>>149152610

>Anon mentioned a psychological term for this effect, but I can't remember… ideas?

It was I, anon, who wrote of a psychological term known as the Seimmelweis reflex. It is poorly understood, because most research on Communications/NLP isn't actively practiced by Academia.

Basically, the term breaks down into this.

>If a person is complicit in a horrible crime/act he was unaware of, rather than admit to himself that he was responsible for the act, the person will instead turn on the truth/accuser, and eventually violently.

>So, for example, if a person voted for a pedophile in office, rather than admit that the person was a pedophile, the person is instead to likely turn on the truth-giver because the person cannot psychologically process that they supported a pedophile.

The only response to dealing with a Semmelweis reflex is to admit the truth, and then prepare for 'violent' counter-attacks. Meaning, you tell the person the truth, then you grab a loaded gun, and point it at the person. You have to expect the person to retaliate violently, and then prevent the person from being able to retaliate violently. Force is the only option at this point when a person is that far gone.

Hope that helps, I may start a thread explaining this in general.

>>149151705

Q, if you are here, and you aren't a LARPER, you should read this post >>149153424

Also. You should understand that, if you aren't a LARPer, the direct attack from the NYT is meaningless because it's a justification in search for an action. They were going to react no matter what, but they needed a "Casus belli" and so to them this is their way of gaining it. However, a Casus Belli does not make for winning a war, and if, you aren't a LARPer, there is very little that can be done, with Trump in the WH. The Masses won't "rise up" based on newspaper articles. If Snowden didn't wake them, then this won't either.

>>149154319

He speaks in Riddles because whether he knows it or not, it's highly effective Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Q owns pol.

>>149154448

Whenever someone tells you to go bed, you know shit has gotten serious.

>>149155318

The best counterattack would be for Q to actively order his minions to spread information about Operation Mockingbird and actively discredit the media, rather than necessarily address the claims correctly. Nobody listens to a liar, even if he speaks the truth.

>>149155671

>This is what we need to prevent from happening.

No. If you are legit, you need to PREPARE for the animalistic pandemonium and hunker down for a prolonged siege. There is NO way that the reflex is going to be ignored. If you want to win, prepare for mass violence, and speak the truth...that is if you are true.

>>149156995

If it's true, it would cause the Democrats to riot, not just Antifa. But rioting will be inevitable, there is no 'easy' way to put this. Which is why if Q is real, and smart, he'd prepare for violence first and then state the truth.

>>149159887

Keep in mind that this is original research, because the field of Communications/Psychology is effectively lost due to political correctness and pedagogy. So although you may hear 'different' intrepretations, this is realistically what would happen. If you a person of any value or status, I would advise to prepare for violence and then tell the truth.

The thing about it is that if a person cannot violently attack you, and cannot censor you, there will be a sleeper effect and he will inevitably come to your side over the course of months. Hard to believe, but people are persuaded over the course of weeks and months, rather than minutes or hours.

>>149162566

First rule of NLP. Anyone who knows and teaches NLP can con you, and likely is conning you. Unless a person teaches NLP out of the goodness of his heart, never trust anyone who states that "you can learn NLP" too.

The most important thing to know about people is that they are stubborn but not stupid. If you try to take advantage of someone's stupidity, you will (usually) fail. But if you take advantage of someone's stubbornness, you can control even the smartest of people easily. People want to be right, you have to convince them that they are right, and that the person 'knew' your position all along. This is the foundation of pacing and leading.

So if a person is convinced of someone, Ie, a bluepill, the only way you can get them to accept a position is by making their bluepills 'less blue and more red.' Rather than say something true, and never believable, it is better to state a half-truth, and then gradually build up that half-truth into a whole truth over the course of weeks. "Redpilling" can only be done to a population already susceptible to the idea.

Therefore, you should create 'redpills for the masses' and 'redpills for the redpilled.' Separate the categories, don't mix the medicines, pace and lead, and then get them onto your side. There's ALOT more to cover, however.

But if what Q is saying is true, and he isn't a Larper, Q should ignore what I've just said, state the truth with hard video evidence, and then prepare for the riots. The Marines are more important to do the talking than anykind of psy-op.

>>149163334

Yes for now.

>>149164909

I need to see a post in a thread that you are specifically referring to because I'm unfamiliar with the example/haven't encountered it.

>>149165188

Just imagine if this article was published in the year 2000 instead of 2017. How far the media has fallen into weakness.

>>149166456

IDK. The person believes that they are an authority/gatekeeper on pol, and that CBTS boards doesn't live up to the standards for himself. There's actually a subreddit that deals with this. https://www.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/ Gatekeeping is a thing not just on pol, but in human interaction in general.

Or. The person is a shill, trying to intimidate others into not posting about the topic, and claiming to be an authority to get people to stop talking about the subject, through an ulterior agenda.

IDK though. Could be a lot of things.