[Demitri.14]

What I have struggled to understanding, is there a conscious decision being made at top political levels to use propaganda and misinformation to try and effect progressive change ? Are these people really that smart to be able to do that and not make it obvious to the general public ?

If it is, then it is treason and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[wraithofroncollins]

I'm glad you brought this point up, because I believe it highlights the crux of the matter. I am currently applying to medical schools. Becoming a physician has been my goal since my freshman year of high school, and as far back as then I was aware of the massive risk associated with taking out student loans. But I had a dream and I was willing to gamble on my academic abilities to reach it. The problem is that both of these fields, medicine and law (to a lesser extent), are downstream from academia. That is, they subscribe heavily to the same politics. So, if you bet $100,000 that you would get a 520 MCAT, a 4.0 GPA, and enough patient care experience to make the cut, but didn't factor in that you would have to conform to leftist ideology to a religious extent, you may very well be out that money if you can't pivot and keep up the act. When it comes to admissions to professional schools, it's even worse. They all but openly discriminate against Asians and Whites. So, simply being the wrong race or sex reduces your chances of admission even further from the ~35% that get in.

If it's this bad for the professional fields, where saying the wrong political opinion can ruin 4+ years of work, how do you think it is for other career paths stemming from academia? They have the same issue, but coupled with lower wages and even fewer translational skills.

I know mechanics who make more money then doctors by the way, but as far as following your dream keep doing it. This is reality, you have to do what you have to do to survive... I don't fault you on that. But, once you get through the door, then you go all out. However, you can get the degree and go to OCS, serve in the military and get top rate tactical training with a pay check to boot, plus pay off all that college debt then go to into private practice. And not have to cater to liberal nazi propaganda. There is always a way and don't have to compromise on everything to get to your goals. Just saying...

The liberals did it in the 70s, they pretended to be conservatives and then when ultra-left-wing nut bags over night. The problem is in my opinion this; they played dirty and to win and most conservatives played by rules. I think that is a mistake.

My only point with this line of reasoning is that many students, even those on the top tier, cannot affect change within the current academic system - they can only out themselves, ruin their career, just to be replaced by one of the thousands of other Zoomers lined up to take their spot. Believe me, you'd be hard pressed to find a larger critic of my generation than me. I am frustrated with myself and my peers for falling for our parents' and high school's lies of college being necessary for a good job and societal acceptance. I'm simply trying to outline why students have no incentive to oppose the system once they're locked in, even if the academic culture is stacked against them and degrades them. In any case, I have the experience, skills, and academic capability to make a six-figure salary even if I don't get in to medical school. But I stand absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose from publicly stating my politics, whereas I can simply vote in private.

Real change with have to be realized from the outside, and I do see that coming in the future since the culture is shifting rightward. A lot of my generation is very vocal (and very extreme) online, they just don't get associated with those posts since they try their best to stay anonymous. I would bet around 50% of /pol/ are Zoomers.

No real change has to happen at the level of challenges from within and without. Total Warfare as Clausewitz would put it. By not publicly arguing your opinion you never know who is passively listening and who you might impact by your example.

I disagree with regards to propaganda. I would encourage you to read Jacques Ellul's work Propaganda, and given your willingness to engage in long-form debate, I think you'd enjoy it. The best way to view propaganda is as a sociological phenomenon rather than just a purely psychological one. That is, a piece of propaganda is not immediately focused on convincing you of something, but rather seeks to alter social structures in specific ways. Perhaps the most overt example is that of democratic anti-gun propaganda. The goal is clear: disarming the population as a means of further centralizing power. They do this with scare tactics, not targeted at the individual, but at a person's social group. For example, democrats don't say "we need to abolish the second amendment because you may be shot," they say "we need to abolish the second amendment because your child may be shot." Furthermore, how a person responds to this is not independent of others' opinions. When you hear this message, you either consciously or subconsciously consider how those around you would react to you disagreeing. This is why anti-gun propaganda is so effective in liberal areas: to disagree appears or feels to be in favor of gun violence to people unfamiliar with firearms or crime statistics. This pushes someone who would normally be pro-gun to appear (or vote, which is the ultimate goal of such propaganda) anti-gun for fear of social rejection.

What I mean by propaganda being "complete" is that there has been a fundamental change in its dissemination. Technology pervades every aspect of life. No matter what you are doing, there is a method for someone to influence you to do or think something, and you can be certain they are. TikTok is a great example. Nearly everyone in my generation has it (I do not), and it is almost explicitly a method of spreading Chinese propaganda. The difference is that China sets the terms for what becomes popular (sociological) while their enemies (the US) make and consume that content. There's a reason mental illness and general degeneracy are boosted on US servers, but engineering projects and nationalist themes are booted on Chinese servers. Keep in mind this is one of the less subtle means of modern propaganda; now contextualize that in terms of the entire modern system, and you'll see just how deep the manipulation can be.

Certainly, the people in charge have been in congress for decades. But their campaigners haven't, and you can be certain every corporation or politician has a full staff of propagandists (likely going by a better sounding name) fervently researching how to best agitate the population to do things that benefit them using very complex means.

I am going to read Propaganda, but I would also venture to offer that if you examine Dr. Skinner's work you'll find a formula that is used by Sociologists as well as psychologists. See in order to effect the group, you must effect the individuals, not every individual but, those whom you can effect. And they in affect, effect others.

The simplest form of brain washing and, influencing a large group is repetition. That is why silencing and shaming others is a requirement of propaganda.

My discussion of Chinese foreign propaganda translates nicely here. I certainly agree with your sentiment - there is a duty in free speech, but that duty entails responsibility in our approach to using it. While I am not accusing you of trying to manipulate anyone, the statement "if you remain silent, it's your fault" is one of the oldest forms of agitation propaganda known to man. The left uses it too, see the "silence is violence" trend from 2020. It's a false dichotomy - I can be silent in real life, but very vocal anonymously online, as many people are. The goal of such statements is only to draw everything out in the open, to divide people (artificially, mind you) into different camps, and to facilitate further manipulation once individuals have become a mass.

The duty of free speech is to use it to find the optimum solutions to problems, but that can't be done by agitating people to join an unthinking crowd. That is poor strategy that will ultimately allow power-seeking individuals to prey upon your ideals to get what they want. Do it if you desire, it is your right, but it's not going to get you what you think it will.

Free speech is also for leisurely shitposting

All you really described is classic censorship with more advanced technology and a faster flow of information. Ultimately, its nothing new, just re-labelled as the same thing.

Oh and I do enjoy, intelligent discourse, thats why spend so much time online... lol

 

[wraithofroncollins]

What I have struggled to understanding, is there a conscious decision being made at top political levels to use propaganda and misinformation to try and effect progressive change ? Are these people really that smart to be able to do that and not make it obvious to the general public ?

If it is, then it is treason and should be dealt with accordingly.

Yes... and Yes... That why schools have been producing dumber and dumber students.

 

[AndyFrank]

"I'm reminded of the short-lived TV series "Firefly". In that world, a new language had emerged which meshed English and Mandarin, due to China's influence back on Earth and being the other superpower along with the US that came together to get humanity off of the dying planet and into the stars."

Is it overly mean to hope the "tv is reality dood?" people disappear like the invaders?
I liked firefly fly too ripley, but it was a tv show made by a COMMIE and not real.

People are so vain they dream of walking around looking ridiculous in robes, but the ones who laugh at that in ourselves and orient to reality are in much better shape.

I thought, soberly, past the joy of killing them, about worst case scenarios. I learned to write doctor in russian and chinese, but thats as far as i can go. Besides, the surrender fantasies (pervs) are not realistic. Right now, its a bunch of UN jokes learning English so they can be their last words here - china will let the lower-q disgusting un invade and get their garbage killed. Duh?

Learn to say "winter meat" in bugaboo, retardio, and paleo. It will be fun grinning and saying that at them and watching them all go to rapid cliks and chittering.
(America really does have a lot of josh wheeden nelly commie tv boys. Hope the war changes that bullsht back to normal too.)

A trash language hopeless "space slaves/poverty" spits at each other in que? That's the worst scenario of all, no war, nothing. Humans condemned to being plastic wrapped consumer bots in even more foul conditions.

 

[Kauboy]

"I'm reminded of the short-lived TV series "Firefly". In that world, a new language had emerged which meshed English and Mandarin, due to China's influence back on Earth and being the other superpower along with the US that came together to get humanity off of the dying planet and into the stars."

Is it overly mean to hope the "tv is reality dood?" people disappear like the invaders?
I liked firefly fly too ripley, but it was a tv show made by a COMMIE and not real.

People are so vain they dream of walking around looking ridiculous in robes, but the ones who laugh at that in ourselves and orient to reality are in much better shape.

I thought, soberly, past the joy of killing them, about worst case scenarios. I learned to write doctor in russian and chinese, but thats as far as i can go. Besides, the surrender fantasies (pervs) are not realistic. Right now, its a bunch of UN jokes learning English so they can be their last words here - china will let the lower-q disgusting un invade and get their garbage killed. Duh?

Learn to say "winter meat" in bugaboo, retardio, and paleo. It will be fun grinning and saying that at them and watching them all go to rapid cliks and chittering.
(America really does have a lot of josh wheeden nelly commie tv boys. Hope the war changes that bullsht back to normal too.)

A trash language hopeless "space slaves/poverty" spits at each other in que? That's the worst scenario of all, no war, nothing. Humans condemned to being plastic wrapped consumer bots in even more foul conditions.

Equating a real historical phenomenon like language evolution to a pop culture reference like a television show was a way to connect people to a concept they don't often consider.
Try not to take it too serious, m'kay?

Most of your posts of late have come across as stream-of-consciousness ramblings that make little sense.
Maybe work on that so we can actually have a conversation.