/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>3427

Im not the guy youre replying to, but i think that he's saying that the other guy who's propagating his own view could be the one he's talking about in his quote. Innovation is out of the question if the other guy's "view" is not workable with conditions the other guy didn't account for.

>>3597

Who are you and why do you come here?

This town hasn't seen visitors since everything it predicted took over the electromagnetic spectrum....

>>3598

I am, atm, a nobody, interested in social psychology/public opinion/propaganda, reading books to elevate the mental.

Im making a new thread now, bc i wanted to ask you something, but thought it'd be thread worthy

>>3602

Well, where's your thread?

>>3617

Its quiet time

>>3607

>

>How do you oppose elitism with something other than democracy? Wouldn't any alternative to elitism be extending democracy?

I don't know about something better or different.

>What does it mean to misconceive the right priorities?

Well, as described by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion, the problems faced in a society of today's size are not easily captured by one's daily experience. Once you had villages, and people who lived in those villages. Government was very much approachable and citizens had a good idea of the shortcomings and ways to handle them. Now we're entangled in a complex interlocked system, where villages have become cities and cities depend on government. It's difficult for a citizen of a city to capture the more important shortcomings, and since we're overloaded with "news" interpreted by someone else, it's become increasingly difficult to form a well informed opinion on some matter, I think. That's why I think it's a possibility, that people not in such "high" places, are unable to see the right priorities, or the value of the decisions being made by the elite. It's also the main reason for my question of 'elite yes or no'. Or is my logic flawed?

Another reason, is the seeming disinterest of people I talk to, when talking about possible problems I see on modern day capitalism/democracy.

>Try The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills if it's information you want.

Yes, I will, thank you.

>>3607

>>3603

If you want to make things better for the naive crowd - and who doesn't, we just disagree on what that means - opposing the elite doesn't seem the way to go. But nor does becoming elite on the conviction that you being in charge would automatically fix everything. I would say, make a detailed plan of what you would change if you were elite, then focus on implementing it. That way, you won't make things worse if you succeed.

>>3605

>The Prince was a satire

The translation I read couldn't really be a satire - I interpreted it as a very subversive book, purporting to be hardnosed advice but really exhorting the prince to be kind tot he peasantry at the expense of the minor nobility. Maybe that was the translator's agenda rather than Nico's though, hard to say since I can't read the original.

>>3607

Ever hear of liquid democracy? It's kind of a blend between true and representative democracy, Might be of interest if you're looking for new options.

>>3611

>But nor does becoming elite on the conviction that you being in charge would automatically fix everything.

Why is this, in your opinion. I fully disagree.

>>3609

>I just meant that if democracy means power by the people, then less power in concentrated hands (an elite) would be like having more democracy. Depends how you define elite.

Ah, yes, but I don't know if its good or bad to have a powerful few. I was just looking for some alternative perspectives that weren't negative towards the powerful few. But I think I misinterpreted those lines at the time of writing.

I did not bypass /b/ or /pol/, but I don't visit them regularly. The good intentions are there, because I think everyone (except people with severe mental problems) has good intentions when it comes to decision making. But take Manufacturing Consent (Noam Chomsky) for example. Its about US propaganda and gives a very detailed view on news outlets and coverage which is kind of unsettling (since it makes no assumption on why its happening, just that its happening). And its easy to draw your own negative conclusions (e.g. selfish assholes), but since I believe in good intentions (still), I think there has to be some kind of explanation, and I hoped I could find some hypothetical answers here.

Public Opinion is not about explaining democracy fyi, its about why the world needs propaganda (in a nutshell) aka the actions of the elite translated to the crowd (that layer was missing before ww1 and Lippmann was in the little propaganda group of the US of ww1).

>>3611

Its not about fixing broken shit, it's not like I look at the world and have an opinion about it. I think of the world as a balance. Every effort gets equal result etc. But I would like to know what kind of problems the elite gets confronted with for real, what makes them do what they do.

shit thread

>>3566

Side note: you could DIY an analyst handbook by wrapping the Cases in Intel Analytics book up with a lot of books on analyzing business risks from security threats. Same with Watchers, just swap the second book with social engineering techniques.

While the casebook is shody at best, it is probably the closest public thing I can think of to what we use.

>>3565

So are reducers like the equivalent of Targeting Officers in the IC?

>>3614

>Cases in Intel Analytics

Where is this text?

It's a good idea for me to link my paradigm shattering spiritual and political revelations red pill thread here too. it goes all over the place from /x/ to /pol/ to /rel/ to /fringe/ and touches only alot of our sister boards and goes back again. /pol/ has banned me before for posting it because it's too /x/ and /x/ has banned me before for posting it because it's too /pol/

>>>/rel/2282

>>>/fringe/111715

has anyone been surprised by any of these? find anything good you didn't know about before? I hope I did a good job uniting some related communities. hope this helps.

>>3590

thank you for your work

Some of these boards have been shilled to oblivion. What was the purpose of kennedi and catscradle? Do you have links to old threads that I could read?

nvm wtf

>>3410

>The old news media is dying and newer quicker and uncontrollable sources of information have sprung up in our cybernetic society.

I was polled by a newspaper survey about online news. The person (I didn't ask xir's gender so i'll avoid assuming their prounoun) asked me my gender with 3 options, said that newspapers are considering giving up print and that The Guardian has 75% of the online readership. How's that for cyberpunk?

>>3341

>Pretty sure the term "fake news" came from Jon Stewart.

This.

This was linked by Wikileaks a few weeks ago on their twitter.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

Or in archive if you want that.

https://archive.fo/2UOhz

>>3319

oh great a shill. /pol/ isn't fake news, /pol/ is a discussion board that finds the truth. the /pol/ mods are another story since they are shills themselves and ban, delete, and censor anyone and anything that gets too close to the truth.

>>3378

>It's surprising to me that even FOX news is hostile to Trump

Don't know if they still are (or were in february), but remember the GOP debates? It was insulting how blatant they were. Rubio and Jeb! got softballs, rand got ignored, and trump got attacked. At one point the moderators essentially told fiorina to just shit on trump for a couple minutes, I almost thought they wanted everyone to know they were picking sides.

>>3298

>the MSM picked up on this over the last two months

Yeah I wonder why. They throw around these memes of "post truth" and "fake news". They are meaningless vessels really, fancy ways to attack your oponent that seem to have certain depth to them but really have none at all.

Adam Curtis proved to be a good boy to the elites by spewing this dirt on "Hypernormalisation".

>>3284

In what ways does /pol/ permeate its users' lives other than the board?

>>3302

The news. The changing face of 'normality'.

>>3302

Many of them are desperate to fit in with each other. Having learned the truth that all governments and cultures are adversaries to the individual some of them get scared. The mods on pol are using this to their advantage. I have never seen such ruthless censorship as I have on pol. even worse than reddit. Everyone who does not strictly adhere to the board culture is "degenerate" and immediately reported. Alot of these guys struggle with personal relationships offline and wax poetically about escapism either into the countyside or into another time. Its really pathetic.

>>3592

Modern /pol/ hardly resembles what it did when the post you're replying to was posted. Sad.

>>3487

congratulations on mastering necromancy

>>489

Cleanse your physical body of parasites, heavy metals, inorganic mineral deposits and scar tissue.

Meditate. Listen to good music.

Heat shock

Cold showers

Celibacy

Distilled then mineralized water.

Regenerate your cenral nervous system.

The mind is the body, the body is the mind.

Also avoid this site. Its not what you think it is.

>>3591

What is this site, anon?

>>3447

>'machine-learned AI' chat bots exist

>most people have simple fragmented minds that just seek validation for their emotions

>money on the table

has anyone noticed this sky high pile of cash lying around?

yes.

You are totally missing how dangerous this is.

With this competition for expression from computer programs, most people are effectively reduced to bots themselves in terms of public discourse.

Another reminder that anyone intelligent needs to gather into enclaves and build their own parallel economy to weather this storm as well as can be.

I suspect that there are many bots. I also suspect that many people really can be so shallow and a-sentient in their thoughts and being.

I recently read an interesting postulate by Peter Watts regarding this. Bots don't tend to be an overwhelming threat to any relatively clever person's perceptions now, although they are definitely an issue. But these bots are becoming increasingly lifelike, and amusingly they may some day come to pass the turing test (and be among the first AIs), simply through principles of machine learning and selective processes only allowing successful bots' code to pass on.

Just an amusement, that we may already face actual minds being manufactured simply to influence product purchase or voting habits.

>>3450

horrible post, go to >>>/lit/ with your thesaurus and everything's-just-fine-because-I-feel-like-it-ought-to-be mindset

>>3457

well on the bright side when the poles shift it will all collapse

To be truly free, one must first understand freedom to be innate to sentient beings. If you are able to act on your own will, you are free to act how you wish, no laws can truly control you.

Next, one must realize that even the most fundamental beliefs can be wrong, and they must be able to doubt themseves.

Simultaneously, they must be able to realize when change is occuring to themselves, and to realize what their true "ideal" state of being is.

I'm not entirely sure how to put it, but the best way i can is as such:

I must be able to realize when i'm being influenced or altered, and resist it. Not resist as in never learn or accept change, but make sure to always contemplate why you believe what you do, and not to immediately accept in everything you now believe just because you believe it now.

We can never be free. We can make ourselves a little happier, buy into the delusion that we're in control and can really change things, but one can never be free of the various influences of our biology, of memetics and drugs, and of aging and withering away.

Would you rather be delusional, or see your nature for what it is? Perhaps, once we see what influences us and directs us, and gain an awareness of ourselves, we can begin on the path to freedom.

>>3255

https://polbooks. wordpress.com/

>>3256

Well, god damn it…

I downloaded all of those a while back without seeing that this was in there. I've been looking for it for a few days now.

Thank you.

>>3268

There's a few on archive.org

Perhaps the pattern is thus.

>Online troll forums develop attracting these types.

>allure of manipulating their victims for a reaction, perhaps submission or anger( perhaps magnified by a cult-like environment, but I am not sure).

>PC-Culture develops and presents them with a means of manipulating once more; social pressures contorted by 'offensiveness'

>Allure of submission from social superiors, magnified by cult-like behavior

>Essentially moving from one form of manipulation to another

Here are some consistencies I have come to find among them :

opt. = not always present as a trait

req. = always present as a trait

You will notice an center attraction : Social power.

>always unattractive(req.)

Attractiveness is a very fulfilling thing, especially for highly social creatures like these people who search out for social approval and power.

>iconoclastic appearance; dyed hair/piercings/odd clothing(opt.)

Woman of this sort wear makeup, dye their hair, anything to appear different, special, something that will fulfill their endless hunger partially for acceptance but mostly for social power and manipulation.

It is optional because men do not always do this, unless they want to 'fit in'. Women do this to attract men, men cannot do this to attract women and so the prevalence is much lower.

There also are a minutia of women in the community who do not do this out of principle, but who are still not attractive.

>thin skin(req.)

They stretch basic criticism, they magnify and inflame their wounds, they are experts at converting rational criticism to irrational hatred. Once again a way to gain attention and sympath, and thereby social power.

There are more traits that can be discussed, but their end goals are social power.

These are unconfident people who are taking the subvPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>3199

>Essentially moving from one form of manipulation to another

I think you are right with this, but it is not PC culture that developed on its own presenting them with a means of manipulation. It is that they themselves subverted existing spaces in order to make them easily manipulated. Those very same people will move from one social space to the next like locusts.

The way they rebuilt original sin using the leftist framework is fascinating. Those that were god-fearing, conformist Christians didn't disappear they just changed ideology. When modern leftism disappears they will just flock to the next big thing, probably the Alt-right, or something else entirely and subvert it all the same.

I think one of our biggest faults is mistaking personal growth with social growth.

>>3199

>There also are a minutia of women in the community who do not do this out of principle, but who are still not attractive.

What do you mean with this?

>>3266

>Those that were god-fearing, conformist Christians didn't disappear they just changed ideology.

Yeah, there's a paranoid christian vibe in most SJWs, you got cases like movie bob who were conservatives that used to put a US flag on everything and now they are anti-west, coincidence? I don't think so

>When modern leftism disappears they will just flock to the next big thing, probably the Alt-right

Doubt it, in the era of the internet their past would weight heavy on them and while people like zoe quinn used to be trolls that was a non-public persona hiding behind an avatar while their SJW persona is their public persona and how they are widely know

Most SJWs are trading long term stability for short term visibility and once the SJW movement collapses the backlash is going to be brutal, but then again most SJWs have very self-destructive tendencies so they are probably okay with that outcome

>>2173

Blame discordianism if nothing else

>>3270

>their past would weight heavy on them

>implying anyone but corporate hiring agencies, intelligence agencies and dedicated aspergers trolls will bother to check the past

>>3154

The social pressure pushed to condemn suicide as immoral.

Consider the following: Condemning someones suicide as a way of attempting to prevent it for your own gain is equally if not more selfish. Greedy, to be specific.

>>3157

This is true, although I don't see how accepting that fact without actually going through with it is in any way foolish.

>>3151

And how is life useful? Considering the assumptions in the previously quoted post, the only reason to stay is because it's dangerous to quit.

I can't comprehend non anti-natalist train of thought.

If anything, suicide is the most selfless thing. Most people are a leech on the world.

>>3149

Suicide is preferable when life no longer becomes worth living. Voluntary death can be charged with meaning unlike dying naturally. Suicide with a purpose is a direct refutation of nihilism.

Suicide is only limited by the sadness we might cause to those close to us, or by obligations requiring us to stay alive.

People pontificate, "Suicide is selfishness." Career churchmen like Pater go a step further and call in a cowardly assault on the living. Oafs argue this specious line for varying reason: to evade fingers of blame, to impress one's audience with one's mental fiber, to vent anger, or just because one lacks the necessary suffering to sympathize. Cowardice is nothing to do with it - suicide takes considerable courage. Japanese have the right idea. No, what's selfish is to demand another to endure an intolerable existence, just to spare families, friends, and enemies a bit of soul-searching.

From Cloud Atlas

Suicide is edicius backwards, edicus is an early Latin word meaning 'mis-strike', which refers to the stroke of a sword striking an unintended object; usually a scrape against oneself after trying to sheathe it. The point that was made in calling self-destruction 'suicide' is that a fatal attack against one's self is a misdirected strike.

>implying it's just the rothschilds

Cadbury, Schroder, Agnelli families all have a stake in the Economist. We're talking major players of banking and industry here.

Is this goddamn board under raid or something?

This isn't about being insane. Let me put some context here:

Saying that there's aliens coming down the earth and abducting people is insanity. Show proof.

Saying that odd covers is proof that a Illuminati is sending down subversion signals through weird covers is insanity(until you explain yourself, OP). It could very well have been a way to catch attention.

Saying Hillary Clinton is a satanist isn't because there is proof.

Saying Donald Trump has a strange elite following isn't because there is proof.

Saying nations have engaged in/are still engaging in PsyOps isn't because there is proof and past examples.

Also

>Once a year the Economist releases a cryptic special edition cover, widely believed to be a blueprint for the coming year.

>Widely believed

Weasel word

Otherwise,

>Looking forward to hearing what you guys think of what the cover says, and what's to come.

I'm not very good with tarot cards but it seems to be a somewhat negative reading of events. Any comments?

I'm worried about the communists on the Tower if anything.

>>3206

Wew. That cover certainly gives food for thought.

/pol/ is gonna go crazy with the 'magician' card with the 8chan logo on top (don't show it to them, they'll go even more retarded - though I know it's unavoidable...)

Trump seems to be safe and comfortable in his throne, no assassination then?

As for the rest of the cards, they look crazy and rather worrying. Specially the nuke one. It kinda looks like it's taking place in Japan, the background is similar to the rising sun asociated with the flag.

>>3220

What a pointless rant you've made. Hide it and make your own threads if you don't like OP's thread, we can use the discussion becasue the board is dying you faggot.

>>3221

>Reviving the board with shitposting

Yeah thanks a lot, time to just hide the thread.

Except idiocy is leaking everywhere. We have a faggot on the stickied thread filming himself getting "attacked by electromagnetic radiation".

But then again

A redditor

such as you

probably wouldn't notice,

of course.

>>3076

You must form a tight nucleus (root, core, seed) of lucid thinkers. You must be able to get together once a month, read, investigate, drink and think. Network.

Do not worry about flags, uniforms and symbols; do not waste your enemy worrying about that yet. It will come with time, out of anecdotes of your experience together as a group.

Do not worry about ideological differences yet; do not stress out if one of you is straserist, another one is libertarian, or if you have differences in some topics. Because that is our main weak point; we do not have a common vein of ideology to mine from. Leftists have dominated academia, and not only in the literal sense of control, but all actual schools of thought today in the west are leftist. You will form your own schools of thought. Don't be intimidated by modern academia, remember that Oswald Spengler was just a history teacher in a public high school, and what he wrote exposed the core fears of the West and molded the history of the world.

All political processes are led by vanguards. History is filled with examples. Goethe and Schiller teamed up as lonely poets upset with the Enlightenment in 1776 and formed the "Sturm und Drang" society, which did not even last that long, but the things they thought, talked about and later wrote set the fundamental basis of Romanticism. The ideas they talked about in secluded places after hours of philosophizing structured the entire XIX century. Other example: "The Mountain" was the inner club of liberal revolutionaries that planified the french revolution before it was even starting. Other example: Lenin and his vanguard in Switzerland at his early exile was worth nothing inside the larger left, and was shamed by the more succesful german socialdemocrats like Bernstein. But their determination and closely knit group finally paid off as they kept writing theory even as the tzar was deposed. Eventually they were the most determined and were called by the Kaiser to go and subvert Russia, and ended taking over the left internationally. And so much more examples, the Pan-German society that was seen as a bunch of loonies but ended up setting the foundations for the NSDAP decades later. TPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>3077

>>3076

You must keep in mind our disparity lies in the means. There are two sides in this war: one uses all means at their disposal, the other one barely uses what they already have. I am referring to means of penetration, socialization, normalization and institutionalization of concepts. It is crucial that we even out.

To socialize their concepts, the left has to its disposal the mass media comunications, cinematography, literature, music, arts and fashion. How many musicians or genre does your cosmovision control? How many films carry your concepts, themes, messages? How many novels about the collapse of western civilization have you read lately? I have only seen 3 in France.

Take it a step further. How do the people who follow your mindset dress? What do they listen to? What movies do they watch?

You dont need huge budgets. You dont need huge teams. You could have indie videos filmed in your college, you could have shit tier literature made by neets, you could have homebrew midi songs and it would still serve the purpose: saturating every instance, every space.

To win, you must be able to have an entire day only doing redpilled things and consuming redpilled products. Leftists do their revolution 24/7, and that doesn't just mean they are literally outside picketing. No, they dress leftist, eat leftist, read leftist, watch leftist channels, listen leftist radio, go to the cinema to a movie with leftist message, listen to leftist music, hang out in leftist places, read leftist news and live by a leftist philosophy. You must be able to compete with that. Thats how you win.

>>3078

> live by a leftist philosophy.

I find that statement a little dishonest really, most people are centrists and narcississtic in nature, the real lefties are the hardcore ones with the picketing. The lefties you describe are bland centrists who will simply wear whatever memes the estabilshment churns out. Make no mistake the ideological left is extremely well organized and strategically positioned but they too suffer from the same problems as the ideological right, in that they are fewer in number than total number of centrists in any given location.

tl;dr normies are just posterboards for the ideological extremists to plaster their memes on and give the impression of hegemonic control. In the end it's just posturing and they know how risky and fragile the whole bluff really is.

tl;dr version:

buy a Trump hat and t-shirt for every day of the week, read /pol/ eight hours a day, listen to alt-right podcasts while on the toilet and at meals, only masturbate to Alexis Texas.

>>3106

Normies are a dying breed. There's too many imageboard faggots now.