/32/ - Psychopolitics

I think that his actions are hindered by two critical mistakes.The first deals with the type of information being presented to the public, the second, with it's amount.

The size of the document severely hinders its distribution, especially if he plans to use physical copies. If he limits the size to a manageable level, it will become impossible to approach even half of those themes with enough depth. The solution to this is dividing the information into a collection, to be published in order. Each publication should deal with a specific theme, and it should base itself on the conclusions of the previous publication, like chapters in a book.
The individual publications should adhere to the following format: present current TA belief in a certain area. Point out limitations, contradictions and mistakes in TA's current world-view. Publisher should be careful not to imply that it is the TA's fault for believing in such things, but explain that he is a victim of both misguided and immoral individuals. This allows for the TA to not feel offended with being called ignorant, and when he they are finally converted, they can classify their friends and family in the "misguided" category, while placing the leaders of the movements in the "immoral" one. Once extremely convincing information has been provided that the TA's former world-view is incorrect they will have had their reality partially destroyed, making them crave for new structures to adhere to. At this point in the media should he introduce the new ideas, explaining them in an deliberately infantile way, so as to generate a receptive mentality on the reader/viewer. After the end of the message he should incite the TA to search for more information and "keep an eye out for the next instalment".

The order in which the instalments should be published is opposite to how different they are from the TA's current world view. Naturally, the TA will reject any media that bluntly tries to contest their perception of reality: people don't like to feel like they are stupid. Hence the importance of dislocating the responsibility for their ignorant state. Of course it's their fault that they don't know these things, they are lazy. But tell them that they have been deceived, and that it's not their fault, and that he is there to show them the truth, and they will eat up whatever he tells them. This of this: what preacher gathers the bigger congregation, the one who calls his flock "sinners" or the one that calls them "sheep"?

Finally, there is the language being used. Always assume the readers are stupid, so don't expect them to understand any terms like "Marxism" and "Abrahamic". Take this as an opportunity to break the boring text with differently/colored text-boxes offering the definitions of those terms. He should be careful not to use term that his enemies employ like "privilege" or "patriarchy" because if the readers decides to google about them they will find the enemy's definitions and explanations. He should employ different terms, perhaps of his own creation, to explain these concepts. Note that this does not mean making up new words, but applying new meanings to words, like the SJW did with the term "privilege".

Of course, these are just my general views on the subject. Specific conduct will depend on the nature of the message and on the media chosen. Take everything I said with a grain of salt.

Also, they aren't really mistakes, they are "obstacles" or "issues".

And "our" agenda?

I was under the impression that the users of this board were united in their belief that censorship is bad. The current system promotes censorship by use of subversive tactics to convince the public that censorship is in their best interest. I believe that the suggestion of this anon to publish written material that goes against the standard message of the system could serve this anti censorship goal by encouraging the general public to consider different viewpoints and therefore resent attempts to suppress those views. Obviously this anon has some issues with his work, chief among them is a lack of subtlety. This is where I think this board can be of particular help.

Also:
Rosebud

I dont neccesarily like these racially motivated efforts*, the most in interested in is keeping speech, anonymity and information free for everyone. But the deliverly style can possibly be used for whatever material we cook in-house. like flyers with basic info and a QR Code leading to one our proxy blogs


*I'll like i did elsewhere that we can use such things as a "skin" to acess a target audience, be it Stormfront, trannies or feminists,etc. We shouldnt have any loyalty to any social identity, only freedom.

>>225
I like that idea. Personally I don't put much stock in all the racist shilling that goes on at /pol/ however I believe those people have a right to state their beliefs, just as the people who call them neckbeards have the right to do so as well.

Not sure if it is what you meant by "skin" but I think disguising our materials as those of the enemy by using similar format and style would be a great way to get past the immediate rejection most people have to material that is outside their worldview.

>>226
Exactly, we just become chameelons and change our face to whatever is easily palatable by the target audience. All that matters is the ideas imparted, and they're something everyone can beleive in.

>>224
Fair point.
What's your take on my suggestions?

>>228
I think your point about his topics being to broad for simple pamphlets is spot on. In some of his posts he did seem to suggest doing pamphlets in addition to larger publications.

I think instead of doing pamphlets he should do 1 page fliers that hint and tease at certain ideas while posing them in the enemies own style. These fliers should focus more on imagery and symbolism, while giving references to more in depth material or proxy sites. He could also reference to the larger materials he is planning on writing. As for those materials I also like your idea of publishing them in a series of steadily more "radical" ideas so as not to be rejected immediately.

Has anyone here actually conveyed any of these ideas to this anon?

>>230
Feel free to, but honestly he might figure it out on his own too.

I think really we should focus on exactly what we're trying to say, so we don't get too wrapped up in the business of other boards.

doesnt work for me

(the link)

>>300
The thread already 404d.
It was an anon proposing that they write a pamphlet or similar media for distribution for "redpilling" people.