Gen Z and fanaticism
#1
It is apparent that Gen-Z is faced with a lack of ideology to follow, whether that be religion or politics, Zoomers feel lost and express this by switching ideologies, clinging to certain things foreign to their area, like American online orthodox-Christians or even westerners dabbling in islam (whatever their reason). As someone here mentioned previously, Zoomers are very aesthetically-based when it comes to what ideology they lean into, more than anything else, this is a visible "symptom" of a generation trying to cling onto any identity they stumble upon.

Now, I raise this matter to ask if this is worth exploiting, the answer only seems obvious at first glance to me but when giving it deeper thought I find myself wondering "how is it worth exploiting?"

What should the cultural goal be? Create a secular movement solely based on politics and chosen values? Is the younger generation completely convinced that religion is the only way forwards? Are too many sympathetic towards Islam to let it go, should a Dune-like syncretism be pushed for or is it better to rally people on one goal to exterminate all other ideologies? 

I'm under the suspicion that Zoomers will become fanatics for something, and there's still time to influence it before it's in the hands of chance, 
It would be be good to also discuss through which means to influence them, and for what goal.
I personally believe that promising young men looking to satiate their boredom a piece of land in Africa would be a good offer to make them... But it's not enough, they need a greater purpose beyond material needs... Perhaps I'm wrong, if I am please do say so.

I hate to bring him up but if you have doubts about the difficulty of achieving this, look at Andrew Tate, he has enamoured many people online by spouting empty phrases and flaunting material wealth, why does he have a following?

I might have to reword some of this tomorrow, if anything is unclear don't hesitate to mention it here.
Also, I think the future holds great potential for a race-war based ideology, nothing is really more palpable than race and there's already a momentum that has started to generate concerning TND amongst normies. If this is the way we choose to go forwards it might be worth discussing ideas to spread it further.
#2
(03-13-2023, 08:31 PM)Grimm Wrote:
I might have to reword some of this tomorrow, if anything is unclear don't hesitate to mention it here.
Also, I think the future holds great potential for a race-war based ideology, nothing is really more palpable than race and there's already a momentum that has started to generate concerning TND amongst normies. If this is the way we choose to go forwards it might be worth discussing ideas to spread it further.

Race-riots in the 60s produce Helter Skelter 

Floyd Riots of 2020 produce TND
#3
Give them a war to fight that is just and worthy.

And a leader to follow, and a God to worship
#4
By the nature of the internet a lot of specific Propaganda can find the audience most receptive for it. Zoomers are a very Propagandized Generation, but through different methods then Previous Generations. Lefty Zoomers are indoctrinated by trannies on breadtube, and Right-wing Zoomers are scooped up by Conservative Inc. to be de-Clawed. The Winning Strategy would be poaching Conservative Inc.’s Audience.

To Poach Conservative Inc.’s Audience we would need a Named Talker with a face, he has a haircut and wears a suit, he’s well read and articulate in his speech. The Problem with Non-Anonymous Characters for a movement is that they can have their lives ruined for the contents of their Speech, but I think with advances in technology this effect can be mitigated. Fake face and Voice video filters applied to Cover their Identify. Similar Technology like that to Create a virtual But Real person who has Opinions.(I only have Vague Notions of what Possibility this Type of new Technology holds, if anyone with more Knowledge and Vision on its application can chime in then Thank You in advance)

But What will he(Our “Real” Person) talk about? How does he eventually Led His Audience to the Conclusion of TND? I Think if he covers these Subjects with Emphasis it will lay down the Precepts in the minds of Conservative Inc. Zoomer Audience that will naturally led them to the Logical Conclusion of TND.

Total: Manifest Destiny. Indian Removal Act. About how it was necessary for Settlers to push the red Savages off the land so they could have a Civilization. With this I think Rhetoric of Pro-Civilization vs anti-Civilization is needed. He must Glorify Manifest Destiny as necessary, He establishes Precedent. Leftist are Right that America was Founded on “Genocide and White Supremacy” and it’s only Natural that America will Once more Return to these Traditions. 

Nigger: He roves on about what a Violation the 2020 niggers Riots were. Maybe he covers totality of race riots in America. He needs to Show the savageness of niggers, how they can’t live in a proper Civilization.  
Quote:In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
- Thomas Hobbes
He Emphasizes how all Higher Civilization has been Continuously Subverted by all of this Lawless Violence, that we can not Continue like this and Something must be Done. 

Death: He talks about Death Penalty and how Criminals should be executed. About how Some people are Just BadPeople and an Absolute Answer is Needed. This Conflicts with Humanism and Human Rights, Ideas that Exist For the Purpose of making Absolute Arguments Taboo. No one should be “on the Fence” with the Death Penalty, somethings are worth Protect through lethal Force and this must be Affirmed by Conservative Inc. Zoomers. They must be made to feel Passionate on the Subject, this is Absolute and a Violation of this Principle is Pure Hatred against the Innocent.

Once These three points are Firmly Established in the Zoomers mind he will see TND as Absolutely Necessary. The Smarter Zoomer will come to the Conclusion of TND through Their Rumination's on these Subjects, the less Cognitively Gifted Zoomer will need to Stumble upon it.

Anonymous Posters should also Dissemniate this Rhetoric, it must be Promulgated Through many Channels to Improve its Effect. This kind of Practice on Propaganda is Crucial Step for when we have Gen-Alpha ready for it.
#5
(03-15-2023, 11:42 PM)National Kid Wrote: ...

Are You A Bot Or Why Do You Write Like This? It Makes It Hard To Read And It's Beyond Stupid From The Point Of View Of The Writer.
#6
(03-13-2023, 08:31 PM)Grimm Wrote: I'm under the suspicion that Zoomers will become fanatics for something, and there's still time to influence it before it's in the hands of chance, 

Disagree with this, Zoomers are much more at-risk of the opposite; to sit down and take it like they've already been doing their entire lives. What would make Zoomers "become fanatics for something" would be taking away their pills and pornography and ZOGbox. If our goal is anything (besides TND) it's to rouse the Zoomers to fanaticism, not steer a non-extant inborn fanaticism.

As it stands the Online Far Right is generally the most successful at "exploiting" zoomer's aesthetic-based ideological convictions. As it stands, only /ourguys/ and those adjacent have the correct ideas on appealing to the youth (or at least, the youth that matter) and everyone else is just in our wake. That being said, the issue then becomes capitalizing on that. There are thousands, if not millions, of right wing adjuncts who are at least aware of our ideas through memetic capital but are stultified by the monotony of everyday life and the wish-wash of all other political spheres. Libertarians, Tradcaths, & Civnats are such groups, so skull-fucked by fictional concepts like the Overton Window and Respectability that they cannot metabolize real, virile politic without first considering the Good Ol' Constitution!

I think @National Kid is onto something: what many people need is a new worldview altogether, eloquently articulated and impossible to dissuade once convinced of it. BAM was this for many. What I would disagree with is the idea that an AI Named Talker would be the vessel with which to do it. The Right already has among its ranks an Atatürk or a Mussolini, and perhaps even a Hitler, it's simply a matter of finding out who he is. I would personally very much like to see the Amarnite Vtuber, but I doubt it will rouse anyone. The point or value of having a facefag risking economic death is that it shows to fans that it is possible to be strong in your convictions, to shout TOTAL NIGGER DEATH into the sky and not be struck by lightning. To OP's Andrew Tate comparison; his message is no different than the hundreds of anon PUA accounts, but just One weird-looking Mulatto "making it" made it possible for thousands of young men to find it acceptable to publicly avow him. It's painful, but any fantasies of making an Amarnite Sturmabteilung does require real, flesh-and-blood people to sacrifice themselves and succeed.
#7
With Religion I think we’ve already seen it happen, Nick Fuentes. He was able to subvert a large amount of whites who would have been ready for our propaganda but instead now are for the multi-racial working class coonye based nigger worship. His main target was Catholics ,which meant a lot of Mexicans, but he still subverted a lot of the potential white Catholic population who would have been open to some of our watered down ideas. In America Protestantism would be a big enough religions population that could be targeted but they lack the same hierarchy and connectedness that a Catholic Population had even if Catholic populations are smaller. Still might be worth a try, but because of the nature of its different sects proposing a theocracy to galvanize the zoomer Protestant audience would only leave them more divided. The best effect would be religious undertones without a specific focus on religion. Anyway I think it would be hard to try and reach southern baptists because it seems they’re already highly propagandized making a divide between liberals who reject it and those who accept the show.
#8
(03-17-2023, 03:12 PM)Guest Wrote: With Religion I think we’ve already seen it happen, Nick Fuentes. He was able to subvert a large amount of whites who would have been ready for our propaganda but instead now are for the multi-racial working class coonye based nigger worship. His main target was Catholics ,which meant a lot of Mexicans, but he still subverted a lot of the potential white Catholic population who would have been open to some of our watered down ideas. In America Protestantism would be a big enough religions population that could be targeted but they lack the same hierarchy and connectedness that a Catholic Population had even if Catholic populations are smaller. Still might be worth a try, but because of the nature of its different sects proposing a theocracy to galvanize the zoomer Protestant audience would only leave them more divided. The best effect would be religious undertones without a specific focus on religion. Anyway I think it would be hard to try and reach southern baptists because it seems they’re already highly propagandized making a divide between liberals who reject it and those who accept the show.

The "problem" with American Protestants is also their strengths: that they're majority White, smarter than Catholics, and traditionally better off financially. People who fit that bill aren't looking for a new, radical worldview because they're already doing well enough. Most Protestants (or at, least those who are actually practicing) already have a narrative with which they ascribe to, and it's the opposite of fanaticizing. Anyone whose had the misfortune of going to a mainline Protestant service will know what I'm talking about. The Protestants that don't fit into that description, the poor, the mutt, the dumb, fell into the Tradcath sphere easily. I think the religious angle is played out, frankly, and will only become less potent with time. The Right-Wing's future is with the agnostic and atheists who, if taking into account materialists and those who who don't go to church, already make up a majority of the country.
#9
(03-16-2023, 10:51 PM)Datacop Wrote:
(03-13-2023, 08:31 PM)Grimm Wrote: I'm under the suspicion that Zoomers will become fanatics for something, and there's still time to influence it before it's in the hands of chance, 

Disagree with this, Zoomers are much more at-risk of the opposite; to sit down and take it like they've already been doing their entire lives. What would make Zoomers "become fanatics for something" would be taking away their pills and pornography and ZOGbox. If our goal is anything (besides TND) it's to rouse the Zoomers to fanaticism, not steer a non-extant inborn fanaticism.

As it stands the Online Far Right is generally the most successful at "exploiting" zoomer's aesthetic-based ideological convictions. As it stands, only /ourguys/ and those adjacent have the correct ideas on appealing to the youth (or at least, the youth that matter) and everyone else is just in our wake. That being said, the issue then becomes capitalizing on that. There are thousands, if not millions, of right wing adjuncts who are at least aware of our ideas through memetic capital but are stultified by the monotony of everyday life and the wish-wash of all other political spheres. Libertarians, Tradcaths, & Civnats are such groups, so skull-fucked by fictional concepts like the Overton Window and Respectability that they cannot metabolize real, virile politic without first considering the Good Ol' Constitution!

I think @National Kid is onto something: what many people need is a new worldview altogether, eloquently articulated and impossible to dissuade once convinced of it. BAM was this for many. What I would disagree with is the idea that an AI Named Talker would be the vessel with which to do it. The Right already has among its ranks an Atatürk or a Mussolini, and perhaps even a Hitler, it's simply a matter of finding out who he is. I would personally very much like to see the Amarnite Vtuber, but I doubt it will rouse anyone. The point or value of having a facefag risking economic death is that it shows to fans that it is possible to be strong in your convictions, to shout TOTAL NIGGER DEATH into the sky and not be struck by lightning. To OP's Andrew Tate comparison; his message is no different than the hundreds of anon PUA accounts, but just One weird-looking Mulatto "making it" made it possible for thousands of young men to find it acceptable to publicly avow him. It's painful, but any fantasies of making an Amarnite Sturmabteilung does require real, flesh-and-blood people to sacrifice themselves and succeed.

Great reply, you make the point that a sacrifice is required, however I don't think we're in any shortage of volunteers willing to be the face of something that could ruin their life, however contradictory that might seem. The plan now would be to figure out a step by step process for them to not fail, meaning that either
  1. he does not get martyred and continues being a figurehead and a free man gaining popularity and spreading the movement 
  2. he does get martyred, but it happens in such a way that it rouses up people leading to the expansion of the movement 
(I'm not sure where to put being put in prison and being popular after release like say Hitler or Nelson Mandela)

Again, our goal would be to create a "handbook" for this person(s) to give ourselves the best chance of succeeding, learning from previous people, what they did wrong or right in terms of propelling their movement's cause forwards.
I bring this up because I've noticed that successful movements only really get one shot, and that failed movements never really come back up. For example, where is Richard Spencer now? He was arguably growing in popularity but he fell into irrelevance; Nick Fuentes, what is he doing now? He seems to have slowed down and just slowly sinking into irrelevance. Will Andrew Tate come back to keep preaching his useless "advice" to a stronger and bigger fanbase? I don't know, but it's worth studying even if they're not admirable men, anybody who has managed to pull a crowd is worth studying for this project.

If someone manages to find a historical figure who's pulled off a mass-popular movement as we're trying to achieve now, please mention them. Otherwise, our main role model should be Hitler, aside from obvious reasons, we really shouldn't deviate from Hitler.
  • Other historical figures like Caesar, Napoleon bring in too many apolitical larpers, they're "safe edgy"
  • The conditions in which Hitler rose to power in are still far from what we have today, but more similar than any other period in history, to my knowledge, feel free to prove me wrong
  •  Hitler was brought down, and rose back up, we're likely to be put down, we should study how he leveraged this and came back brighter than before
This is just what I thought of on the spot, I think it's important to list "reasons" like this in our handbook/guide.

There are plenty of overlooked boring questions that need to be answered, how do we make a movement that doesn't devolve into civnat populism while making it grow? Might seem laughable but I've often seen nigger-hating quickly go into "based blacks".

On the issue of "choosing" someone, do we hope that a charismatic Hitler comes out of the masses? Or do we have multiple people represent the same movement? 
Many questions to be asked and addressed, lots of history and anthropology to be studied.

Also, my point with religion is based of my observation of people picking extremist religious sides, but not really...
They act extremely vehemently about it online, but they don't do any deep reading concerning it.
TradCaths, e-orthodox, proclaimed pagans, online Muslims who are sometimes white people.
Is this a phenomenon worth exploiting somehow? Can it be ignored or will it come up later in the future in some form?
#10
(03-17-2023, 06:21 PM)Grimm Wrote: Again, our goal would be to create a "handbook" for this person(s) to give ourselves the best chance of succeeding, learning from previous people, what they did wrong or right in terms of propelling their movement's cause forwards.


Counterpoint: I think we can all agree that we are in a form of "information warfare" (and potentially in the future a physical one), and as we all know that where there is war there must be generals. Now of course we are in a situation very dissimilar to his time, but I believe we should look to Clausewitz when he says that, as I paraphrase, "It is impossible to set out a true theory for war, a true art which can be executed with predictable results (Not bothered in proving this look up his wiki page or read his book if you care). On the contrary, as one observes the history of warfare one sees that the greatest commanders often come from no military background at all (e.g. Frederick the Great) and their success derives almost entirely from their genius."
I bring Clausewitz up because he is the most "lindy" Western military theoretician even to this day, for example in the Iraq War where the American generals famously got BTFO by the man they claimed they had based their strategy off of because they misread his work (something about 'centres of gravity'). Seeing this, should we not at least give some credence to his idea AGAINST trying to 'teach' such a complex role as a 'general' in our case, for I doubt anyone would disagree that our "Future Great Man" would fundamentally have to be some sort of commander-in-chief (which, Clausewitz says, always coincides with a statesman as well).

Of course I am not against writing ANYTHING, but we must not 'groom', 'breed', or 'manufacture' our Great Man. Keep that in mind when writing said 'handbook'.

(03-17-2023, 06:21 PM)Grimm Wrote: Also, my point with religion is based of my observation of people picking extremist religious sides, but not really...
They act extremely vehemently about it online, but they don't do any deep reading concerning it.

I don't know where you get this 'they don't do any reading about it' idea?
From what I've seen the biggest 'online religious' types are usually autistic guys pulling out the most weirdest doctrine from their studies of Church Fathers and such. Remember the Twitter meme of that one orthobro who said seeing your wife naked was sinful? I knew of a group on Discord that would circlejerk about an apocrypha (I believe the Apocalypse of Psuedo-Methodious) that was messianic and connected Christ to Alexander. The most aggressive pagan I know was autistic about the Havamal and also was a heavy Neoplatonist. This may however just be a sampling error, but I also think the 'dumber' e-religious are more into their 'faith' as a fad.

I agree and will always continue to push for adopting Hitler as our role model for 'leader' as it filters out a lot of undesirables, however his position feels more tenuous and uncertain that it was a year ago due to the whole Kanye-Fuentes debacle, who has unfortunately besmirched his name. Every time I see memes about WW2, Nazis or Hitler on Instagram for example the comments always mention Kanye.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)