>>2329571 (pb)

If real news went mainstream it'd "be over" in 24 hours.

Issue with alleged "proofs" Proofs are not Fool Proof foolproof . For a proof to work it must be recognized by the subject. Most people can't read a proof. Or don't care to be bothered. They have already assumed that you are wrong 99% of the time.

Notice the mainstream doesn't use proofs [kek] They project the attitude of "Of course" - So the audience assumes the "truth" of what they claim.

No one except rare people are even trained in proofs or take the time to learn.,

You can NOT prove anything, if a person doesn't want to see it [Bring a horse to water proverb] - no matter how silly it is to deny. And they've got the public believing really silly things..

You can't make most people believe you by "I have the best Proof" and then showing them. They have no motive to even look, most of the time.

The side by sides work because people will put it together themselves.

The best way to reach people is one on one. If it's a crowd you address, you will find interference.

The "saving face for the crowd" will kick in.

Notice, from the very beginning of the CIA's project to control the perceptions of the public they used intimidation

"You're Crazy" since 1967 ..

That's how they turned around the original public perception that there was something unfitting about the JFK killing. They used name calling. Quite a feat.

No one wants to be name - called. So in privacy you can talk to someone about it, but not with a group. I have found.

They've upped the name-calling as "Q" has pointed out.

One on one will work if people are interested enough. Very laborious. Maybe try to create chains of one on one? I've thought of info meetings with a select crowd but don't feel safe enough yet.

>>2330324

Exactly. Alleged "proofs" are not the answer.

Proofs are extremely subjective; they depend on context of what you have previously learned; Just witness the situation around "Notables" Very good info is thrown out because allegedly "there is no source" So people ID source with "proof"? And then they'll use a mainstream alleged good source [Alex Jones; CNN] to confirm out counter - narrative. Seems structured to fail? Hard to make a generality on this but shouldn't the info stand on it's own. I've always thought, since I was involved with VOAT on the Pizza issue, that the emphasis on "what's your source" to vet info was a tool used to eliminate important data.

>>2330409

>>2330324

>And then they'll use a mainstream alleged good source [Alex Jones; CNN] to confirm our counter - narrative. Seems structured to fail? Hard to make a generality on this but shouldn't the info stand on it's own? I've always thought, since I was involved with VOAT on the Pizza issue, that the emphasis on "what's your source?" to vet info was a tool used to eliminate important data."

It's as though the anons have internalized their stupid relatives / friends who don't get it? So they raise the standards of what they want to share to the point the whole counter - narrative [truth] gets watered down.

We saw that technique [of cointelpro] with the original 9/11 research / activists. The managers/ "secret shills" will sow doubt "But that's not evidence" Then the insecure truthers will keep watering down watering down. Then the managers really lead the truthers to the stupidest evidence ever, which guarantees no one will ever catch on.

The managers are adamant in their opinions and violent speaking [must be trained, certainly]. Think : Alex Hicks. That's how they control their little niche - intimidation. Unless you know what it is, you'll be completely flummoxed and believe the managers are "in good faith" and doing what is best "for the movement"

Quite a scam

>>2330497

Yes, exactly

>>2330486

No, You are not ready yet.

I don't believe you,. You are too arrogant and attack my character rather than my argument [fallacy of irrelevance]

And yes, you have internalized the people who have put you down and made fun of you.

Learn some logic before you school others in your false beliefs.

>>2330486

>Notice, from the very beginning of the CIA's project to control the perceptions of the public they used intimidation

Dude is using the same technique. Claiming no one would believe ME. What a douche.

Very patronizing too "Well intentioned but naive and misguided"

Doncha know when you are arrogant people don't want to listen to you?

>>2330741

Yes, FB bans people. Especially if someone reported you. Some asswipe may have claimed you are a fake account just to make trouble. Good luck getting back.

I basically kept my very strong posts for groups with people who had been vetted. On my public page I'm pretty darn careful.

They do ban people and they will ban groups too - if they are too successful. Keep the group under 100 and they may not bother you.

>>2330017

The reason is this:

Their protests have traction because they are backed by the coverage of the MSM

I worked many years with the political activism. The reason "Occupy Wall st. " got big was it was promoted by the MSM. Most street protests , no matter how big, will be invisible if ignored by the Media. We had millions for anti war many times already and no one knew it.

In the sixties, yes it was covered by Time Life CBS all that. That's why it "happened"