/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>1733

The term nihilism in the modern context is too vague and misrepresenting for the layman to understand the significance in psychology and today's identity trends. Yes, nihilism is nullification of values, ideals, and societal norms like many of the dictionaries and liberal text books will tell us, but what is the psychology behind this desire to brake away from the cultural norm? That's what we are trying to discover when dealing with nihilism as a psychological function.

Why does nihilist deny values. The answer is simple, but because of it's simplicity it's ignored, ridiculed, and overlooked. Especially from those that are pathologically nihilist themselves. They don't want to be exposed and their feelings and rational being judged.

To come into understanding, we should look this through a nihilist archetypes. First let's talk about a transsexual LBGT-activist. He is nihilists, he denies nature by denying his own manhood. He denies nature, objectivity and the observably obvious, for the implementation of his own ego, his desired identity. For transexual LBGT activist his political, sexual, and social identity has emerged into one. His whole existence, his self-worth, his ego is about this sexual transformation, and the moral status it gives him. To be the underdog. Yet, when he got it done, it wasn't what he wanted. A fear creeps in to him, when the value of life around him hasn't changed. What if what was done is not what I really wanted. See, the nihilist rejects nature.

Transexual LBGT-activist has done a irreversible cursory on to his body. He can't come to terms with this realization. He doesn't want to admit that he fucked up. He will try to compensate by explaining it away. He will try to accuse the society, parents and nature as a whole. He will try to say that biology is just a social construct, to explain to himself that he didn't fuck up.

Transexual LBGT-activist will try to convince himself that sex is just a noum, a categorization. He plays word games of sex and gender. He will deny that sex is biological construct, even thoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1734

What ever kind of a nihilist is, all the same mental gymnastics happen in all nihilists. There are four different factors within the pathology of nihilism.

1) They reject objectivity. When nothing is objective, then subjective standards can be held the highest standard. This creates delusion of all sort. He wants to be the final judge of reality. Nihilist love subjectivity. We could even say nihilism is subjectivity, and extreme form of individual relativism. Where even reality is made to bend into subjective wants and needs.

2) The driving force for a nihilist is hedonism. Hedonism doesn't always mean physical and bodily satisfaction, but mental satisfaction over social status and acceptance. For nihilist the mental satisfaction is seductive. Because of this seduction, he will deny everything that rejects his standards and his seductive reward. It's this seduction of mental and bodily hedonism, which makes nihilistic memes spread. Liberalism, sexual liberation, gay rights are all seductive identities.

3) The last thing nihilist do is use wordplay to justify reality. In feminism and transsexual dialogue they use sex and gender, as a separate thing, so they could reject biology. Antiracist liberals use wordplay to downplay the term race. They try to determine race as a social construct, and not a biological one. They use worldplay to justify their believes, values and identity to themselves and to others.

4) Victim complex is there to protect the nihilist. If anyone questions his definitions, his wordplay, his subjectivity, or tries to understand where he gets his pleasure from, they are rejected as haters, fascist, nazis. They will shut their ears, and try to label those that don't share their values. They make themselves a victim and anyone who tries to wake them up is oppressor.

>>1734

>>1735

So, now that we explained the pathology of nihilists can we understand how human psyche works. It also gives us an understanding how to manipulate people, and how modern society manipulates people using nihilistic values, morals, dogma.

These dogmatic memes that nihilist like to use are words that declare or describe absolutes. It's function is all or nothing.

I give you guys an example.

We all have heard the philosophical claim that "there is nothing unnatural, everything is natural, as all things and phenomenon that exists are happening in material world". With this standard of "natural" anything is natural. It's all or nothing. Everything is natural, or everything is unnatural. Nihilist want to define nature like this, so they can use nature as an argument to justify their degeneracy and their unnatural activities and beliefs.

"Everything is natural" of course is a fallacy. These people will claim that car, nuclear plant, light pulp, or airplane are natural. They are natural in 21th century, but in the context of natural history they are a blink of anomaly. See, the word natural has to have a context, in which it is referred. They even claim homosexuality or transsexuals are natural. In nature these thing don't usually occur, thus they are unnatural.

Natural and unnatural are both adjectives, designed to describe if something is usual or unusual. Natural is a descriptive word. The word "natural" is describing occurrence. Is phenomenon occurring repeatedly. When phenomenon is in line with the expectation of occurrence, then it's natural. In nature everything goes in cycles. Years, planets, water, life, everything. Everything in nature has a rhythm, a pattern, a way it occurs, and natural is a way to say it's occurring like it suppose to. If something changes, and disturbs the occurring pattern, then it means that something unnatural has occurred.

There is a tangible desire to want to be allowed to feel good in our society. Whatever means by which this can be soothed to the individual is but a side effect of the inherant need for approval and completion by the average man

One important factor is socioeconomic coercion

What's interesting about moots situation with 4chan is that it proved what many had suspected and that's that silicon valley despite being a byproduct of the military industrial complex its becoming an overtly liberal place where having the wrong set of ideas can ruin your business.

Of course this is all superficial since these liberal investors still do things that go against they philosophy like not giving a damn about workers, the increasing wealth gap and evading taxes with offshore schemes. But they are liberal where it counts: while talking and when making donations

It's obvious that moot got investments

for his terrible ideas as long as he turned extreme liberal and surrendered the keys to 4chan.

This thus is socioeconomic coercion since moot didn't really care about being accepted but about finally making a profit. After all his site predates even Myspace

bump

Basic Survival 101:

https://archive.fo/4LV5q

http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=221

56 Long-Term Survival Foods and Supplies at the Grocery Store:

https://archive.is/XPy07

http://www.allselfsustained.com/56-long-term-survival-foods-and-supplies-at-the-grocery-store/

55 Preparedness Items:

https://archive.is/q15kx

https://archive.is/EBIjv

http://www.prepperfortress.com/55-preparedness-items/

When SHTF These 100 Items Will Disappear First (STOCK UP NOW!):

https://archive.is/ARfiL

http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency-preparedness/when-shtf-these-100-items-will-disappear-first_06032010

40 Items to Barter in a Post-Collapse World:

https://archive.is/f4XWk

http://www.backdooPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

bumping in light of S4T's doc mentioning captology

>Can we qualify these tactics as "fair game"?

Hard yes. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say "we should start pitching heroine during Dora The Explorer," I do believe that advertising as it stands is perfectly fine. Ideally, and I try to do what I can, people will grow to know and understand advertising "tricks." Then either the advertiser comes up with new tricks or fades away. It's healthy for people and business.

>But what about the people taken by the ads?

No one criticizes a lion as immoral for tackling the slowest gazelle. I'm from the Land of the Commercial and Home of the Big Mac, so I have lived both sides of the coin. I'm not bitter that everyone who used the cologne I did was so much better-looking than me, after all, it was my choice to buy it anyway. I could have not given them money if I wanted to.

>Should manufacturers be restricted to showcasing the characteristics of the products and services in the most impartial way possible?

That is a very interesting question. It would boost consumer confidence, but at the same time, consumer numbers would decline.

Let's use a chicken shack, KFC or something, for example. Let's say They are forced to display their "food" as-is in all their advertising campaigns. They don't have to disclose their "secret spices" or reveal their employee working and living conditions. Just whenever they take a picture of their mashed potatoes, it's gotta be a spoonful of runny, watery slop that's still cold and powdery in the middle.

Their installed userbase, the people that go there regularly anyway, won't stop going. But they won't get new customers, they'd stagnate, and die.

On the other hand, Would PETA be forced to stop showing pictures of nasty chicken farms in honduras or whatever and start showing pictures of pictures of chicken farms where the chickens are reasonably healthy and happy - a little bored and fat, but otherwise in fair-to-good health, the state of the average american chicken farm owned by the 4 major chicken suppliers?

I feel more transparency would be good, but forcing any group to use something other than their "show horse," the best possible reprePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

A better question would be: what's the alternative?

One extreme would be to force the companies to display (or make available) the complete composition and process of the manufacture of their products or the execution of their services. That would be extremely unpractical; the consumers would not bother analyzing the information available to them, and assuming all companies had very similar processes (which they do) the choice would be guided by practical matters, such as price and availability, or subjective ones, like packaging and scent.

A second approach would not prevent lies by omission, such as in the first case, but would prevent fabrications and lies. This would be a proposition similar to that of >>1708 and the mashed potatoes. Simply prohibiting the distribution of misleading or false information (visually or textually). I disagree when the anon said that this would discourage new costumers, since every company would be forced to act in this way, anyone who wanted to eat fried chicken (or consume any product or service) would choose between equally mediocre displays. Unless everyone stopped going out for food, the businesses would survive.

Ideally these restrictions would also include prohibition of the use of poorly defined and sometimes subjective terms like "natural", "healthy", "fresh", "made with love" and so on.

The comparison between companies and individuals made by >>1711 is valid, but also not completely accurate.

Humans have a natural tendency to seek approval by their peers, and fear ostracism as much as death. Taking action to prevent making a bad impression is not just expected, it's natural. Companies, on the other hand, obviously do not have natural tendencies, and while their marketing efforts may be a matter of survival for them it differs int he sense that when you put on your best act on a job interview you continue to work trying to maintain that initial impression after you are hired. Traditional advertising tends to set expectations that cannot be met.

Idk, having worked on a product in the past I can say that life would have been much simpler for me if there were no ads

But people is stupid they don't do any research not even before they buy a car (a fucking car ffs!) so even if your product is awesome without ads nobody is gook ng to know it exists

That seems like a very nice board, thank you for linking it here. Board advertisement is allowed, but if too many threads are created just for that I will have to impose some regulations.

If you have any questions about board ownership and management, or would just like to discuss those topics privately with me, feel free to send me an e-mail.

>>1603

Alright, thank you very much.

>>1603

Still, if you want you can get in the board and post something, I mean, if you want.

The video raises several interesting points, related to both PR in general and blogging as a political tool.

I would say that the main message comes when he is talking about the democratic presidential campaign of 2004, and mentions how the Democratic Party had greater funds, resources, and (in his opinion) much better proposals, but still lost. This defeat happened because they did not know how to make use of their resources, choosing to stick to obsolete methods, such as door-to-door visits and constant calls. Their political consultants had a fear of change, and a candidate's success (in other elections as well) tended to be inversely proportional to how much the stuck to the scrip given to them by the party. What this tells us is several things:

Firstly, money and resources are no guarantee for a political (or ideological) campaign. If you don't have a good strategy you can spend boatloads of money in ares where you traditionally have the majority and still loose.

Secondly, the models that worked for the past can't be relied on forever. The idea being sold, the demographics, the political scenario and of course the opponent's tactics evolve with time. If one does not follow those changes, they become obsolete.

Thirdly, the notion that despite having the best ideas and proposals you can still loose. That is because modern humans (especially online) have a severe difficulty putting ourselves in the other person's shoes. Of course we think our ideas are right, we wouldn't subscribe to them otherwise, but why should the others accept them? To use banners of our famous board as an example: they understand the importance of sexual responsibility and abstinence from drugs, but why should the average young man or women accept these ideals? How can they make them more appealing than having constant sex with different partners and getting high? What kind of argument will have an effect? Certainly not ones based on universal morality and long-term collective consequences, such as the ones the people on that board tend to use.

Regarding the specifics of the progressive movement, the speakers exposed their past difficulty in recruiting talent to innovate. I don't see that as being the case anymore. One of the speakers mentions that hePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1694

>Other points worth mentioning are his statement that "polls mean very little", which we already know, since focus groups have always given better results;

I read an article today that's relevant: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2015/05/pollsters-as-pundits .

>Polls lend a scientific aura to claims about religion, delivering truth with mathematical certainty. He wants to train us to be more skeptical: “When preachers cite polls as reasons why we should do this or that, shouldn’t we wonder about this form of argument? When we hear American religion characterized in particular ways because of polls, we should ask what exactly ‘American religion' is, whose religion it refers to, and whether certain aspects of it are being emphasized while others are neglected.”

This is in a religious context, obviously, but I think it can be generalized out and applied more generally. The truth seeking organs of our societal are not impartial or neutral (As anyone here could tell you.), and the case could be made that it's impossible for it to be any other way.

>>1538

http://8ch.net/32/res/1171.html

How do you legalize any phenomenon, from euthanasia to cannibalism?

Evgueni Gorzhaltsán

In today's society of tolerance, which has no fixed ideal and as a result, no clear division between good and evil, there is a technique to change the attitude toward popular concepts considered totally unacceptable.

This technique, called "The Overton Window" and consists of a specific sequence of actions to achieve the desired result, "may be more effective than the nuclear charge as a weapon to destroy human communities," writes columnist Evgueni Gorzhaltsán.

In his article in the Adme portal puts the radical example of how to turn acceptable the idea of ​​legalizing step by step, from the stage is considered a disgusting and unthinkable action, completely oblivious to public moral cannibalism, to become a reality accepted by mass consciousness and the law. This is not achieved by washing direct brain but in more sophisticated techniques are effective due to its coherent and consistent implementation without society realize the process, create Gorzhaltsán.

First stage: the unthinkable to radical

Obviously, now the question of legalization of cannibalism is at the lowest level of acceptance in the "window of opportunity" Overton, because society considers as absurd and unthinkable phenomenon taboo.

To change that perception, can, relying on freedom of expression, refer the matter to the scientific field, as for scientists there is normally no taboo subjects. Therefore, we may conclude, for example, an ethnological symposium on exotic rituals of the tribes of Polynesia and discuss the history of the topic and get authoritative statements about cannibalism, ensuring the transition from negative and intransigent attitude society to a more positive attitude.

Simultaneously, create a radical group of cannibals, although there is only on the Internet, you will surely be noticed and quoted by numerous media. As a result of the first stage of Overton, taboo subject disappears and starts unacceptable discussed.

Second stage: from radical than acceptable at this stage, follow quoting scientists, aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1558

Fourth stage: from the sensible to the popular

The media, with the help of known and political people, and speak openly about the anthropophily. This phenomenon begins to appear in movies, popular lyrics and videos. At this stage, begins to also function technique which involves the promotion of references to prominent historical figures who practiced anthropophily.

To justify the legalization advocates phenomenon can resort to the humanization of criminals by creating a positive image of them saying, for example, that they are the victims, because life forced them to practice anthropophily.

Fifth stage: from the popular to the political

This category accounts and start preparing legislation to legalize phenomenon. Lobbyists are consolidated in power and supposedly published surveys confirm a high percentage of supporters of legalization of cannibalism in society. In the public consciousness a new dogma states: "The prohibition of eating people is prohibited."

This is a typical technique of liberalism that works due to tolerance as a pretext for the Prohibition of taboos. During the last stage of "moving window" Overton from the popular to politics, society has already ruptured, then the rules of human existence have changed or been destroyed by adopting new laws.

Gorzhaltsán concludes that the concept of "windows of opportunities", first described by Joseph Overton, can be extrapolated to any phenomenon and is particularly easy to implement in a tolerant society in which the so-called freedom of speech has become dehumanization and where before our eyes one after another all limits that protect society from the abyss of self-destruction are eliminated.

The beauty of google translate

How to memify this info to spread this knowledge?

>>1617

I'm using dissatisfaction in a technical sense, very distinct from sheer stress.

It's the absence and sense of more which gets you asking the questions. It's the atmosphere you breathe and the medium of your thoughts.

I'm telling you to take the basic, which motivates you, and found yourself in it and ways of weaponising it to reach the greatest efficacy. Instead of seeking a form to fill that void which you'll try to use as a kind of stable life-raft to throw in with.

I'm working off the probably correct assumption that you have a very particular kind of neural setup.

Health, sure. But having that as an issue to work on doesn't stop you searching into particular topics and testing the answers you produce to them. Keeping a mind concerned with things other than just health should probably be considered an aspect of health. I've been mired in health problems, like you have. At some point you need to keep the best-bet solutions running below the radar, not as a conscious obsession.

That's especially true given that your mind seems mercurial and active and unlikely to be a good foundation for a stable solution.

My solution isn't really a solution, either. It's just a basic cognitive starting point to developing paths through life.

Finally: you may think you won't be taken in. But that doesn't mean you'll have the correct setup and drive to reach the objects of attention and mode of consideration where reality comes into clear view. You could be unaffiliated and still have your mind filled with dumb stuff and dumb polarities you compare to one another and see as the landscape of possibility and relevance.

>>1618

>I'm using dissatisfaction in a technical sense, very distinct from sheer stress.

>I'm telling you to take the basic, which motivates you, and found yourself in it and ways of weaponising it to reach the greatest efficacy.

I don't know how to do that. I'm not sure I can do anything with dissatisfaction that's not bundled with negative things like stress and hatred.

>>1622

Maybe you need a therapist more than you need this board.

>>1630

hasn't worked so far.

>>1621

THIS

Furthermore I thing we made a major mistake by not only attaching more damaging and mainstream terms to them but by also not spreading the background of most antigamers involved

Nobody would listen to anita of they knew her scam artist past, nobody would care about zoe of they knew about how she grifted people, or fullmac being a rich neocon kid and so on.

Way lesser stories have wrecked the careers of public figures like these in the past, the difference is that in this case everyone (even us for some reason) are keeping quiet about it.

>>1607

1) Look at you, what a terrible man, criticizing a "warrior" who is fighting for "social justice". What kind of monster are you?

2) What a shame, this makes it difficult to attack their sick ideas in the real world. I guess you could start by explaining how these people fighting for social justice are so terrible. When they hear the term "Social Justice Warrior" you are already dead

3) Almost as if you aren't supposed to be speaking it out loud.

>>1620

Broadly speaking, this guy's on the right track. SJW culture is clearly a product of the internet. One thing I would add is that it's not fundamentally based around consumerism, even if (as with just about every other facet of human interaction) it's been co-opted to some degree by a consumer narrative.

Put simply, social media is inherently incapable of rational discourse [see attached book]. The narrative moves so fast there's no time to put proper arguments together. Hashtags and trending topics flare up and die within hours; it's impossible to read up on a subject and come to your own conclusion; all you can do is regurgitate whatever the screen throws at you. Add to this the fact it's social media. People on sites like Twitter, Tumblr, et al are social beings looking for acceptance, which means going with the flow [see attached video]. Nobody wants to challenge the narrative, because ultimately they don't care about the politics; they care about being "in" with a group.

So to summarize, you have a positive feedback loop moving at breakneck speed with no desire for restraint. Is it any wonder the end product is such a bizarre and twisted ideology?

>>1666

I don't think they do, older films from that are encourage family values, most of them are timeless classics.

Snow white will remain a cultural item long after say frozen is forgotten.

>>1680

era*

shit keyboard

Very good read OP, thank you for that. Do you have any recommendations of how to break free from the conditioning as someone on whom this condition

>This system has a much different affect on boys, simply making many withdraw from society, and delve into frivolous time wasting persuits.

applies?

>>1682

The meta meme.

Self contemplation, and a few other aspects.

I'm not entirely sure how the mechanics of it work, but if you would treat memetics like genetics, and a bad meme or behavior like a cancer cell, its something like a mental chemo therapy.

OP, here is an example of what you are talking about in your post. However, instead of focusing on the way white girls are raised Lupe Fiasco goes into how rap culture has influenced young black girls minds. He also demonstrates how it affects boys at a very young age if their parents listen to it. Much of the same topics you discussed, but Lupe presented in an almost different world.

You could even argue the massive influence that rap music has had on the same girls you mentioned. You brought up the fact that most boys grow up listening to it, and I would say it has a negative effect on girls as well. Girls are being taught, through the media, that promiscuous behavior is a good thing. The now promiscuous women do not want long term relationships, and it is likely to have caused the increase in divorce rates we see today.

Anyway thanks for the read, hope this helped give another perspective on how far the conditioning goes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3m3t_PxiUI

the end times are near

>>1487

SCUM manifesto publication date, Suez Crisis, perhaps Roe v. Wade, beyond that as a novice to all this I'm hit and miss on the patternation I'm meant to discern here

>>1026

I agree with everything in your except except for one thing: that there would be a correlation between the unhealthy obsession with celebreties and the surveillance state, as I cannot see the connection between worshipping Kardashian & giving up privacy.

This is only my uneducated opinion.

As a phenomenon, obsessing over famous persons is alot more appealing to the media elite than the state. A individual consumed with this obsession would in my eyes make a very uninteresting target for those envolved in mass surveillance ,as a citizen pacified with the alluring grace of the fabricated stars is not very likely to be a threat or engage in something disruptive.

However, as our culture allows for this CelCom (celebrity complex -I'm on a mobile device typing is a pain)

to be translated into the form of revenue, the extreme glorification of public figures is VERY attractive to commercial media for the plain reason that you can earn dough off it. The state wants to quickly discern you as a non-threat whereas the media is always looking to increase their scope and net as you are a potential consumer.

>>1032

You mentioned something very interesting & that is the concept of "leaks" concerning a celebs life.

I can only speculate but I think we are getting closer and closer to a reality where "leaks" are constructed and executed by the media agencies in order to generate publicity and "buzz" in places where there were little or none before. Whether its in favor of something or against.

Imagine seeing headlines how a celeb's email gets leaked, but instead of scandalous content, we get mails about how they help the homeless or children with learning disabilities.

>>1204

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

>>1650

Nice site.

>>484

>"Right" is the child of law; from real laws come real rights, but from imaginary laws, from the "laws of nature" come imaginary rights.

--Jeremy Bentham

>>813

>a right is something they are entitled to (and they are, as a citizen granted said right

that's dependent upon nations granting rights

we run in to two problems here:

1. what grants nations the right to grant rights to individuals

2. this presupposes that the nation with the biggest arsenal of weapons is most adept at granting itself the right to grant its citizens rights

clearly a paradox

>What people are actually entitled to via mere existence is freedom.

yes and that freedom does not depend on anyone or anything else

governments can only govern those who wish to be governed

>>1608

if i really do have a natural right to freedom - then who can stop me? i have nature on my side.

>>1332

I could see where you are coming from, but at the same time I could see where the posters are coming from. Shills are very real, and honey pots are also. I doubt honey pots would take place on /pol/ though. I don't think /pol/ could ever gain public support because even though some of the stuff they say is correct, majority of posters don't know how to word stuff to make it appealing. They go on and on about jews when using the word jew alone makes most Americans step back

Anyone here play Ingress?

>>1327

Imageboards are actually a two-tier citizen community. There's a popular misconception that imageboards are anarchistic and free-speech oriented and transparent, but the truth is that board moderators form a semi-invisible ruling class.

The thing about /pol/ was, there was actually quite a bit of targeted moderation going on that kept certain content out, and allowed certain content in. 8ch /pol/ is weakened in part because its operators don't understand that, and because mods on 8ch don't have full control over their board, only the administrator does.

Another factor is this. Somebody, somewhere, has automated a massive shitposting bot that repeats garbage threads. It's been targeted at 8ch pol now.

As to if imageboards or 8ch or pol is an ARG, yes to some extent, in particular if you believe you can be part of an ARG without knowing its an ARG. /pol/ has developed its own worldview and way of interacting with the outside world based on a set of rules.

>>1368

There's no reason it can't both be a joke and be a serious application of weaponized mind-fuckery.