![Never forget that they only want equality if they’re losing. [720x674 - 70KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/1xEkCe.jpg){kind=link}
You overestimate normies.
You overestimate what matters: it's not the individual norm that you're trying to convince, it's the crowd (it's the audience). The norm just follows the crowd and won't ever be convinced unless the crowd is convinced. The crowd is swayed by those individuals within it that can be convinced -- that can bridge the gap to that crowd, or to brain-drain out individuals from the crowd.
The individual norm is to be used as a target to apply a message for the crowd to be exposed to.
I get what you're saying. That exact process is pretty much how the NSDAP rose to power from the ashes of Weimar. However, the ones who control the narrative now are much more tricky about how you influence those nodes of influence, as well as how one becomes influential in the first place.
If you respond to individuals, influential individuals or otherwise, on social media, then any normie can jump in and tell you why you are the devil. Alternatively, they can downvote your comment out of ever being seen by anyone who doesn't autistically read every comment. You can try leveraging your reputation to gain a flesh audience, but then your job is at stake, hence why it is seldom used outside of friend groups.
They control who has influence. When physicians need to go through an undergraduate diversity and wrongthink sieve, a medical school diversity and wrongthink sieve, a residency diversity and wrongthink sieve, and an employer diversity and wrongthink sieve, the end result is a group whom they can call on to "trust the science" every single time.
You don't beat these with logic and thinking.
In these times, you of course have to protect your anonymity, and there are plenty of venues for you to choose to ply a message. Don't limit yourself to only being bold and direct: just ask simple questions that flow under the radar which forces them to expose themselves by the inadequacy of their response. Better yet, ask accelerationist questions which force them into an extreme position: "When we kill off all the white people, how do we ensure that mixed race children don't rise up against us?". This will of course scare even norms to question their allegiances, whilst emboldening Whites.
The biggest problem is that those venues which are commonly used are all controlled by the enemy. Their message and tactics aren't strong at all however, it's just tightly controlled. Worse so, because they haven't been challenged, they have become weak and vulnerable to outside influence.
Fortunately, the manipulation has become so tightly controlled that they're now eating their own, and the internet is refracturing back to the old way after over a decade of consolidation; people are ripe to be exposed to the truth at this very moment. The backlash to social degradation and rise of White consciousness is a two fold threat to the propagation of their ideas, and will only get worse.
The best thing to do right now is to find a way to drive them from mainstream social media in favor of /our/ venues and messages. It just so happens that there is a very easy and effective METHOD to do just that in the real world which cannot be censored.
We can agree on the approach. Introspection is definitely the surest way to convince others of social arguments. It is much easier to convince a White woman about the feral nature of blacks and why they should go back to Africa if the White woman was raped by one in the past, compared to a White woman who has lived her whole life in a gated White suburb looking at building a new mall and apartments with a bus route a block away. If enough Whites live around blacks, it becomes easy to convince them. When they don't, you get Vermont.
With White Flight limiting how many Whites get to experience true diversity, it is unrealistic to expect this method to become feasible in a reasonable time frame. There would need to be an end for places of White Flight for it to begin to become an expectation. Whites can survive and build paradises that can be flooded by diversity in many places before fleeing once again to start the cycle anew, and this will not change.
On the other hand, you can drop small redpills that inspire token, but not meaningful, change. In my experience, the average woman hates transwomen. You can leverage this hate to convince her to do small things that the transwomen can't do, like breastfeed, by framing it as a way to spite the transwomen who can't do this.
However, if you bring up spiting transwomen by staying out of the workplace and raising biological children, the women tend to turn on a dime and try to educate you on why her "traditional" nuclear family needs two incomes to "survive". Then, if you educate her on why she's wrong because, in reality, Whites have lived in multigenerational households and passed down traditions and stigmas as their heritage for millennia, and that, failing in under a century, the nuclear family is a subversive method to uproot White existence and damn it to the whims of female consumerism, at this point the woman will go into full modern-woman mode. This is why one stops at the breastfeeding now. Spreading the fissures can get token goals, but not meaningful ones like a return to arranged marriage and multigenerational households, which are not optional to preserve White heritage and tradition.
This has been a personal experience whenever utilizing your method. I suppose that it is better than nothing.
(post is archived)