[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / boers / ebola / leftpol / quorious / raids / vg / zenpol ]

/zenpol/ - Stopping the Cuckwagon, Saving the West

Winner of the 62rd Attention-Hungry Games
/eris/ - Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything.

November 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 3 per post.

File: 73b60c098f23bc0⋯.jpg (55.83 KB, 514x432, 257:216, frog.jpg)

bbaa49 No.2513

The overton window is the range of ideas that are tolerated in public discussion.

For example:

>Anti-gun legislation is inside the overton window.

>Repealing all current anti-gun legislation is not within the overton window.

How would an organization consciously shift the overton window, and how does it happen naturally? I'll start by saying that I think that a massive point regarding the window is that you can't meaningfully shift it through actual discourse, you have to shift it in another manner, for example introducing the ideas inside a film, television show, videogame, or even comedic forms like stand-up or memes, which the consumers will already be naturally inclined towards, as opposed to attempting to shift it through logical discourse, which will be easily tossed aside by the unwashed masses. Obviously the easiest way to shift this is to simply import people who meet the ideology of or are reliant on your political party. I would be interested in knowing if any of you have come across examples of the window massively changing near-instantaneously after a certain event.

Any input is appreciated.

e29002 No.2516

You have to do it without setting off the target's "I am being manipulated" alarm.

Naturally it is done by believing so strongly in the idea that you are championing that people, while denying that you are causing it, will be compelled by your energy alone to start using it themselves.

Artificially, it could be done by using the "big move covers the small move" type technique, for example, using a movie about top gun pilots to recruit for the navy.

You are quite correct in that logical discourse cannot shift it. People will feel the manipulation and dig in. The logical discourse is for yourself or for your like-minded brethren. Once you and your fellows are logically accepting of an idea then you can open yourselves to the idea emotionally and hence become true believers who are capable of moving others.

It thus follows that when done naturally, the idea must make logical sense (we must prepare ourselves so that we may save western civilization from dark forces that surround us) whereas when done artificially there is no such need (drinking Pepsi will make me into the guy that women want to have sex with).

Hopefully this is enough for you to go on.

bbaa49 No.2569


I think that you made some important points there anon, thanks.

I wonder, however, about the importance of education in the window; it's obviously something that enemies of both liberty and western culture as a whole are using as an effective means of shifting the window. If one could truly look at world history on a greater level and note the patterns, such as the repeated disarmament of the citizenry, would their window change, as they did the research and came to the conclusion of their own volition, or would they cast that aside and continue to believe in the antithesis of such lessons, like "progressivism"? Moreover, if they were to cast it aside, why do the campuses meet such success in shifting the window?

be398b No.2571

I think right now, the best thing any of you can do is speak your ideas, speak them frequently, and make them sound intelligent and appealing. Maybe you can't take TV, but you can take social media.

b54e77 No.2599


Here is an analysis that refutes one of the most common arguments in favor of gun control.

The rate of gun deaths in the United States was 10.6 per 100,000 in 2013. [1][2]

The Khmer Rouge killed 25 percent of the Cambodian population between 1975 and 1979. [3] This is a rate of 25,000 per 100,000. [4]

So how many years would it take for the number of gun deaths in the United States to equal the number of deaths in a genocide of the magnitude of that in Cambodia?

Guns' effect on the population (per year) = (100,000 - 10.6) / 100,000 = 0.999849

Genocide's effect on the population = (100,000 - 25,000) / 100,000 = 0.75

0.999849^y = 0.75 [5]

Solving for y gives 2714 years.

Thus, if an armed citizenry with the characteristics of the United States citizenry can prevent a genocide on the scale of the Cambodian genocide once every 2714 years, it is worth arming the citizenry.

Can you imagine explaining this to your average man on the street?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States (https://archive.fo/Hw9CZ)

[2] I have included suicides to preempt a standard opposing argument. But genocide is so bad that we don't need them anyway.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide (https://archive.fo/vvK3j)

[4] This is over four years but it doesn't effect the conclusion.

[5] Because gun deaths are given as a rate we must compound their effects.

594c4e No.2865

This is one of the more important threads in this board atm. I wonder, if a semi large group of individuals with a non-accepted opinion was to infiltrate an organized structure without social or familiar coherence, would they be able to subdue the local Window by strategically placing people in a minority, and make them feel as if their opinions are outside the Window or wrong?

Example: Say, 5 people join a political party. These people are secretly cooperating, and they gang up on 1/2 people with conventional opinions, and deliberately make these people feel bad about having otherwise acceptable opinions. I think it would be a huge bonus if the 5 people are also above average in the social hierarchy, because than people will adopt their controversial opinions to get acceptance or acknowledgement. On the internet tho, I think people will avoid conclicts usually, meaning that less aggressive forms of propaganda would be neccesary. Memes and media for entertainment are excellent for this purpose, as you have already explained.

eb2513 No.2866

Overton window is overrated. Just tell the truth, make those faggots scream and howl, people of worth look for the truth, those others just look for public acceptance, dogs to be ruled.

86437c No.2867

File: 5795e2db866d988⋯.png (662.25 KB, 942x4013, 942:4013, poleddit.png)

When people with a lot of disposable income and time started browsing the board was taken over.

Its already shifting back to speech suppression due to AI moderator bots and spam chatbots retaliating against wrongthink

990aca No.2870

File: 87c55ab16ba0ae7⋯.jpeg (320.65 KB, 1500x1000, 3:2, oracle.jpeg)


This is called the Delphi Method. Originally it was developed by the US Army Air Corps to have participants find a solution, but it is extremely effective in working backwards with a (((fixed))) solution and affecting the participants decision making. This is why Gay population is 4% in real life and 30% on late night TV. It's common consensus buddy, didn't you know?

There is another name which more accurately describes the manipulation, but I don't remember it. Maybe someone else can post.

717b7b No.2873


people are like frogs. they'll stay in the boiling water until they die.

bbaa49 No.2876


I should think that the outcome of that tactic would depend on the overall size of the infiltrated group, as well as the level of controversy presented by the infiltrators. I doubt that a group of national socialists would successfully convert even a single person in a large structure of standard progressive fools, but perhaps that same group of natsocs could, with luck, convert people who are already accepting of an extreme ideology, e.g. pretty much anybody who wouldn't mind an actual rebellion.

For the purpose of twisting a group to your own ends, I should think that one would likely first attempt to gain a position of influence within the group before then using the group's own established philosophy in a more extreme form, e.g. encouraging some standard hillary voters to be increasingly tolerant until finally the group becomes so multicultural that it has virtually nothing holding it together; the infiltrator would assume control in the following power vacuum and then likely move from there with standard propaganda. I really don't know anything about that topic, however, if anyone would recommend good reading on the subject I would appreciate it.

I still wonder about the implications of education pertaining to the window; if our society was one which was autodidactic in the context of history and philosophy, would the window be seriously different in either a positive or negative way?

990aca No.2879






All these affect the window. The tools cultural marxists use affect it as well. The most powerful, I believe, is humor for the normies, and truth for the detail oriented.


>if our society was autodidactic, would the window be different

The most significant effect would be a change in the education system. Purge the communist professors and decrease the dependency on public schools and colleges. Stimulate autodidactics and analytical thought. People want to know the truth. Ever see a 3 or 4 year old? All they ask is questions. Sometime between 4 and 23, those questions get replaced with virtue signaling and instagram, and they are told to sit at a desk all day and not speak out of line.

3327f9 No.2883

Gentlemen, this is very refreshing. I haven't seen a thread containing so many lucid and thoughtful responses in months.

8f7f1c No.2920



To me, this consensus conversion is already being used on halfcuck and Twitter against /zenpol/ ideas. It seems change on the internet would be more effective than real life meetings. Areas that need it are already policing thought hard though. Colleges, high schools, social media.

e8fec1 No.3125

First, look for opportunities. Never try to redpill anyone out of the blue. Opportunities are when the subject himself begins to question the mainstream narrative

Second, redpill gradually. Don't start of with "Holocaust never happened".

Third, when you try to redpill go with solid unbeatable knowledge. Don't try to redpill someone without knowing comprehensively what you are talking about

Fourth, accept that not everyone you try to redpill will be receptive. Accept that some people are born sheep and you are wasting your time with them

Fifth, accept that there are some people who are too degenerate and too lost to be worth redpilling. Younger degenerates can be mended from their degenerate life but older ones cannot.

a29594 No.3139

Yes saying repealing all anti gun legislation is in the window. Take trannies for example. That wasn't possible/acceptable in the public discourse until the goalposts were forcibly moved by leftists. When they did that, people were going about having to take various sides on that issue, such as "Quit being so transphobic bigot!", "I don't care if someone says they're a girl and wants to cut off their dick, but x", "I have nothing against trannies, but x". Now several levels of degeneracy or ideology have been accepted to argue this point to the general public. By arguing with guns, it's essentially the same. Note there is a certain range of topics you can be able to do with this. For those that wish to push super extremes, one would first have to normalize it by spamming it essentially. To go back to the tranny example, first it was normalizing faggotry, then on to trannies. The right just willingly stunts themselves, thinks the goal is unachievable or overcompromises in the positions they think they should take

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / boers / ebola / leftpol / quorious / raids / vg / zenpol ]