>>507274771They have influence. If you are a political pressure group why would you split your time and money trying to influence every single individual in society directly? If you try to split $1m over the entire population then you are allocating less than $0.01 to each person. This buys you absolutely no influence and does nothing to prevent your enemies' influence. On the other hand if you dump all of that $1m into winning over a single key influencer - a politician, a media personality, a prominent academic, a big industrialist etc - then you haven't just secured their loyalty, you have secured the loyalty of everyone who respects them, and you have created a huge barrier to entry for any competing interest. This is how Jews got so powerful to begin with. They didn't waste their time and effort trying to win over the masses directly. If they tried this they would've just spread themselves thing and achieved nothing. Instead they focused all their efforts into dominating key influence niches. Entertainment, news, banking, politics, academia etc. By winning over (or becoming) the key players in these niches you gain control of the downstream culture for free. This is why ecelebs and online platforms are important.
I don't have an issue with Asmongoldberg though. He just says what he thinks. We don't agree on everything, but I don't get the impression that he is trying to deceive me or force his beliefs upon me. If he bans some anti-israel spammer for being an obnoxious retard then he's doing us a favor because letting retards define the anti-israel movement is not in our interests. The optimal censorship strategy is not to ban everyone on the other side, it's to ban the smart people on the other side and the dumb people on your side to create the illusion that your side is smart and the other side is dumb. I don't like censorship, but it's important to be aware of what optimal play looks like.
