What should an eceleb, who fully supports /pol/, but doesn't want to support you publically do? (8chan)

submitted ago by 2976859?

Let's give some advice to ecelebs, who want to do their part for the movement, but aren't willing to put their face to their beliefs?

How do they make sure to not accidently reveal their powerlevel?

Should they make subtle references?

What should be the limit in terms of politics they can talk about?

How do they make sure to still be honest with themselves and not have a constant mental self-censorship blockade in them, which will surely also affect their popularity and enjoyment for the viewers?

How should they handle more private correspondence with other people? Be more open about themselves?

What if it's very private like a gf?

Would it be too risky to meet other people that are Nationalists? Like people in a right-wing political party/IB/etc?

How do they make sure to not cuck out? Would saying that they aren't racist already be cucking, because there is a difference between public policy and how you see other individuals?

TL;DR

How do ecelebs not cuck out/accidently sperg out, but still do their part to help the movement?

PS:

fucking cuck, just reveal your face and talk about what you honestly believe

  1. This would be a crime in many countries

  2. I already made a thread about this and the majority told me, that the prefer the covert approach  

OP - https://8ch.net/pol/res/12683203.html  

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

16168927? ago

The Socratic Method is the answer.

Basically it involves asking pointed questions. Much like how Tucker asked "We keep hearing that diversity is a strength. How is diversity a strength?"

Seed your questions with little facts that make them impossible to answer with canned responses or phrase them in a way that achieves that same end. "You see the dead jews, but they look like they were starving. Why is that? I thought they were gassed." "If we really want to avoid another holocaust shouldn't we be studying Mein Kampf in school?" "If walls don't work why woudn't the democrats just let Trump have his wall, then use the fact that it didn't work to unseat him in 2020?" "Don't stats show that gun control increases crime? Is this because criminals still have just as many guns, but good people can't use them for self-defense?"

This tactic forces people into cognitive dissonance, and you have the plausible deniability of just looking for answers, not really having an opinion of your own on the subject.

Also a great tactic for red pilling friends and family.  

 

16177136? ago

I have another version

usually liberals will say something that inferes that something will happen.

"when trump loses in 2020 …."

so just ask what happens if the opposite occurs? They are usually triggered with a look of disgust. "How dare you ask that"

Unlike the socratic method , its not an actual discussion or argument. Instead you just suggest the opposite is possible and ask them what they would do.

I a subtle way to do they same kind of thing that liberals do when they say "women are the future".

What if women arent the future?

They cant answer without a joke because:

-the truth is not what they really want to believe

-thinking about the possibility that they cannot force their will and the opposite is a possibility destroys their very cognitive process that is the foundation of their reason (speak truth to power, its true because I say so … etc)

And if they answer with a joke you laugh, because its a joke and you are laughing at them in a mocking sense.  

16177464? ago

This can be effective for shifting /r/the_donald and civnats to the right a bit, but it lacks the persuasive power of the Socratic Method.

Diversity is a strength. Isreal is our greatest ally. Immigration is necessary.

Most civnat and leftist talking points are unsupportable, so making the person support them forces them to confront the fact they believe something that isn't true simply because they've heard it repeated 100s of times.. It's also great for celeb because you can force your entire audience to do it.

If you allow someone to go off imagining what would happen if everyone had guns or Trump wins re-election their delusions of disaster can actually turn people against your point.  

 

16173388? ago

Rageafterstorm

It is vastly and deeply out of character for me to say something positive about one of these youtube kids, let alone a female, but I just want to remind everyone that this woman was bullied off the internet because she refused to burn coal, and that she did absolutely nothing wrong.  

 

16172311? ago

pic

Did she ever come back and start making videos again, or is she still in hiding because people called her meanie bad buzzwords?  

16172287? ago

Unironically this  

 

16168933? ago

"You see the dead jews, but they look like they were starving. Why is that? I thought they were gassed."

Just be really careful about how you word your questions, and questioning the gassings just out of the blue, with no context, can really destroy the whole illusion of it being a genuine question.  

16168930? ago

Yes, yes, this is a great approach. It solves the issue of people getting intimidated by you pushing your ideas on them. Also, in a way, it makes them do the work themselves. People love the feeling of coming up with things on their own.  

16168929? ago

This anon knows the truth