Political party formation

Unfortunately, liberal theory acts as an exceptionally potent hallucinogen. One huff of it sends the user completely off their heads. Political science or economics (across the board, and including Austrian economics) are clear examples of this, with the most obscene and blatantly retarded ideas enshrined as good sense. Purely retarded theories. The idea of legitimacy is one good example from politics, and on consideration, the idea of questioning the legitimacy of your government is absurd. Outside of political theory and political discourse, I mean, has anyone ever stopped in the middle of the day and thought to themselves “actually I will decide if the government should have my allegiance, hum, yep. I will reconsider tomorrow”? No, the concept is absurd. The only people who would raise such a question will be those seeking power themselves, rendering such a concept an issue of power conflict and not of intrinsic human behaviour, and just how many people have schemed for power against government? Barely any before the advent of democracy and the free for all of divided power and electoral politics, no, such a state of affairs is created by power conflict. The issue of legitimacy is a silly one and not worth considering seriously. Governments are legitimate by default. A review of the history of this idea of legitimacy is fruitful in this regard (Filmer has much to say on this.)

There are other areas in which this liberal crack messes up thinking, and the creation of organisations is a central one.

How do you form a political organisation that is not a mess? You do it from the top down as you would a business or an army. You have your core start up team, staff of generals, political party leadership led by a clear leader with a clear command structure and an understanding of their roles, the project, and the organisation.

These people then secure their resources, have a clear direction and then set about recruiting staff, soldiers, people. The recruitment process is one way and selective. They don’t just open the door and let anyone come in and tell them what to do, how to do it and what their direction and goals should be, that will give you a rabble of idiots. This presupposes the start up team/ general staff/ political party heads have a fucking clue what they are doing, which if they are liberal crack smokers they won’t. They will likely kick open the doors because, like, we can’t tell people what to do and stuff, and we need to let spontaneous order work man, and we need numbers, plus they are my friends and stuff, or some such variant (note the lack of liberal structure in the military, business and political parties.) Of course, being “right wing” it will be dressed up in some variant of freedom and “thinking for one self” which routes back to the legitimacy nonsense. The leaders smoking liberalism will also have all sorts of bizarre notions which will render organisation a mess.

Back to forming the organisation coherently, it is pretty much taken for granted that the military, the start up, the political party has zero fucks to care about recruits little opinions because that is not what they are for. They are there to join, be given a role and a purpose and to contribute to the endeavour, to which they will be grateful for the purpose they now have. The military and those effective political parties of the 20th century understood/ understand this very well. The recruit is nothing, and they should not consider their opinions worthwhile until they have attained a relevant position following significant development and training to provide their opinion. For businesses this is less pressed, but is still pretty much there.

So we have a small core who knows what they are doing, which then develops a plan and organisation, and then recruits according to this, and the authority and doctrine flow down.

For a political party specifically, this process will require a small and very intelligent core of thinkers fluent in the political party’s theory so as to be able to develop doctrine. A formal gatekeeping mechanism must be in place. A political journal for example. There must be a clear party as well. No secrecy, the party must pretty much be recorded and open. Claims to be able to maintain anonymity in the modern era are absurd. Not possible at all, and the party leadership should be visible anyway. It is not a terrorist organisation, and not a threat to the government.

The gatekeeping must also ultimately fall to a single person, much as Mussolini did with Fascism. Any non-offical claims to doctrine must be rejected and attacked. Something that wouldn’t be difficult at all, and likely wouldn’t even occur at all.

Once doctrine is clear and complete, education in the doctrine is possible on a simplified basis, which is the same with all education. First you take the information by rote, then you begin to understand, then you can engage. Many in the organisation will not need to learn much, only so much as to understanding their role and the goal. Others of more value would learn far more and progress through the ranks to be potential leadership material.

From the end of the recruit, they must simply accept they know nothing, and have nothing to offer until they learn and are trained. Those not willing to join as recruits, and instead attack with their own ideas are enemies to be dealt with by the party leadership. They may engage the attack openly and may even learn from the arguments, but they don’t let them join or claim to be of the party. The doctrine is right, not you.

But again this all depends on the party leadership having a fucking clue, which is the fatal stumbling block.