New posts
chuds.life
This is a male-only forum created to discuss politically incorrect content and archive information deleted from the mainstream internet. You can post with or without an account. Please read our rules before posting.

ITT, we list psyops

With 9/11 being the first test to see the malleability of the masses, and the (((plandemic))) being the second, How do you think they might ramp it up?
 
plant based diets, never ever eaten in nature, incompatible for hypecarnivorous humans, and the main cause of most disease today, along with pollution, cabin fever and frequent eating, it only gives jews more money since the profit margins of veggies are better and can allow le pharmacology industry to make slow money off ur death with useless quack medicines like statins etc
 
Jimbojambo said:
plant based diets, never ever eaten in nature, incompatible for hypecarnivorous humans, and the main cause of most disease today, along with pollution, cabin fever and frequent eating, it only gives jews more money since the profit margins of veggies are better and can allow le pharmacology industry to make slow money off ur death with useless quack medicines like statins etc
Click to expand...
Veganism is just god's way of killing off wastes of space that are retarded enough to become vegans jfl
 
DeepEcoCel said:
Veganism is just god's way of killing off wastes of space that are retarded enough to become vegans jfl
Click to expand...
sure but eating any amount of plants isnt good for you in totality this includes the cooperate "balanced diet" which is literally 70/30 plantbased hence not balanced at all
 
The person that assassinated RFK couldn't had been the only person to have fired shots, as there was too many bullet holes for that to be the case. Although I don't know what would be so crazy about there being two gunmen to the point that (((they))) would attempt to censor it.
 
A more mundane sort of psyop: the "logical fallacies". Normies are given tested arguments to use. If only they weren't normies, they could use them well. The arguments are presented with a built in ideological bias- take the naturalistic fallacy. It primes an incautious thinker to disregard appeals that use any sort of "natural" verbiage, ignoring the many uses of such words. Logic established in one context "Isn't this primitivist morality unconvincing?" is transferred to another "Ignore your gut feelings. It really isn't so bad.".

Or, consider the context-dependence of a fallacy like the "slippery slope" fallacy. In the same vein as "the domino fallacy" it is named after an illustrative mundane instance of causality. It is basically a denial of causality when routed through society. If you are in a debate hosted in a forum where everyone thinks of themselves as informing a part of the magic of democracy and the mind of society through the heckin' free open marketplace of ideas, the fallacy makes a lot of sense. "Hey, why be worried about [gay/black/slaves] people in a decade- if they are [gross/criminal/voting] because we are too nice and we still make the rules, we can just start being mean again!" Not always applicable, but you can at least see the argument. But, would someone in the Rockefeller foundation, open society foundations, the CIA, or anything like that say "oh yeah, society doesn't really have any state to its culture it can change entirely on a dime so there isn't any point in guiding it or anything" without getting slapped? "Retard, our business is to lead society by the nose. Our entire business model is built on slippery slopes, on one-way functions applied to culture. The masses apparently do not possess sufficient free will and uncensored communication to lucidly reconsider societal developments."

It would be interesting to discuss the psychometric properties of the mainstream-naivety-defined normies, like Ebbinghaus curve parameters (memoryholing) or the confusion of multiple definitions per word causing pseudo-tautological deductions (alt-right means nazi, not-mainstream means alternative, not-mainstream right means alt-right, therefore not-mainstream right means nazi- but they don't need to close the loop and recognize that last bit explicitly).
 
Hopefully we all know about Gramscian cultural hegemony and "the long march through the institutions" already, but I recently learned of another socialist theory that the "elites" seem to be using, called Blanquism.
 
DeepEcoCel said:
Hopefully we all know about Gramscian cultural hegemony and "the long march through the institutions" already, but I recently learned of another socialist theory that the "elites" seem to be using, called Blanquism.
Click to expand...
Blanquism refers to a conception of revolution generally attributed to Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805–1881) that holds that socialist revolution should be carried out by a relatively small group of highly organised and secretive conspirators.[1] Having seized power, the revolutionaries would then use the power of the state to introduce socialism. It is considered a particular sort of "putschism"—that is, the view that political revolution should take the form of a putsch or coup d'état.[2]

Blanquism is distinguished from other socialist currents in various ways: on the one hand, Blanqui did not believe in the predominant role of the proletariat, nor did he believe in popular movements—instead he believed that revolution should be carried out by a small group of professional, dedicated revolutionaries, who would establish a temporary dictatorship by force. This dictatorship would permit the implementation of the basis of a new order, after which power would then be handed to the people.[3] In another respect, Blanqui was more concerned with the revolution itself rather than the future society that would result from it—if his thought was based on precise socialist principles. Blanquist thought rarely goes so far as to imagine a purely socialist society. For Blanquists, the overturning of the bourgeois social order and the revolution are ends sufficient in themselves, at least for their immediate purposes.
Click to expand...
so basically "lets fuck up the country fur da REBOLUSHUN and then let time figure out how to not let the country become a 3rd world shithole"
leftoids haven't changed a single bit since 1890
 
panchito88 said:
so basically "lets fuck up the country fur da REBOLUSHUN and then let time figure out how to not let the country become a 3rd world shithole"
leftoids haven't changed a single bit since 1890
Click to expand...
The best way I can think of to describe Blanqui is the Machiavelli of socialism, as he's an extreme realist. Blanquism is simply transparent & honest socialism, and is how a lot of socialist/communist revolutions are done. Lenin was a blanquist who LARPed vanguardism.

"Rosa Luxemburg and Eduard (((Bernstein))) have criticised Vladimir Lenin that his conception of revolution was elitist and essentially Blanquist. For instance, as part of a longer section on Blanquism in her Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy (later published as Leninism or Marxism?), Luxemburg writes:
For Lenin, the difference between the Social Democracy and Blanquism is reduced to the observation that in place of a handful of conspirators we have a class-conscious proletariat. He forgets that this difference implies a complete revision of our ideas on organization and, therefore, an entirely different conception of centralism and the relations existing between the party and the struggle itself. Blanquism did not count on the direct action of the working class. It, therefore, did not need to organize the people for the revolution. The people were expected to play their part only at the moment of revolution. Preparation for the revolution concerned only the little group of revolutionists armed for the coup. Indeed, to assure the success of the revolutionary conspiracy, it was considered wiser to keep the mass at some distance from the conspirators.
Click to expand...

By "social democracy", Luxemburg has in mind the original use of the term derived from Marx and synonymous with "socialism"; she conceived of the social democratic party as a mass based organisation of working class struggle. However, Lenin dismissed as meaningless rhetoric the conflation of Blanquism with Bolshevism:
The bourgeoisie wants, by using the bogy of “Blanquism”, to belittle, discredit and slander the people’s struggle for power. The bourgeoisie stands to gain if the proletarians and peasants fight only for concessions from the old regime. The Right Social-Democrats use the word “Blanquism” merely as a rhetorical device in their polemics. The bourgeoisie converts this word into a weapon against the proletariat: “Workers, be reasonable! Fight for the extension of the powers of the Cadet Duma! Pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the bourgeoisie, but don't dare to think of such madness, anarchism, Blanquism, as fighting for complete power for the people!"
Click to expand...
Lenin himself denied any accusations of Blanquism in The State and Revolution (1917) and accused Bernstein of "opportunism".

Eduard (((Bernstein)))​

"Eduard (((Bernstein))) (6 January 1850 – 18 December 1932) was a German social democratic Marxist theorist and politician. A member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), (((Bernstein))) had held close association to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but he began to identify what he believed to be errors in Marxist thinking and began to criticize views held by Marxism when he investigated and challenged the Marxist materialist theory of history. He rejected significant parts of Marxist theory that were based upon Hegelian metaphysics and rejected the Hegelian perspective of an immanent economic necessity to socialism."

WTF omegabased Jew.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

metamedia=project17
Serious GTFIH before the negritt mods delete this thread (an actually non toxic negritt post)
Replies
9
Views
61
panchito88
panchito88
Back
Top