Political science sophomore here.
I've been lurking Zig Forums for around a year now and I've amassed a small collection of redpill infographics. I find it easy to drop the odd statistic about blacks or Muslims to my friends outside college because they think it's some ironic meme, but I want to go bigger. We regularly have class discussions about political issues. What's the most effective way to spread Zig Forums propaganda to a class full of liberals and a professor without blowing my cover and getting accused of being racist or "alt right"? My goal is to convince at least a few people. I'll risk my entire reputation if it goes wrong, so I want to know the most covert dissemination methods.
How to effectively redpill people
Political science sophomore here.
Other urls found in this thread:
Say that you reject both labels since they come from the kikes
Just lead them on into making a political statement and then point out how utterly illogical and retarded they are, without forcing an alternative. Use their own circular logic for bonus points. It will make them furious to the point of screeching at you, but they won't be able to call you any newspeak (bad goy designation). After you break them, start introducing redpills gradually.
Switch majors brother. I can promise you that you're not gonna make much money nor do anything fun in Political science if you're not sucking kike cock
I was thinking of switching to physics or engineering anyway, I originally wanted to try a few subjects I'm interested in
Drop out or pick a real major, my dude.
One thing I have often tried, is just to make it seem as though I'm playing Devil's Advocate. What this means ? in discussions, I take a far opposite, usually right wing opinion of whatever is at hand, and am free to deliver whatever points 'the altright' or whatever would deploy. But in a more casual setting, still echo the left opinions, maybe stick a couple leftish pins on your backpack.
And clearly, dont get angry. When you're devils advocating, you're arguing a stance that is supposed to be not yours; ultimately you dont care about it. Be willing to back down, and maybe even to hedge your statements to make it clear you disagree with what you're saying, and just want to provide a contrast.
Be mindful of lines the left might consider sacred, and dont cross them, or hedge yourself very well when you do.
A little risky, I would probably draw lots of attention by naming G-d's chosen people
His True Name is Yahowey, Moloch the Defiler.
My teacher is quite open-minded, he identifies as a centrist though he's left leaning. I've been able to talk about gun rights and lower taxes, especially when we were studying Locke and some libertarian philosophers.
That's exactly what I do often. I don't openly explain my views, just a lighter description of them. I've used devil's advocate to explain the sexual marketplace theory. There's a communist in my class who probably lurks leftypol from what I've gathered, so he probably has an idea of what I'm up to.
ah, then beyond that I guess I'm probably a little lost as well. A friend of mine (also rather redpilled) has taken up a habit of, when meeting certain types of leftwingers, trying to get them to at least agree on one or a couple topics, usually things like the media is terrible and dishonest.
I'm not sure how much effect it has on these people in general, but it is a talking point that alot of people seem to agree on, and frankly if we could get alot of people in the left to stop following the (((media))) I think we'd have come a long way towards solving some issues.
The thread 404'd
What was on it?
To be honest, I do the same. I get people to think I'm on their side when I'm about to drop redpills, but then I start mentioning things or asking questions so they don't become (as) hostile by thinking "he's right wing, that's right wing propaganda".
Leftists tend to hate rich people, so that's a good opportunity to say things about Jews.
Have you got any good redpill graphics I could rip stats or facts from?
It is challenging and in the end, only the ones that seek the truth find it.
Some of the best fascists and nat-soc people used to be commies, at least doctrinal ones who actually did their homework. I was quite left-leaning before I became Zig Forums tier so I know how to reason with such people. Putting wealth as the central tenet of life is exactly what leads to "worker exploitation" and most commies are just failed capitalists who flip sides as soon as they acquire some wealth and political power. In fact, kikes create an economical environment where there is only an illusion of economic freedom (while they control everything and rig the game entirely), so people are actually never given an opportunity to have financial independence and become wealthy, which in turn leads them to reject the idea entirely and look for the state tit as the only solution, which only deepens the problem. The key is to give people an actual opportunity to become entrepreneurs, acquire capital etc.
Globohomo neoliberals are much worse because their beliefs are not consistent and are entirely based on social manipulation and pilpuls. Basically, denial of reality to the point of absurdism. SJW's , antifas, are just the lowly thug enforcers of the global (((finance))) and when arguing with them, you are not arguing with actual people who hold political beliefs, you are arguing with Jewish think-tanks, glownigger "influencers" and pseudo-religious zealots brainwashed by them (or paid by them to spread propaganda). Those people are completely incapable of arguing outside their scripted training which makes them an easy target for well educated independent thinkers.
Someone convince me redpilling isn't useless.
How long have we been doing this? How many decades of pamphlet work do nazis (translated mein kampf for pow), American nazis (rockwell's activism), stormfags, anons, altright, etc.(memes and infographs) need to do? How many more decades?
Are we expecting everyone to eventually be redpilled, and then we'll all make the change without resistance? Half of everyone, so we can vote our way to victory? Perhaps enough to forcibly take control of the bluepilled majority?
What if we're not fighting ideas? What if we're fighting biological populations with unchangeable survival strategies which express themselves as anti-civilization aka leftist voting blocs?
Are we really trying to educate, inform, debate and negotiate with crazies, retards, parasites and eternal enemies?
Pushing you agenda on others, sounds jewish
I think the purpose of redpilling is just to cause chaos. If you've got lots of people walking around spouting crime statistics, it'll eventually reach the point where major groups have to openly acknowledge this and make a statement denying it. If they have holes in their argument, someone will point it out and more will become "redpilled". It's either done by people who genuinely believe in Zig Forums rhetoric, or those who want to poke holes in the left wing for different reasons; like myself.
It's a one-man social experiment.
It's not pushing an agenda, it's introducing new ideas into the marketplace, with solid-sounding evidence to back it up.
It'll make leftists start arguing with each other and acknowledge things that they vehemently reject, in order to reject them at all. That'll plant the idea. Since some aren't too intelligent, they might end up believing all of it if you mix in a bit of hate towards rich people/the government. Ultimately, it undermines the left's influence.
Redpilling is literally essential. People are slowly waking up, its working.
Historically speaking, this dystopia we live in is an anomaly. Historically, humanity has overwhelmingly agreed with us on most points. By no means do I mean that everyone has been national socialists, but most have agreed with traditional values.
The progressive experiment has been proven a failure. People are more miserable than ever. The people will begin to become redpilled on their own, it is our job, with our knowledge, to ensure they grow wise.
Or of course you could go full retard and just go shoot up some brown people and prove the media completely right.
Finish school and hide your power level. Loosing future over being banned by kiked headmasters is stupid
The easiest way to convince someone of anything is to massage their ego.
If you want to convince someone what they just said is wrong, start out your sentence with the words 'you're right'. I promise you this really helps.
Changing peoples beliefs is uncomfortable for everyone. If you can convince them that they believed the same as you all along that is far less painful to peoples egos.
Playing devils advocate works for me.
I'm trying to befriend people by finding some common interests, after which I'll become an over-the-top radical. Most people, except conservatives, are quite openminded when it comes to different viewpoints.
When talking to leftwingers, after smoking some pot with them, I'd play the role of an over-the-top nazi, blaming everything on the jews, praising the greatest fuhrer of all times, and making the most offensive jokes imaginable. Normally they're agreeable people, just waiting for someone to take the lead. When they feel it's okay, they'll start venting their frustrations with their own ideology. Usually they're quite disappointed by the minorities, whose rights they want to defend, if they ever came into contact with said minorities. Those leftists I've met don't feel to be in the right anymore. They're quite tolerant to libertarian viewpoints, if you reassert, that you're not some kind of totalitarian shithead, but someone, who argues from a point of individual freedom and individual responsibility, which wants to empower individuals.
Mainstream-Conservatives are harder. Personally, I consider them fools, unable to think outside the borders and authority and cultural taboos. If they're not pissed off by the status quo, they can't be reached. If they're pissed off, I try to radicalize them further by stating, that they should convert to islam, because islam fights for the same things, they're lacking: For a space, where one can live according to ones own standards, even if those are conflicting with mainstream society. I'm always trying, to convince them, to erect their own NoGo-Zones, where they could live among themselves.
but usually it's a waste of time to talk to conservatives. At least in my opinion. They're much too cucked, so that even if they radicalize, they'd be too timid to do anything. But it's always a good feeling to see those cucks suffer, which is why I OFTEN remind them, that their grandchildren will suck muslim dick and like it, because women don't respect men which are too cowardly to defy unjust authority. Again - I try to radicalize them, not befriend them. They can be radicalized by pointing out, that their way of thinking fails, and that this makes them deserving of losing everything they value.
What's left… Libertarians usually join the cause as soon as someone points out, that mass migration leads away from any form of a libertarian society, and that's their best chance to join the cause of the radical right. A society capable of libertarianism is a byproduct of ethnocentrism. They can still work towards a libertarian society from within the radical right, and they're working actively against any libertarian outcome, if they don't join.
Libertarians also can be convinced by the fast, that, according to game theory, ethnocentrism is the optimal strategy of "collectivizing". Libertarians are aware of the need of things like community, which would break down, if everyone would be living by the tit-for-tat-strategy. A stable community is only achievable by ethnocentrism. According to game theory.
Another more broadly applicable thing is, that most people enjoy social circles, that regularily ignore societal conventions. If everything within those circles is far outside of the norm, thoughts get freed from societal constraints. Many people want to be part of such an circle.
cum on, you lazy niggers. This is not an unimportant topic.
I don't know about "effectively", but I would attack the Big Lies that people might already have questions about.
Transgender is bullshit and obvious bullshit that the schools are forcing on you because they were ordered to by a corrupt government and corrupt gay movement beholden to Big Pharma.
Muslim groups have laid out their plans for conquering the US and Europe but the police have not rolled them up, yet they're going after anyone who talks about it.
The Yemen war is all about control of a strategic shipping lane. China and Iran are trying to take it over. The media is not telling you this. The media only shows people bitching about arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
The Palestinian narrative was completely fabricated within the past 30 years. It is just another Muslim jihad with tribalism mixed in, and it is another example of the media lying. Most of (((The Jews))) who are fucking everything up today came out of a British consensus cracking operation to promote the Palestinians and target Israel's supporters. And if you dig deep enough, it really is the Rothschilds at the center of it all.
The media's beloved Jamal Khashoggi was a spy who supported Bin Laden.
what future do we have?
ehh, you'll have to elaborate on what you mean by 'bullshit'. It's a mental disorder outlined in the DSM, and since rationality still has a small part at the table, it's a great forefront for debates since it creates so much cognitive dissonance.
these two outlooks are commonly held in tandem by the left. press the issue, and they'll either begin to concede the argument in little ways or they'll become more hysteric, hurting their public image.
Lurk more, nigger.
I really don't think the problem is lack of information so I'll talk more about the way of approaching someone. In my opinion most people already have a gut-feeling about the state of affairs but just don't want to hear the actual truth simply because it's much easier to live with the lie and also much easier to howl with the wolves.
I'm friends with basically exclusively left leaning normies and because I know them for decades I can say almost anything but usually they'll simply shrug helplessly and retort to shallow talking points if confronted with hard facts and statistics.
Most of them actually dislike the same things as we do but it's almost impossible to get them to actually admit that. All I can do is giving them a safe space, oh the irony, where they literally can say what they want without fear so they can appreciate how much better it is without all the PC bullshit.
If I were to try with strangers I would look for weak points where I can prove them wrong (in a lighthearted way oc) but it has to be apolitical topics at first. Do that a couple of times before you go deeper so they kind of accept that you know more (dont' be a dick here!) and preferably isolate them so there's no peer group pressure. Protip: Don't ever try arguing in a three person group. It's really the worst lol …
Anyways … if you start to get political work a lot with metaphors, be ironic and witty, that will soften them up. Don't ever make absolute statements and don't get agitated. Best to let them draw their own conclusions but you fertilize the soil
hope that helps