Parameters/logistics of organizing (whatever)
submitted by Xantha to whatever 3.1 years ago
4 comments
The content on this site moves slow as fuck and I need a thought exercise to get my brain juice wheels spinning. Before everyone has a goddamn stroke, this is a thought exercise, aka theory by dumbshit internet retards about best practices and pitfalls, not an attempt to /organize/ a bunch of fuckin' randos on a public website.
Let's start with cons:
1. Glow-nigger infiltration is a problem. I would assume a significant portion of their 'omni-presence' is mostly algorithmic, aka download the entire fucking internet and search for whoever they want to treat as terrorists-- unless some shekelbergnosenfuck sicks them on a specific target.
2. Kikefiltration is a problem. I would surmise that this is actually more of a problem than the former, because as parasites, they have an unlimited amount of time on their hands and will deliberately go 'digging for trouble' so-to-speak just so they can co-opt anything that could gain traction before it happens.
3. Total state control of the media apparatus, means that the slightest amount of bad PR blast through the airwaves pretty much fucks anyone who joined or attempted to join /said organization/. There is no safety net here, as you pretty much get outcast from the regular public community (not that most of them are really worth a shit anyway... but if you got bills/kids to feed--- it's a big fucking problem not being able to keep a job due to bad PR following you)
4. Anonymity (or even lack-thereof) of potential leadership. If leadership is totally anonymous, hopefully that means good op-sec-- on the other-hand... can't trust the fuckers could be kike transformers or glow-niggers in disguise. On the flip-side, public leadership is almost guaranteed to be co-opted/state-run organization if it lasts more than 10 seconds in the public eye--- which means if the leadership is public and not co-opted--- they'll have a bullseye on themselves/families/subordinates brighter than the sun and the authorities will want to make public examples of them to scare off imitators/potential supporters.
5. Spergy or glow-nigger attempts to incite 'bio-lance' to justify some sort of legal or law enforcement response. Almost certainly any organization no matter how spotless/clean/above board is going to be under constant threat of this bullshit. The fact that the authorities are willing/happy to completely manufacture or even actually participate or lead some sort of terrorist activity to justify cracking down on political dissidents is totally fucked--- even if their intended target is entirely legal and non-violent. Absolute bonkers/clownworld on this one.
6. There are other more general ones, eg: poor leadership, unclear goals, poor organization, so-on...
Pros:
1. In theory if most of the above were neutralized or at least mitigated, you could actually have a community of people that supports you more/better than your (((own government))) or normie local community.
Ways to negate cons:
1 & 2. Infiltration (glownig or otherwise)... you're going to have to run counterintelligence on your own members to flush infiltrators out. There's no way around it as far as I can see. First you're going to need to completely decentralize your organizational structure. All serious conversations (eg: funding/accounting/goals/how to look out or provide security for families/relocation of disaffected or in-danger members/schooling and education of future generations/what to eat for dinner/etc) need to be conducted in-person, in an electronically sanitary environment. No member-lists, no mailing address, no office/hq, everything run by word-of-mouth in-person with people that are rotated on a regular basis. These people should never know more than a handful/sub-dozen memorized other names (not even real ones all the time), even if they're trusted disseminators of information/orders. They should be directed and allowed to do their work most of the time. But they should also be fed incorrect/misleading orders (that they wont be able to tell the difference on) on a regular basis to constantly test their loyalty. I would liken this kind of activity to running the 3-shell slight-of-hand game with the pea. The purpose of the game is to pick which shell the pea is under after they're shuffled around. In this case, the organization's goal is to protect the pea against the infiltrators. Although it would be dozens and dozens (or more) of shells (people) being shuffled in all directions all the time to protect the pea. It should be done to the point of near fucking maddening randomness. As the gotcha/impatient infiltrators will blow their loads too quickly on bad info and the ones that are patient/subtle end up with nothing to work with anyway.
Mandatory genetics testing would be ideal, as at least obvious infils would be flushed immediately out of the system (or worked in an information gulag/blackhole with other infils, so they can waste their lives with each other). Any actual or potential leadership has to be genetically tested, at a random date/time of which they will not have consent on-- that way they cannot prepare countermeasures. If they pass and have demonstrated rigor in adhering to their duty to their people, more responsibility and more opportunities to build a better future for their people. If they don't pass, paddlin' time. Testing is obviously going to have to be done 3rd party/out-of-country if it can't be done internally in the org.
In theory, you could actually run the entire org as disconnected cells sheltered from each other, where all the base members (between cells) could be almost entirely anonymous to each other. Even leadership would not have to necessarily need details of base members depending on how information flowed and how decisively actions were taken. This could also be ran from anywhere in the world--- even on a boat in international waters as long as a few key contacts were chosen/maintained for specific regions. So putting any member of the org at risk for their political dissidence/wrong think would be very low unless they did something stupid on their own without orders.
On that note, all discipline would have to be handled internally. There is no you or I, there is only 'us' as a people. If you stand with your people, you'll be judged by your people--if needed. All that civic/common law shit will essentially be operational restrictions by region, as you'll be answering to the people's internal culture/rules.
3. In the event a member gets 'discharged/excommunicated from normie society' due to their political dissidence, the organization can reshuffle/relocate said member to somewhere else where they'll be out of the public view/traceability and will be able to continue to live their lives in the pursuit of prosperity (although with slightly different rules to prevent recurrence of bad PR spotlight that would require another expenditure of resources to shuffle them again)
4. Not really a good way around this one. All leadership requires trust, if no trust then everything is worthless. Trust is hard to build and easy to lose. If a trustworthy and reliable leadership core is built and maintained, the rest should be able to be worked through.
5. The counter-intel and constant shell shuffling of #1 should help reduce the risk of this bullshit to the organization and it's members as a whole. You might lose a handful of people if an infil burns a cell, but the greater integrity of the org will be preserved as the burned cell won't compromise much in the larger picture. Although this introduces another problem, 'retrieval/evac of members in the event of a cell compromising or potential cell compromising' as those who fight for their people should not be hung out to dry if things get saucy. The org has a responsibility to protect/secure it's members-- generally. Calls for 'bio-lance' in the next match of League of Legends or other equivalent loud/firework shows should never be tolerated. It should absolutely never be discussed by members, anywhere at any time, for any reason. Those who needed to know on the pro-gamer team, would know--under orders if such a thing were necessary for a very specific reason and wouldn't be running their mouths trying to get non-pro-gamers involved. Anyone entertaining those ideas repeatedly/around members either gets disciplined or washed out for non-compliance.
6. Anyone who isn't an e-celeb/would-be politician mouth runner should be able to reasonable manage these kinds of responsibilities.
Thoughts/points/counter-points and/or historical examples?
