Post by vennyflennard (ENTP-A) on Sept 11, 2018 2:38:23 GMT
These are some general thoughts on the organizational structure that has thus fare been decided upon and some ideas for future development. In reviewing the structural decision making, etc, I will be using making some comparison to a extremely generalized military structure for the purposes of illustration or as metaphor.
I'll start by saying I like what we have here right now with the research teams, colloquium and organization as I think that compartmentalizing will be important for the success and productivity of our organization and that developing sub-groups that can specialize will make us fundamentally stronger on a functional level. Also we are right in our continuing development of a robust system of organizational learning. In reference to our leadership and in regards to this platform, I think so far they have created a decent mechanism for the distribution of instructions and the proposal of rounds. The ranking system that has been devised I am happy with; I suspect it will function well as method of directing, steering and communicating with membership. In one of the opening posts admin advised upon creating a throw away email account for reasons of obscuring a personal electronic trail. I was wondering perhaps if the leadership would consider creating a back-up or alternate method of communicating, maybe an alternate email list (perhaps of addresses secondary to login) as to guard against any sudden disaster or interference.
Our organization, especially in these early days, will be most likely in the form of (and was already displayed as such in the video by Aarvoll) a basic nodal network, the kind that is seem reproduced thousands of time in nature, the shape it takes, formed through a gradual process of selection, reproduction and variation is the result is the inheritance of a position in a structure. From its most primitive and archetypical form in cracks, river basins, lightning forks to its many intermingled forms within the human body (nervous, circulatory and lymphatic systems, etc) right across to its most advance forms the great networks and information systems of human civilization. Eventually I hope we will have are own interlocking system of semi-autonomous function specialized organs linked by a dedication to a shared goal.
Although as I say I like the structure we have already developed I thought I would mention that we should be somewhat fluid and adaptable especially in these very early days in which are organization is at its most vulnerable. In essence we should be prepared that any success or expansion will be likely to bring with it changes in the size, scale and structural arrangement. The fact that we are all open minded and willing to engage in lengthy open structured discussions as was had on the ranking shows we can probably handle this. The fact that we have agreed upon a dynamic method of deciding rank and influence is itself a big step. A good metaphor for what I'm trying to articulate here is the story of the kings chessboard. In the story a wise man does the king a service, when asked for a reward, the wiseman asks for a single grain of rice upon the corner of the chessboard, and then for each consecutive square the amount of rice is doubled (1,2,4,8,16,etc.) The king agrees readily but by the 64th square the wiseman has all this rice in the kingdom. And I think this a good description of what can happen when a movement or organization grows at a faster rate than organizers can handle, or just gains followers at a very rapid rate and that this phenomenon was partly responsible for the collapse of the alt-right, along with its anarchistic meta-structure.
The alt-right was a composite indentitarian movement some of its key features where the presence of an civil resistance movement, motivated against establishment injustice that highlighted the gap between various groups within society and the government that is meant to represent them. Also it had a large base of mass support (a large number of these were part time supporters) that were coalescing in social networks that existed before the movement gained any kind of conscience. Finally it had very few leaders, almost non of which were traditional or established authority figures. As of yet what we have here is largely conspiratorial in nature, it may not always remain so, we have yet do anything overt, have very few specialized task oriented departments with concrete aims and no mass support. I will elaborate more on this in a moment.
First though back to the idea of expansion and the idea that structure of our org. will probably change in response the phases of our enterprise. These discussions on organization's are important/vital and will probably go on for a while we are in the incipient/planning stage or at least while we are engaging in blank sheet, paradigm setting design talks. I suggest we need to include in our discussions for the future; eventual plans for expansion, as well as ways to position ourselves in a state ready to consolidate our ability to usher in our long term political goals. We must be preparing for long term survival if we are to have any chance of fulfilling our long term political goals.
We are fundamentally the youthful roots or still wet foundations of our organization, we are not only taking our most vulnerable steps but also at the most important, for if these foundations are not set right, we will not be able to take the weight of an above ground structure. We not only have the skeletal framework of are functional compartments and open ended networks but these are also the seeds of what will hopefully be nurtured by us into specialized groups that can perform their functions independently, but also in synchronization with other units, like the successful deployment of army of the battlefield.
The colloquium would perhaps be the equivalent of professional elite regiment respectively to the research teams which would be expendable units something like a militia raised for the temporary defense of single location, or a terror cell that would carry out a suicide attack on a single target. This comparison is not quite right, it may be better to say something like the colloquium would be a strongpoint or strategic base and the research teams would be front line units on the outer edge of the hierarchy. By this I mean research teams are easy to put together, without much planning or preparation. In form and function this makes them effective. These temporary, task based units are also as has previously been discussed, good building blocks for more autonomous, specific long-term function organs.
Expendability is an important factor in what I think is good about temporary research team structure. Expendability is important in the fact that it aids the general survival of the organization as a whole, and this one of the chief benefits brought by compartmentalizing. We are not engaging in a quick, short term or conventional political struggle and I want to emphasize here that I think Long Term Survival as one of the key aims we should adopt., e.g. that we will survive long enough to actually achieve our political goals. If for example the academy of any other fruit of are organization (an overt, public and semi-autonomous wing) is compromised, it should be important that as a group we should still be able to function, and that one aspect or cadre within our network should always stay hidden, obscure and unseen able to reform and start again, like the roots of a weed ready to re-emerge. It was a structure of this nature I was imagining when I mentioned in a previous post of eventually implementing a series of buffers and filters between higher initiated echelons and the public. It would likely take long time and much effort to to organize ourselves and form a structure with the strength to support such an enterprise. I think really what we should be doing is designing a alt-right style identitarian movement from the top down, formed logically and coherently, with a metaphysical, epistemological, logical and philosophical consistency, while at the same keeping cadre of active organizers hidden but accountable as a precaution to the long term survival of out values, dedicated to keeping the spark alive.
I also like the deadlines, it gives the rounds a nice structured feel to them, puts on a little bit do pressure.
I think for now focusing in organizational learning as a group is a good plan, we should keep are basic framework of compartmentalizing on the same track and that the leadership should focus on activities that support the purposeful growth of our abilities as the are, then eventually beyond research and debate once we are organized in such a manner as to be strong enough to support more complex actions. As a final point; if we are to exist long term in a highly copartmentlaized way we will have in infuse in all branches and offshoots a higher goal which must remain paramount.
I'll start by saying I like what we have here right now with the research teams, colloquium and organization as I think that compartmentalizing will be important for the success and productivity of our organization and that developing sub-groups that can specialize will make us fundamentally stronger on a functional level. Also we are right in our continuing development of a robust system of organizational learning. In reference to our leadership and in regards to this platform, I think so far they have created a decent mechanism for the distribution of instructions and the proposal of rounds. The ranking system that has been devised I am happy with; I suspect it will function well as method of directing, steering and communicating with membership. In one of the opening posts admin advised upon creating a throw away email account for reasons of obscuring a personal electronic trail. I was wondering perhaps if the leadership would consider creating a back-up or alternate method of communicating, maybe an alternate email list (perhaps of addresses secondary to login) as to guard against any sudden disaster or interference.
Our organization, especially in these early days, will be most likely in the form of (and was already displayed as such in the video by Aarvoll) a basic nodal network, the kind that is seem reproduced thousands of time in nature, the shape it takes, formed through a gradual process of selection, reproduction and variation is the result is the inheritance of a position in a structure. From its most primitive and archetypical form in cracks, river basins, lightning forks to its many intermingled forms within the human body (nervous, circulatory and lymphatic systems, etc) right across to its most advance forms the great networks and information systems of human civilization. Eventually I hope we will have are own interlocking system of semi-autonomous function specialized organs linked by a dedication to a shared goal.
Although as I say I like the structure we have already developed I thought I would mention that we should be somewhat fluid and adaptable especially in these very early days in which are organization is at its most vulnerable. In essence we should be prepared that any success or expansion will be likely to bring with it changes in the size, scale and structural arrangement. The fact that we are all open minded and willing to engage in lengthy open structured discussions as was had on the ranking shows we can probably handle this. The fact that we have agreed upon a dynamic method of deciding rank and influence is itself a big step. A good metaphor for what I'm trying to articulate here is the story of the kings chessboard. In the story a wise man does the king a service, when asked for a reward, the wiseman asks for a single grain of rice upon the corner of the chessboard, and then for each consecutive square the amount of rice is doubled (1,2,4,8,16,etc.) The king agrees readily but by the 64th square the wiseman has all this rice in the kingdom. And I think this a good description of what can happen when a movement or organization grows at a faster rate than organizers can handle, or just gains followers at a very rapid rate and that this phenomenon was partly responsible for the collapse of the alt-right, along with its anarchistic meta-structure.
The alt-right was a composite indentitarian movement some of its key features where the presence of an civil resistance movement, motivated against establishment injustice that highlighted the gap between various groups within society and the government that is meant to represent them. Also it had a large base of mass support (a large number of these were part time supporters) that were coalescing in social networks that existed before the movement gained any kind of conscience. Finally it had very few leaders, almost non of which were traditional or established authority figures. As of yet what we have here is largely conspiratorial in nature, it may not always remain so, we have yet do anything overt, have very few specialized task oriented departments with concrete aims and no mass support. I will elaborate more on this in a moment.
First though back to the idea of expansion and the idea that structure of our org. will probably change in response the phases of our enterprise. These discussions on organization's are important/vital and will probably go on for a while we are in the incipient/planning stage or at least while we are engaging in blank sheet, paradigm setting design talks. I suggest we need to include in our discussions for the future; eventual plans for expansion, as well as ways to position ourselves in a state ready to consolidate our ability to usher in our long term political goals. We must be preparing for long term survival if we are to have any chance of fulfilling our long term political goals.
We are fundamentally the youthful roots or still wet foundations of our organization, we are not only taking our most vulnerable steps but also at the most important, for if these foundations are not set right, we will not be able to take the weight of an above ground structure. We not only have the skeletal framework of are functional compartments and open ended networks but these are also the seeds of what will hopefully be nurtured by us into specialized groups that can perform their functions independently, but also in synchronization with other units, like the successful deployment of army of the battlefield.
The colloquium would perhaps be the equivalent of professional elite regiment respectively to the research teams which would be expendable units something like a militia raised for the temporary defense of single location, or a terror cell that would carry out a suicide attack on a single target. This comparison is not quite right, it may be better to say something like the colloquium would be a strongpoint or strategic base and the research teams would be front line units on the outer edge of the hierarchy. By this I mean research teams are easy to put together, without much planning or preparation. In form and function this makes them effective. These temporary, task based units are also as has previously been discussed, good building blocks for more autonomous, specific long-term function organs.
Expendability is an important factor in what I think is good about temporary research team structure. Expendability is important in the fact that it aids the general survival of the organization as a whole, and this one of the chief benefits brought by compartmentalizing. We are not engaging in a quick, short term or conventional political struggle and I want to emphasize here that I think Long Term Survival as one of the key aims we should adopt., e.g. that we will survive long enough to actually achieve our political goals. If for example the academy of any other fruit of are organization (an overt, public and semi-autonomous wing) is compromised, it should be important that as a group we should still be able to function, and that one aspect or cadre within our network should always stay hidden, obscure and unseen able to reform and start again, like the roots of a weed ready to re-emerge. It was a structure of this nature I was imagining when I mentioned in a previous post of eventually implementing a series of buffers and filters between higher initiated echelons and the public. It would likely take long time and much effort to to organize ourselves and form a structure with the strength to support such an enterprise. I think really what we should be doing is designing a alt-right style identitarian movement from the top down, formed logically and coherently, with a metaphysical, epistemological, logical and philosophical consistency, while at the same keeping cadre of active organizers hidden but accountable as a precaution to the long term survival of out values, dedicated to keeping the spark alive.
I also like the deadlines, it gives the rounds a nice structured feel to them, puts on a little bit do pressure.
I think for now focusing in organizational learning as a group is a good plan, we should keep are basic framework of compartmentalizing on the same track and that the leadership should focus on activities that support the purposeful growth of our abilities as the are, then eventually beyond research and debate once we are organized in such a manner as to be strong enough to support more complex actions. As a final point; if we are to exist long term in a highly copartmentlaized way we will have in infuse in all branches and offshoots a higher goal which must remain paramount.
