@Skellington Despoiler Schemes can either be Patrimonial or Feudal, it depends on how Centralized vs Decentralized you make it

Most of Despoiler's ideas were born from thinking of how to motivate people to act in your interest without needing to be rich to bribe them all in the first place, everything points to bribing them using the resources of state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Despotism

And my history teacher said this theory was racist smh

@Mr. Nessel A big limitation of discrediting people is that it isn't enough to motivate people to care in time of relative prosperity. Sure Corona is halting things at the moment but it is no great depression and we are still unsure how damaging it would be, but nonetheless some normies don't even watch or care about mainstream media but they are still normies in matters of their lack of care in politics. One needs a new vision and a real material incentive to fight for a change other than just merely seeing the illegitimacy of a system. Usually for most people, the legitimacy of a system is based on if it can keep things stable and feed them.

First of all we haven't seen much from Corona yet, secondly yes once people have been disillilusioned you need to be quick to be the one to fill the vacuum in their head

They'll practically crave for a new thing to follow

When material conditions are relatively comfortable, disillusionment leads to depression or hedonism or an attraction to self-help groups, where ideological alternatives are a subtype of that third category.

Without a proper infrastructure it's hard to capitalize on opportunities

Likewise you need to set up proper infrastructure like organizations to build a support network etc.

It's wrong to talk of incentivizing people materially to join in when basically this is still a speck of dust

It needs to grow, be organized and serious, be relatively cohesive

Then you can grow to get into the position where you support each other nepotistically and capitalize on opportunities

My big focus on incentives was born from the realization that many few dissident right groups I know who meet irl are still quite lethargic since their urgency is still relatively low since it is fueled by strong beliefs alone. Historic movements that become big network and organize due to some form of dire material necessity.

I think our main hinderance is some opposition to organize and when ppl do it's relatively small scale and distinctly not a mass movement (think of IE/AIM)

Often times such groups become nothing more but social clubs, since the primary reason to join is the community, but then such community is unsure what exactly to do other than enjoy each other's company.

It can't just be escapism

The imperative needs to be growth in membership, relevance and influence

Small clubs of ppl afraid to organize properly will do very little

Necessity is what forces people's hand, when the situation is not in a crisis level, this organizing normally devolves to isolationist escapism. If you look at how community organizing works, organizers use funding or donations from members to give themselves a full time salary so they can spend their day to day lives organizing members to act, and often such causes these organizers fight for are local issues that affect local people's lives and merely organize them in tackling it, hence a real material incentive for the organization's success.

That's full fledged movements. That's what we aspire to be not what we can be to begin with

Each person's time is limited, you may convince their mind, but you also must convince their body as to why spending time to fight for your group is better than other activities.

Right now organization would rely on a small energetic core of ppl willing to put aside risk and work freely

The smallest community organizer makes micro-movements for local issues by essentially taking advantage of the existence of local problems large enough that can be fixed by the action of people.

Ex. Tenant Strikes

Let us look at some larger examples, the largest and most powerful somewhat right-wing organization now is the National Rifle Association (NRA). It has a membership who pays due to ensure the lobbying and advocacy for the rights of gunowners. Members can be very fanatic for this cause because even at the most local level, their enemies can push to pass laws to limit gun rights. So to prevent their guns from being taken (a material crisis of a smaller kind) they have stronger urgency to care much more since at any moment the enemy winning is detrimental for their own personal self-defense and hobbies. Essentially fighting for the dissident right has the opposite incentives, by fighting for it you require so much sacrifice for low potential reward. For the average NRA member, not fighting makes him lose more than what time and money he sacrifices. It is all a cost-benefit analysis of people. To depend on a few energetic core of people willing to put risk aside and work freely is quite a thin line, to fundamentally take advantage and manipulate interest is the essence of politics itself, to fight directly instead of to figure out means of incentivization would only make the fighter unnecessarily too difficult.

I think we need to set up an organization specifically aspiring to become a mass movement but starting out with the minority of people who are not lethargic, are willing to take risk and no pay.
Then have it grow for a while until you have the numbers to idk make yourself heard (Identitarians in Germany like banner drops for example).
Grow enough so you can Fund full time activists and eventually have people support each other. Only then I think you really have the critical mass to convert conformists given an opportunity

The starters would always likely be more active and caring people, but it is their responsibility to ensure a real incentive to join exists for future members instead of depending on passing on their fanaticism of belief alone to carry it all.

Yeah it is the dedicated few at first which maintain and expand a proto movement

Until it expands enough to become proper

The incentives aren't set up from the get go

Let me give an example

The impetus for fascism in Italy was a resentfull dedicated few

Which eventually grew into a proper mass movement

They didn't have funding etc. at first

For Fascism, there was a Resentful Few that was able to take advantage of existing growing mass resentment, our situation is that resentment and desire for specific dissident right views are still few. We live in a time where potential resentment is met with competing belief systems and hedonism to help demobilize potential actions

This is a great book about how mass movements are born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer#Part_1._The_Appeal_of_Mass_Movements

Do you actually think fascists were unchallenged

They seized upon resentment over other viable players like the socialists

Italy could've gone a number of ways

It's not much different to now really