/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>603

Covert? Not all all.

Domhoff's work on Interlocking Directorates might interest you

https://books.google.com/books?id=Qs0DAQAAIAAJ&hl=en

>>608

>muh gummint

jesus, you're fucking stupid. gb2/pol/ fucktard.

>>2316

I wonder... The Redshields seem very high up. If they were to go, would Jews cease to be a major nuisance? I mean, nobody has much cared about Austria since the Habsburgs fell into irrelevance...

>>603

Satire on this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4nSjPdT788

>>889

why does the third pic look like some deviantart bullshit

>>1968

I just saw a post the other day: rumor has it that its a Canadian Jew who infiltrated and became a mod on 4chon or some shit like that. They blamed them for taking down 4chon and ruining wizardchan, although its not clear to me what there was to ruin in the first place.

>>1968

I'm not a fan of false-flag conspiracy theories but given the sheer amount of absurdities coming out from europe regarding the current crisis I'm honestly starting to believe they are trying to trigger people into doing something so they can pass even more draconian speech and information laws.

>>1978

This is very relevant, though it would be better without the overused 'goyim' memes

The christianity vs. atheism case its particularly glaring specially since it happened right after they done the exact same thing on the left-wing

The biggest threat to both feminism and encroaching islam wasn't the far-right but the increasingly popular atheist and skeptical groups in the west. Its no wonder then that these two decided to go against leftwing atheists first, using anything for memes that undermined atheist as "fedora neckbeards" and even the old moralizing guilt trip, ironically a remnant from old feminists which were an offshot from protestant christianity, and no wonder islamists did the same since they are practically like christians from 200+ years ago.

What's really pathetic is how they managed to implement the same in the right-wing getting conservative atheists and christians to fight each other, again with the same memes and overall thread-derailing-stupidity.

And nobody seems to notice.

>>2351

Do you give any credence to Alexander Litvnenko who claimed FSB funded Al Queda? If you accept that as fact, as well as claims that the CIA funded Al Queda, doesn't that suggest a possible conspiracy between the three organisations?

>>2222 (checked)

Nice quads, thanks for taking the time to respond.

I remember prozac begin in the news constantly in the 90s. It still seemed taboo to be on it though, everyone called the crazy pills. I still feel like it eventually became normalized around the late 90s/early 2000s. The stigma of begin on a pill kinda faded away and lots of people were begin put on a number of things. If it wasn't antidepressants it was speed or benzos. Everyone was encouraged to "talk about their problems" then given something to help them cope with whatever was deemed to be wrong with them.

Selling the problem off to the lowest bidder does make good sense, I just worry about the implications of it all. The fact that they advertise drugs directly to the public on TV is a huge red flag that there is some shady shit going on.

>Barely and I'm saying this with scientific information that probes it. Most of these pills are released with the least possible amount of testing mandated by regulations and even then some results might be "buried" to prevent any delays that would cost the pharma company.

Where can I read the information you are reading?

>Most of this stuff can't be "grow" at all and if you mean drugs like marijuana and opium that's a whole different deal.

I do mean cannbis and opium, but other things too. One can manufacturer lots of common drugs given the know how and resources, if someone wanted to set-up shop and start producing morphine they could given enough land. They could even take it a step further and make heroin, or cocaine, or any number of things.

I wouldn't advocate for begin allowed to produce a large amount of the substance to sell directly to the public. But I do own a bit of land, and I feel like I should be able to grow whatever I want on it. If I were to end up in a position where I needed pain medication I would much rather grow my own opium than deal with all thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

I certainly think that the population in general is more prone to consume substances that alter their mental states, not necessarily (or exclusively) because of some encouragement by the government. If we consider why a population could be encouraged to do so, we can arrive at three different possibilities, which might also apply simultaneously.

The first would be the “soma” possibility. Despite not agreeing with most of what he says, I agree with Kaczynski when he talks about the power process. Here is a simple explanation if you are not familiar with the concept: a few generations ago people spent their lives performing activities which had immediate and visible effects on their lives and on the environment as a whole; currently, people spend most of their times engaged in activities which produce results that have no visible or significant effect on their lives or environments. That is to say, the fractioning of the productive/value aggregation process according to Taylor’s preaching for specialization, added with the development of technology and automation, resulted in groups of people who no longer have jobs they see as relevant, e.g. people whose job is to sit in an office all day and write reports on things other people did. In short, our lives seem much less meaningful. In order to cope with this perceived meaninglessness the individual seeks substances like alcohol or antidepressants. If we accept this premise, there is no need for actual encouragement for the consumption of such substances, as the circumstances of our social and economic systems already push people towards it. A possible encouragement could then signify an intention to intensify the aspects of the system which are unpleasant towards us, namely the mechanization of human labor: treating people like machines.

As such, we arrive at the issue of wireheading. The term refers to artificial stimuli to the brain that generates feelings of pleasure and/or happiness. Consider the possibility that you could be programmed to feel pleasure while performing a task that you now find unpleasant or even abhorrent. Less extreme would be the thought of drugging people in order to allow them to not mind exhaustive work hours or psychological abuse. In this scenario, a company could be legally allowed to disperse stimulants and antidepressants in the office air in order to prePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

[continued]

The third possibility would be the creation of a barely conscious and easily controllable population of drug addicts. Some people report that antidepressants and other drugs don’t actually make them happy, they only make them “numb”. Now picture an entire population that is merely “going with the flow” without any feelings, consuming what is pushed on them without actually enjoying the products, accepting whatever the government says, not making their will heard because they simply have no will. Such a demographic would be perfect for the expansion of government/company powers, and eventually for culling.

I am not informed enough to have an opinion on the safety of these “research chemicals”.

The matter of medicine patenting is a complex one, but I am generally contrary to it. I am not sure that this one matter is board-related. As for “allowing people to grow their own medicine”, we go into the field of alternative medicine and home remedies. Yes, for generations people have used herbs and roots to treat illnesses and health issues in general, but the ones whose effectiveness has been proven through double-blind control tests have mostly been turned into the commercial medicines we now see. One must be careful not the assume that alternative medicine can fill all of the roles of regular medicine. This is especially true for people with an anti-establishment stance, which tend to associate everything that is endorsed or produced by companies as bad and everything that is “alternative”, “underground” and “natural” as good. This is not to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to grow their own medicinal herbs and medicines, I agree with you when you say that the government has no say in what I grow on my own land reminding you that the government owns all of the land, but I know what you mean. As an interesting factoid, there was a while ago news of a small village in Brazil where the people had had found a new herb and discovered that tea from that herb helped them with headaches, upset digestive tracts and other such problems. As it happens, the herb was marijuana that someone had planted in the woods and that had spread to other areas. The people were just simple folk who didn’t even know what it was, and made Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2321

>>2322

We can't avoid the social factor, basically the almost complete acceptance of taking pills for "problems" in our society

It wasn't long ago when going to a therapist was something you couldn't mention to anyone without being judged. And have to take behavioral altering drugs was an even bigger deal, but now its not anymore.

Of course I wont deny that a lot of this "acceptance" was the work of pharma's paid PR, since if they can pay for relatively long ads during prime-time they can certainly also get the MSM to indirectly endorse the use of their pills.

And as I said before you can't deny that for the average borderline-ADHD western person taking a pill its far more preferable than dealing with their issues, be it by themselves or with a professional. They rather numb the "pain" which is the symptom with pills than to solve the "disease" which are their mental issues.

>>2211

Drugs, specifically opiates, induce docility in the masses.

I would not control drugs. I would educate the people on the importance of health and the effect it has on consciousness. If I was hitler everybody would be lifting and eating seasonally.

Despite the somewhat annoying beginning, this doesn't seem like a waste of time.

The idea that humans are generally more depressed now than ever before in history could be simply attributed to the non-existence of psychology for most of human history. The same might apply to the growth of the fraction of the population diagnosed with autism, to a certain extent. In this sense, this thread might tie in nicely with >>2211.

The mentions of narrative theory seem a little displaced at first, but later tie in nicely into what is discussed.

It's a shame that their analysis of the current individualist tendencies is somewhat short and superficial. I definitely agree with then when they mention how good it is that they did not have the social media tools available now on their adolescence. How hard must it be to evolve and change as an individual when your world views at age 13 are still available for all to see twenty years later. A relation arises between this and internet anonymity, as people associate changing one's opinion with indecisiveness and thus reject the opinions of those that change position often or dramatically, even if they do so after careful consideration. This means people are forced to either stick to ideas they might no longer subscribe to in order to be taken seriously or that they must change their world views and accept that some will see that negatively (especially those that maintain the position abandoned by the individual).

this is interesting. bump

>>2273

Would you be so kind as to excerpt some of the interesting releases on this board? Perhaps in the #thinkserious thread?

Here is a better article on the topic, that doesn't go off into crazy right-wing "men are genetically designed not to wear dresses" land.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

>>2244

How the fuck did he ever act Right wing?

You are basically what he was trying to say, claiming that a man wearing a dress is unflattering has triggered you into calling him a Crazy right wing-ist. He never said they werent genetically designed for it, you read that because you are insane and indoctrinated.

>>316

It is possible to counteract this. The reason the situation arises is because racist is used in many different contexts, and so takes on a vagueness or ambiguity.

I think it will be clearer if I invent a new word without any loadings. "Tumoka"

A tumoka is sometimes used to mean guy who eats soup. Sometimes a guy listening to drum and base. And sometimes it refers to a guy who rapes children in his spare time.

>Be eating soup

>'So you're a tumoka!'

>'And what if I am?'

You now basically admitted that you like to rape children. Let's consider another response

>Be eating soup

>'So you're a tumoka!'

>'I'm not a tumoka! >_<'

>'But you are clearly eating soup you liar!'

One way forward is to deny the implicit accusation, while acknowledging the observation. Explaining who you are as if the word tumoka didn't exist

>Be eating soup

>'So you're a tumoka!'

>'I would never rape a child. I do like soup though'

>'Oh I see ^_^'

>>2257

Applying this to another word could look like this

>'So you are a socialist?'

>'I want healthcare for the poor, but gulags are horrible'

>>2234

How can you call conspiracies invoking Tavistock nonsense and quote HG Wells in the same breath? Wells himself was a Fabian.

http://mindcontrolfordummies.50megs.com/whats_new_20.html

You are a little hostile anon. Tone it down.

>>2234

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2250

I've never seen the term "Cultural Capitalism" be discussed before. I think an exploration of the meanings and uses of that expression could be a good topic for a new thread, and could also allow you to express your views on the topic, about which you seem to hold strong opinions.

I deleted your image because it added little, if anything at all, to the discussion. Perhaps you should try to express the meaning you were trying to convey with it in words. This board is also SFW.

Your post regarding the deletion of the picture was deleted because it should have been posted to the meta thread, it added nothing to the discussion, and contained needless profanity.

It is clear that you are passionate about the topics, but I ask that you contribute in maintaining a high level of debate while on this board. Try to refrain from pointless insults and unnecessary profanity.

If you would like to ask me something, criticize me or make suggestions, please use the meta thread.

>>2234

I'm getting tired of this troll and his constant pathetic indirect defense of cultural marxist and overused insults in every thread

ITT Austrians and Thirdpositionists (rightly) accuse each other of being vapid ideologues.

Economic policy ranges across a spectrum with #Fullcommunism (no freedom.) on one end and pure austrian capitalism (Maximum freedom.) on the other and mixed-economies (Social democracy, fascism whatever.) in-between. Realistically, all economies are going to fall somewhere between those two extremes, and optimal positions along that spectrum are going to vary over time and from country to country. Debating economic policy in the purely abstract isn't a useful exercise.

>>1463

Lol no

A heavy regulatory environment favors the elites far more than a free market

It enables them to by laws that favor their companies and stife competition - it also enables them to get massive subsidies from the government

A true free market would wipe out the stagnant ruling class because they are not innovators

>>1684

Presumably none of those optimal positions involve doing away with Usury? Or implementing revolutionary energy technology? Or public debate not being within the boundaries of present scarcity?

The entire range is different depending upon the presence or absence of those factors. That aside, of course a society's system will be best adapted to context.

That's not abstract. That's structural, tangible and specific. Your range and its middle ground are the true abstract, as every position on it is transformed by the presence or absence of particular and tangible factors. Paying attention to the range rather than those is precisely the Austrian-Keynesian dialectic, and the black box present discourse operates within.

You're basically just saying 'muh pragmatic middle ground'. Sure, be pragmatic. But so what? You haven't analysed anything or identified the optimal pragmatic course given present fairly universal economic structures/conditions.

>>1693

Hence the pre-fed move to Gold? Or hence how much they loved NS Germany? Or hence major money backing and creating Austrianism. You ignored history and parroted the party line.

'Freedom' as a generalised concept is a distraction. Civic and personal liberty aren't what's happening when powerful entities are liberated from any constraining influence to run roughshod over a society.

Societies are power-balances, and complex systems. If you loose one element like you want, it just goes wild and then assumes all the characteristics of totalitarianism as soon as it is able to do so.

Besides, elites are innovators. Rockefellers were immensely creative in what they did to American society and in their power politics. Roths were courageous and ingenious in their ascendancy. And think-tanks plan ahead and strategise a lot more creatively than your average person.

In a 'free market' present wealth structures will succeed in just hoarding wealth and underlying resources and controlling the economy by the power this gives them to set market conditions, and control loans to everybody else who's struggling to get enough credits to survive.

And if a true free market did wipe out this ruling class, most of humanity would go with it. It would likely be by a robotic (or etc.) revolution. And those profiting by this would have a motive to keep relative scarcity in place to safeguard their victory.

>>1460

>. It is mathematically impossible.

stopped reading there. you're confusing a stock with a flow. It is absolutely possible to pay off money created through debt without incurring more debt. [sigh]

>>1463

American libertarianism was a Cold War psyop. But, not without some good reason, though, as the Soviets were pretty shitty.

>>1464

>Damon Vrabel

>the IRS transfers money from people to the Fed

>the State is in debt to the banks

WRONG! Stopped watching there. Don't fill your head with this retarded shit. This guy is either stupid or a liar (psyop) or both.

The system is fucked up, and does somewhat act like a pyramid, but not at all in the way he says.

>Money Masters

This is actually pretty good. Would recommend.

>>1465

>So the market itself has been turned into a rigged casino, where outsiders can't hope to compete with insiders

BINGO! They've been caught rigging LIBOR twice in the last year, and the issuance of T-bills at least once.

>>1473

>butt hurt you specifically called out Neo-reaction

Neoreaction is one of the most ass-hat pants-on-head-retarded pseudo-intellectual propaganda act that has come out in the last 40 years. It deserves everything it gets.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Inverted Totalitarianism

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

>>2198

>Ellen Pao prohibited Reddit employees for negotiating for higher salaries by appealing to feminist claims that the wage gap is due in part to women being less capable of aggressively negotiating for more money.

This sounds like a slightly bad idea implemented for an absurd reason. It reminds me of the story "Harrison Bergeron", in which individuals are handicapped by the state in order to ensure total equality: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

>>2198

I have no doubt that the current 'diversity' campaign has a purely economic origin with the PR side being just an extension of it meant to act as a front

The case of reddit however its an example of a poor implementation of this method since it was very obvious pao did it to save the company some money and not because of equality.

The H1B case on the other hand its far better implemented, you have fwd.us which is a huge NGO that gets little if any bad press from the MSM and yet its nothing but a corporate arm pushing for what boils down to indentured servitude. A H1B holder is not a citizen and most likely will never be, its not even a legal resident, its literally a worker who must leave the country the moment they are fired, and so most H1Bs work for way less and accept bad working conditions, and somehow this is passed as "progressive"

>>2122

>It really makes you think

No. No, it doesn't. Not at all. Not in the least.

And, its clear from your comment that you lack the capacity to think.

In a free country, there are always multiple, overlapping associations, and groups that tend toward a particular political party tend to group together more closely. You need to take off the tin foil and start thinking social-scientifically, you dingbat.

>>2232

Tunney is a google employee singularian who advocates for some kind of transgender techno god and other alarming ideas on his website. Meanwhile transhumaist futurist types like Tunney but with more influence are trying to redefine video gaming to make it more palateable for the masses for the purposes of datamining and behavior changing- which GG diggers pinpointed. Tunney has a history of leading or attempting to lead movements of dissent; OWS stank from the get-go.

Please see yourself out.

>>2232

Just because a piece of information is irrelevant to you, that doesn't mean that it is irrelevant to others. Sometimes a very simple reference or analogy may spark an epiphany on a reader, or simply be remembered later when one's ideas are being formed. What I mean is that the anon who said "it really makes you think" probably meant that it made them think, and they assumed that it would also make others think. If it didn't make you think, then you could have simply said so, or even stated why it is that you do not believe that it would make anyone think.

If you do not see things from the perspective of the other (either by choice or by some limitation) that does not mean that you should say that said other "lacks the capacity to think". To assume that anyone who holds a different opinion than you does so because they are intellectually limited is a sure way to grow comfortable on your positions and never subject your own beliefs to analysis, which in turn can lead to negative consequences both for you and for those with whom you interact. The person shared information and hinted at the presence of deeper connections without making grandiose claims about conspiracies, while you said they needed to "take off the tin foil hat". Finally, you called them a "dingbat". That was uncalled for and rude.

Your post could have been worded in a much better way, so as that other anons would see it as an opportunity to discuss the points you made.

Instead, you made that.

>>2007

>On the other hand they can seem very reasonable when contrasted with the extremists (overton window).

The opposite is true. Actions inside the window (but towards the borders) are what moves the area of acceptability outwards. Actions beyond the window will actually have the reverse effect, pushing society away from your intended target.

For example, let's say you're working for an Islamic group pushing the notion that Muslims are peaceful and will integrate into American society. You're well within the window, moving society towards your goal, when 9/11 happens. What was acceptable yesterday would now be seen as 'inflammatory', 'controversial', 'insulting', et cetera. You'll certainly attract police presence and possibly an angry mob. Good luck getting your message across.

Your picture is showing a different scenario, because one side has an overwhelming violence advantage (a gun), meaning social concepts such as the Overton window or guilt-by-association are meaningless. That's a needlessly complicated mugging. All they need is the guy with the gun demanding your money.

>>2082

I think the comic is more of a criticism of statism and/or taxing.

Extremist movements are good so far as they are controlled by the same people that control the moderates.

In that way you are able to sympathise with the opposition moderates. "Even they think like us" is a strong enabling force. It is only important that moderates do intellectual damage to extremists in a way that makes the opposition think in your way.

For example, beating the extreme right rhetoric with a moderate right rhetoric makes an average (non-expert) leftist adopt the functional right-wing response eventually infecting him with another stream of thoughts.

In real life practice you can see right-wingers siding with "moderate" feminists and turning them into idols because they provide them with sound rationalization of their stance. They do not see it as a seed for ideological neutralization over time.

>>2007

"Extremist" I feel is an abused word. It seems like it should be relegated only to those willing to use violence, as their political actions will not wok within the current political framework but the media labels people whose opinions and views don't work within the existing political framework as "extremists".

>>2209

>the media labels people whose opinions and views don't work within the existing political framework as "extremists".

They do that because the overall idea is that extremists are those willing to use violence

Ergo by categorizing a non-violent political group as extremists you're destroying its public image by saying that they will in fact become violent and thus should be dismantled/destroyed as soon as possible

Of course this is done by certain interests which perceive said group as a future threat, regardless of the welfare of society at large

>>1816

>4 hours

can you give a quick synopsis?

>>1839

I support this fellow. Specially for the ones that doesn't have English as a main language,

This is a psychopolitics board and you are posting a video from someone who is a charlatan, at best, and probably a CIA asset. Son, I am disappoint.

If you really want to understand how M-L work, Yuri is not the place to go, man.

>>2215

Considering the nature of this board you should actually give an explanation rather than use loaded words like 'charlatan'

>>2215

>If you really want to understand how M-L work, Yuri is not the place to go, man.

Could you direct us to better sources that touch on similar topics?

>>2175

The overuse of 'phobia' its almost a meme now, its become a political tool

Consider all the studies that show homophobia doesn't exists, that nobody is afraid of homosexuals and instead they either feel distaste or outright hate. Why anti-gay isn't used instead? maybe they wanted to differentiate themselves from the also overused 'antisemitic'? (which in turn its also incorrect since arabs are semites too and many are very anti-jewish)

As for the xenos part, again a case of mainstream ignorance about what it means. Given the context in which the word its being used I think anti-foreign would be a better choice. Of course that ignorance plays a role here: 'foreign' has bad connotations, most people associate it with a foe and possible hostility. Ergo the people who choose to use xenos most likely did so to avoid this, which again its another cases of psychopolitics being used not for the common good but for certain political aims given that the bad connotations of the word 'foreign' are also the results of previous manipulation. After all 'foreign' doesn't means something its bad, just that it isn't local or familiar.

>vilifying those who oppose

This is a key aspect of something I wanted to talk about

Last night I was watching pro-immigration people in berlin and I couldn't help but think how much they resembled the crowds cheering for hitler. In both cases you got people who are not willing to go deeper, to try to understand that is in front of them, all they care about is to be "part of it" and not being "out of the loop", not ending up outside of the group, not being the only ones who are not participating.

The irony of nazism is that it started as a political movement people joined so they wouldn't have to face the real problems of germany at the time. Instead of tackling said problems they would join a fantasy, a mass psychosis of sorts where germany could still dominate the world. They rather listen to hitlerPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2168

>"microwaving"

it's called necklacing and dates back to the 80s when Mandela's ANC took power and sought to quash dissidents through brutal displace punitive violence.

I've been seeing a lot of these misapplied terms /pol/ lately and am wondering if they are part of psycho politics. Purposely mislabeling something could serve a couple purposes:

1.) It causes people like myself to waste energy in the correction, and lead to possible arguments.

2.) Can lead to lurkers or participants in the conversation showing themselves to be ignorant or open to derision by using these malapropisms in discourse elsewhere.

3.) These malapropisms could also be used as calling cards for trolls and shills to identify each other.

As well I also saw an image where someone screenshotted the UN website and purposely swapped the definitions of "Refugee" and "Asylum Seeker" to make the point that these people were are not in fact refugees, but "Asylum Seekers" and thus were ineligible for the refugee rights awarded by the UN. This simply adds a non-point and poisons the discourse, but doing this repeatedly could mean total message dilution, as adherents argue over the definitions of words with one side looking completely ignorant and irrational.

>>2208

Not to stay too far off topic but I wanted to point out something I've noticed about /pol/ as well.

The practice of archiving a website and/or making a screenshot does serve somewhat of a purpose. I can understand attempting to deny views/clicks/ad-revenue to certain websites and people.

However, sometimes I do see a bit of a bait and switch. Screenshots are often slightly edited and what good is trusting an archive if it can just be edited too? Someone has access to that data somewhere.

You'll often see an anon post a link to something only to be shouted at to archive it. Often times someone will do that and provide a link, but they're usually just using a site they've seen another anon use before. I know I'm rambling but my point is you can't just put trust in the archive.

/pol/ usually digs around but I rarely see anyone look into who owns and operates the major archiving services that are used every day. I rarely see anons call out edited screenshots. I doubt most anons even read the articles that are posted.

History is just constantly revised and edited now. When you stop and think about it it's really amazing.

>>2208

>it's called necklacing

That the SA name, its called microwaving in Brasil where if reports are to be believed goes back to the favelas in the early 70s. Still its possible that it was 'imported' to SA given that Brasil had a problem with communist guerrillas and many of them had to escape the dictatorship there. Given that many LatAm communists ended in Africa via Cuba's operations there I'm assuming that's the way it might have ended up with the ANC.

>>2210

>Screenshots are often slightly edited

Which is why we use archive

>what good is trusting an archive if it can just be edited too?

Its much easier to check if the archive was manipulated because you can look at the code, go to wayback or even check the original in cache

>You'll often see an anon post a link to something only to be shouted at to archive it

We do that for a very simple reason: these boards are full of clickbait spamers who are paid to create a fake controversy. Dumb mediocre bloggers who go unpaid working for content mills like huffpo and others go themselves to places like /pol/ to post their news. Why? after all neither 8chan nor 4chan's /pol/ are that popular when compared to say facebook or twitter. Well they do this because they know they can get a reaction from it, a reaction which will result in more attention and thus views, which is all that matters to them. Take the case of zoe quinn's fake harassment (this is before GG): she went to wizardchan, a forum far less popular than 4chan or 8chan, why? because she needed fake harassment, so she went to a place that she knew she could get quick reactions to her awful behavior that would get her support from the SJW, support which she could exploit by "ebegging" in knoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1246

>Further, the Occult challenges the very definition of psychopolitics. A modern might perceive it as being about scientific and tactical manipulation of perceptions within the confines of the Physical universe. But an occultist often regards reality our civilisation itself as a magical manipulation of perception, in which the manipulations are not only deceptions, but actually also change the structure of reality. It's interesting to note that the Royal Society and other authoritative bodies central to the development of materialist science were filled with higher degree Masons who, privately in their Masonic lodges, engaged in 'secret rituals' predicated upon an acceptance of occult mentalism.

This is pretty accurate, shows me OP knows his stuff.

When you know that reality truly is but a dream, and you figure out how to transcend it, you start to "walk on water" so to speak.

Your also not moving thru time OR space, but it moving around you, because there is only one point of reality, which is GOD himself, we are just the eyes of GOD experiencing time.

We are God looking himself in the mirror, so to speak. Watching the watcher.

>>1246

Thank you for your contribution anon.

The occult is apart of everyday life, even to mundane people who think they are so secular, so atheist, and materialistic, and above it all.

A wedding ceremony for instance, that is occultic, that is a ceremony, a ritual, binding (at least in olden times) a man and women together till death.

You see the bozos in silicon valley claiming that we live in a simulated reality.

The same people who would laugh at the religious are pretty much practicing Gnosticism, the gnostic believes this is a false material reality created by the demiurge, we must escape it by using divine knowledge.

What about a corporate logo, this is basically a sigil, a sigil is "an inscribed or painted symbol considered to have magical power."

A sigil is made by a chaos magician, they make it and embed their will or desire into the symbol. So a logo, the coca cola logo, the desire of the coke company is that every time you see their logo, you want to buy a coke.

You know the elite are into some eyes wide shit, bohemian grove, skull and bones, etc. I would gather maybe lie 1% of them actually believe in it, the rest are just there for the weird sex.

here is alan moore explaining how art is actually magic

>>1777

The embedded one is one of his yearly 5 minute minidocs.

There is some excellent content on his blog here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis

As for his full length docs, I would recommend starting with Century of the Self. It follows various members of the Freud family and discusses how Freud's views were appropriated by both industry and government in order to create a move favorable economic and political order.

After that one, I would suggest that you watch anything that grabs your attention. With the possible exception of his newest (which is good, but more style than substance compared to his earlier work, imo), I suspect that you will find all of them interesting.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-power-of-nightmares/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/mayfair-set/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/pandoras-box/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-trap/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-living-dead/

>>1856

Thank you very much for that.

Here is a collection of Psychology documentaries. Although not all of them are relevant to our discussions, they can be entertaining and sometimes informative:

http://documentaryaddict.com/psychology

This website also hosts documentaries in a wide variety of topics.

>>1856

I've seen three of these, and I highly suggest them. There is a lot of really mind blowing shit in there that you're usually not taught in school.