choose a director. That director will be responsible for formulating or reformulating the topic for the next round, which they can submit on Saturday the 1st of September. If we grow in size, the director could choose the runner up to become a second director so we could have two concurrent production projects. Directors would be responsible for planning the schedule for the following week (september 7th to the 14th) based on who volunteers to join the round. Rounds could also last 2 weeks instead of 1 week -- but that's at the discretion of the voters this week and the director they choose to help formulate our norms. I see the benefit to both a regular biweekly schedule, but also the benefit to flexibility.