Underage pedohunters

[Creature Bipedal]

There is a video in Telegram where little bullies call their peer pedophile, and a video where children imitate pedohunter videos for fun.


Also, there is a video where children humiliate an adult as a pedophile:

• https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qlx6e5eh ... i&e=1&dl=0
• https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dw4149nw ... c&e=1&dl=0
• https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b24ocxl3 ... h&e=1&dl=0
• https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/h3eg7qvx ... m&e=1&dl=0

[anarchist of love]

Well, the ugly fact of the matter is that kids are easier targets for propaganda (of whatever shade) than their adults, simply because they are systematically NOT PREPARED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Instead, they are systematically prepared for Groupthink and being Readied to Sacrifice themselves for the Corporate State and its severely alienated "interests" (i.e. via war)!

This is "part and parcel" of how fascism rises up: using uncomprehending young people as the "shock troops", ideologically and sometimes militantly.

To reach them, is to teach them about more liberating info than they're systematically spoonfed! Info that aids them in KNOWING OF serious, independent alternatives to "The Way Things Are". Info like "unschooling" and how to challenge groanup authoritarians in their lives (i.e. via splc.org or/and "unschooling" with author Grace Llewellyn, and others). i could list a bunch more possibly liberating info that people COULD (if they have "the Balls") pass out to young people, via creatively intelligent means. Anyone interested?

(Note: Grace Llewellyn is an ex-teacher, who has apparently suffered a concerted effort to suppress her books, online, making them harder to find; i am NOT affiliated with her! There are OTHER authors on this topic, however, that should be easier to locate!)

[Not Forever]

Well, the ugly fact of the matter is that kids are easier targets for propaganda (of whatever shade) than their adults, simply because they are systematically NOT PREPARED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Instead, they are systematically prepared for Groupthink and being Readied to Sacrifice themselves for the Corporate State and its severely alienated "interests" (i.e. via war)!

This is "part and parcel" of how fascism rises up: using uncomprehending young people as the "shock troops", ideologically and sometimes militantly.

To reach them, is to teach them about more liberating info than they're systematically spoonfed! Info that aids them in KNOWING OF serious, independent alternatives to "The Way Things Are". Info like "unschooling" and how to challenge groanup authoritarians in their lives (i.e. via splc.org or/and "unschooling" with author Grace Llewellyn, and others). i could list a bunch more possibly liberating info that people COULD (if they have "the Balls") pass out to young people, via creatively intelligent means. Anyone interested?

(Note: Grace Llewellyn is an ex-teacher, who has apparently suffered a concerted effort to suppress her books, online, making them harder to find; i am NOT affiliated with her! There are OTHER authors on this topic, however, that should be easier to locate!)

I can understand your point about a lack of information, but you can’t apply that argument to sixteen-year-olds. A sixteen-year-old has access to an infinite amount of information; if they end up following one type of propaganda (at the expense of others), it means that propaganda has been persuasive to them. It means they like that environment, that atmosphere, that context, and all the meanings that pursuing a military career holds for them.

It means it is in their interest to do so, even if the gain won’t be in terms of health or money, but rather something related to prestige and a sense of belonging.

No age group is immune to propaganda; we are all prone to groupthink. In themselves, these two things are not necessarily negative, as long as there is no coercion involved.

[anarchist of love]

Well, first of all, propaganda IS coercion, tho much sneakier an imposition than most seem to recognize! (More below)

Well, the ugly fact of the matter is that kids are easier targets for propaganda (of whatever shade) than their adults, simply because they are systematically NOT PREPARED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Instead, they are systematically prepared for Groupthink and being Readied to Sacrifice themselves for the Corporate State and its severely alienated "interests" (i.e. via war)!

This is "part and parcel" of how fascism rises up: using uncomprehending young people as the "shock troops", ideologically and sometimes militantly.

To reach them, is to teach them about more liberating info than they're systematically spoonfed! Info that aids them in KNOWING OF serious, independent alternatives to "The Way Things Are". Info like "unschooling" and how to challenge groanup authoritarians in their lives (i.e. via splc.org or/and "unschooling" with author Grace Llewellyn, and others). i could list a bunch more possibly liberating info that people COULD (if they have "the Balls") pass out to young people, via creatively intelligent means. Anyone interested?

(Note: Grace Llewellyn is an ex-teacher, who has apparently suffered a concerted effort to suppress her books, online, making them harder to find; i am NOT affiliated with her! There are OTHER authors on this topic, however, that should be easier to locate!)

I can understand your point about a lack of information, but you can’t apply that argument to sixteen-year-olds.

Ah, and how is it that a general age means that they somehow avoid or ignore imposed groupthink/propaganda?? Truly, ALL are surrounded by thought control in various disguises!! Such is firmly embedded in all of what passes for "the realistic" Frames of References which ALL cannot help but to initially internalize, and then build up their own desires upon.

Before you assume that this cannot affect ANY age group (such a curious generalization!), perhaps you should educate yourself about the term. What informed me was Jacques Ellul's book PROPAGANDA: The Formation of Mens' Attitudes. Where Ellul discusses a wide variety of propaganda, such as that used to mobilize or integrate people into various ideas and/or ideologies.

Sure, older teens generally are allowed to explore beyond what passes for 'the Normal' corrals of belief; thus many identify with anarchist thought, at least initially (til they learn of the Meta Game that Western nations Play at Not Playing, as R.D.Laing exposed). Yet they are STILL tethered to their indoctrination into Western nations and its COLONIAL/neocolonial norms! Either as 'citizens' or satellite subjects of the realm.

A sixteen-year-old has access to an infinite amount of information; if they end up following one type of propaganda (at the expense of others), it means that propaganda has been persuasive to them. It means they like that environment, that atmosphere, that context, and all the meanings that pursuing a military career holds for them.

They are at this time in their lives "allowed" to explore various ideas, liking something for awhile, only to "try on" other ideas as they grow. Curious your push for a military career, not qualifying it, first, as one example of what they might like. What i say to that is that MOST young people think within the Box of Received Superstitions and/or "Realistic" options. All due to how deeply propaganda (ubiquitous in modern life) has infiltrated their psyches!

It means it is in their interest to do so, even if the gain won’t be in terms of health or money, but rather something related to prestige and a sense of belonging.

Artificial constructs, btw, "prestige" and "sense of belonging". Nazi youth surely bought uncritically into such things during WW2, for example. Does that mean it's legit? (But, yes, i am 'for' all options; each of us tries to educate young people about realities as we see them, but we can all do only so much, do to how young peoples' attentions are hooked, regardless.)

No age group is immune to propaganda; we are all prone to groupthink. In themselves, these two things are not necessarily negative, as long as there is no coercion involved.

The very nature of propaganda is not benign! It is nothing but coercion!! Tho often cammo'd! And made to appear to be "Authoritative", etc.

[Not Forever]

Well, first of all, propaganda IS coercion, tho much sneakier an imposition than most seem to recognize! (More below)

Well, the ugly fact of the matter is that kids are easier targets for propaganda (of whatever shade) than their adults, simply because they are systematically NOT PREPARED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Instead, they are systematically prepared for Groupthink and being Readied to Sacrifice themselves for the Corporate State and its severely alienated "interests" (i.e. via war)!

This is "part and parcel" of how fascism rises up: using uncomprehending young people as the "shock troops", ideologically and sometimes militantly.

To reach them, is to teach them about more liberating info than they're systematically spoonfed! Info that aids them in KNOWING OF serious, independent alternatives to "The Way Things Are". Info like "unschooling" and how to challenge groanup authoritarians in their lives (i.e. via splc.org or/and "unschooling" with author Grace Llewellyn, and others). i could list a bunch more possibly liberating info that people COULD (if they have "the Balls") pass out to young people, via creatively intelligent means. Anyone interested?

(Note: Grace Llewellyn is an ex-teacher, who has apparently suffered a concerted effort to suppress her books, online, making them harder to find; i am NOT affiliated with her! There are OTHER authors on this topic, however, that should be easier to locate!)

I can understand your point about a lack of information, but you can’t apply that argument to sixteen-year-olds.

Ah, and how is it that a general age means that they somehow avoid or ignore imposed groupthink/propaganda?? Truly, ALL are surrounded by thought control in various disguises!! Such is firmly embedded in all of what passes for "the realistic" Frames of References which ALL cannot help but to initially internalize, and then build up their own desires upon.

Before you assume that this cannot affect ANY age group (such a curious generalization!), perhaps you should educate yourself about the term. What informed me was Jacques Ellul's book PROPAGANDA: The Formation of Mens' Attitudes. Where Ellul discusses a wide variety of propaganda, such as that used to mobilize or integrate people into various ideas and/or ideologies.

Sure, older teens generally are allowed to explore beyond what passes for 'the Normal' corrals of belief; thus many identify with anarchist thought, at least initially (til they learn of the Meta Game that Western nations Play at Not Playing, as R.D.Laing exposed). Yet they are STILL tethered to their indoctrination into Western nations and its COLONIAL/neocolonial norms! Either as 'citizens' or satellite subjects of the realm.

A sixteen-year-old has access to an infinite amount of information; if they end up following one type of propaganda (at the expense of others), it means that propaganda has been persuasive to them. It means they like that environment, that atmosphere, that context, and all the meanings that pursuing a military career holds for them.

They are at this time in their lives "allowed" to explore various ideas, liking something for awhile, only to "try on" other ideas as they grow. Curious your push for a military career, not qualifying it, first, as one example of what they might like. What i say to that is that MOST young people think within the Box of Received Superstitions and/or "Realistic" options. All due to how deeply propaganda (ubiquitous in modern life) has infiltrated their psyches!

It means it is in their interest to do so, even if the gain won’t be in terms of health or money, but rather something related to prestige and a sense of belonging.

Artificial constructs, btw, "prestige" and "sense of belonging". Nazi youth surely bought uncritically into such things during WW2, for example. Does that mean it's legit? (But, yes, i am 'for' all options; each of us tries to educate young people about realities as we see them, but we can all do only so much, do to how young peoples' attentions are hooked, regardless.)

No age group is immune to propaganda; we are all prone to groupthink. In themselves, these two things are not necessarily negative, as long as there is no coercion involved.

The very nature of propaganda is not benign! It is nothing but coercion!! Tho often cammo'd! And made to appear to be "Authoritative", etc.

As I said, groupthink and propaganda are something that affect a person as such, regardless of age. Which is not a bad thing. Groupthink is not inherently negative, just as being persuaded by propaganda is not inherently negative. Just one propaganda among many. When students are at school, they are usually exposed to left-leaning propaganda from their teachers; when they are at home, they encounter right-leaning propaganda through shooter video games or their favorite TikToker.

There is everything: variety, pluralism, and information.

If a young person is persuaded amidst this chaos of conflicting ideas (which also includes those of their parents and peers), good for them. It becomes their choice, even if that choice leads them to pick up a rifle and die in a war.

In essence, I said exactly the opposite of what you claim. You are the one making a distinction based on age groups; I am the one saying that influence affects EVERY person, EVERY individual. I just believe this is not significant: influencing is not coercion; influencing is what each of us does every time we give voice to our thoughts.

If you have access to the internet, anyone can explore beyond the ordinary. I encountered topics like atheism, anarchism, nihilism, fetishism, necrophilia, etc., at only ten years old, thanks to a simple internet connection. I endured the religious propaganda from television and catechism, and I endured the New Atheism propaganda online—which persuaded me more. By the age of ten, I already considered myself an anti-theist atheist.

On the other hand, I had friends passionate about shooter games who, from that same age, developed a fascination with military culture, camaraderie, etc., because their personalities aligned with that context. They befriended people more aligned with those interests, and so on. That type of propaganda did not appeal to me at all. Others were attracted to more left-leaning propaganda (or better, anti-right propaganda) spread by their teachers, openly mocking people who declared themselves right-wing and treating it as a family matter. And there is more.

It’s all about persuasion; there’s nothing wrong with persuasion. Once someone has access to a computer, they potentially have access to the full plurality of opinions and propagandas, and can no longer use their immediate environment as an excuse for their own beliefs.

Honestly, I don’t like the idea of considering a teenager—or even a pre-teen—as a puppet into whom notions have been inserted. These are people who have already lived parts of their lives, who have already witnessed the contradictions between their own desires and those of their parents, who have already interacted with people different from themselves (peers, teachers), and even if externally they may seem submissive, internally they are already formed as independent individuals with their own capacity for thought.

That said, just as there was Nazi youth, there were many other youth movements. Who are you to claim that anarchist youth (also propaganda) emerges from more independent thinking than Nazi youth? Ignoring the fact that it was mandatory, there was real coercion; Nazi youth were not composed entirely of Nazis. Passivity is not adherence. (Besides, there were also adult Nazis, which contradicts your idea that propaganda affects adolescents more than adults. Or at least, if it isn’t a contradiction, it certainly doesn’t confirm it.)

[anarchist of love]

Well, first of all, propaganda IS coercion, tho much sneakier an imposition than most seem to recognize! (More below)

I can understand your point about a lack of information, but you can’t apply that argument to sixteen-year-olds.

Ah, and how is it that a general age means that they somehow avoid or ignore imposed groupthink/propaganda?? Truly, ALL are surrounded by thought control in various disguises!! Such is firmly embedded in all of what passes for "the realistic" Frames of References which ALL cannot help but to initially internalize, and then build up their own desires upon.

Before you assume that this cannot affect ANY age group (such a curious generalization!), perhaps you should educate yourself about the term. What informed me was Jacques Ellul's book PROPAGANDA: The Formation of Mens' Attitudes. Where Ellul discusses a wide variety of propaganda, such as that used to mobilize or integrate people into various ideas and/or ideologies.

Sure, older teens generally are allowed to explore beyond what passes for 'the Normal' corrals of belief; thus many identify with anarchist thought, at least initially (til they learn of the Meta Game that Western nations Play at Not Playing, as R.D.Laing exposed). Yet they are STILL tethered to their indoctrination into Western nations and its COLONIAL/neocolonial norms! Either as 'citizens' or satellite subjects of the realm.

A sixteen-year-old has access to an infinite amount of information; if they end up following one type of propaganda (at the expense of others), it means that propaganda has been persuasive to them. It means they like that environment, that atmosphere, that context, and all the meanings that pursuing a military career holds for them.

They are at this time in their lives "allowed" to explore various ideas, liking something for awhile, only to "try on" other ideas as they grow. Curious your push for a military career, not qualifying it, first, as one example of what they might like. What i say to that is that MOST young people think within the Box of Received Superstitions and/or "Realistic" options. All due to how deeply propaganda (ubiquitous in modern life) has infiltrated their psyches!

It means it is in their interest to do so, even if the gain won’t be in terms of health or money, but rather something related to prestige and a sense of belonging.

Artificial constructs, btw, "prestige" and "sense of belonging". Nazi youth surely bought uncritically into such things during WW2, for example. Does that mean it's legit? (But, yes, i am 'for' all options; each of us tries to educate young people about realities as we see them, but we can all do only so much, do to how young peoples' attentions are hooked, regardless.)

No age group is immune to propaganda; we are all prone to groupthink. In themselves, these two things are not necessarily negative, as long as there is no coercion involved.

The very nature of propaganda is not benign! It is nothing but coercion!! Tho often cammo'd! And made to appear to be "Authoritative", etc.

As I said, groupthink and propaganda are something that affect a person as such, regardless of age. Which is not a bad thing. Groupthink is not inherently negative, just as being persuaded by propaganda is not inherently negative. Just one propaganda among many. When students are at school, they are usually exposed to left-leaning propaganda from their teachers; when they are at home, they encounter right-leaning propaganda through shooter video games or their favorite TikToker.

There is everything: variety, pluralism, and information.

If a young person is persuaded amidst this chaos of conflicting ideas (which also includes those of their parents and peers), good for them. It becomes their choice, even if that choice leads them to pick up a rifle and die in a war.

In essence, I said exactly the opposite of what you claim. You are the one making a distinction based on age groups; I am the one saying that influence affects EVERY person, EVERY individual. I just believe this is not significant: influencing is not coercion; influencing is what each of us does every time we give voice to our thoughts.

So why is there a distinction made between "influence" and "propaganda"? i say, because the historical use, up to today, of propaganda (really, more akin to coercion than mere influence) has been all about coercion, including via covert means.

But not all "influence" is coercion. When i seek to make my ideas understood here, i merely seek to educate based on my "radical" (root) analysis. So why do people wish to fog up this demystification by saying that ALL influence is propaganda and such? It's a question worth thinking thru!!

Anyway, the definition that i found most meaningful has been this:
It's a technique meant to mobilize or integrate believing (passive acceptance), not thinking. One that requires vast resources to be able to repeat enough so that masses of people uncritically accept and internalize its prerogatives.

Or, try this one on for size:
"Propaganda is an intrinsically undemocratic weapon using half-truths, limited truths, and truth out of context with a purpose to agitate or integrate [into a hidden program or agenda], not inform or promote understanding. Because of this, propaganda is a greater danger to mankind than any other grandly advertised threat hanging over us." --Jacques Ellul

See also this Propaganda Page at the thirdworldtraveler website for a list of broader sources and quotes on this topic!

With this crucial info in mind, i can readily see WHY people do not recognize just how deeply coercion affects people! (And why so many do not even attempt to investigate the issue!)

If you have access to the internet, anyone can explore beyond the ordinary. I encountered topics like atheism, anarchism, nihilism, fetishism, necrophilia, etc., at only ten years old, thanks to a simple internet connection. I endured the religious propaganda from television and catechism, and I endured the New Atheism propaganda online—which persuaded me more. By the age of ten, I already considered myself an anti-theist atheist.

i can sure see why. As for myself, i have had myriad experiences that i cannot explain using only settler-centrick thought. Thus i move on from European/colonial reductions as much as i can.

On the other hand, I had friends passionate about shooter games who, from that same age, developed a fascination with military culture, camaraderie, etc., because their personalities aligned with that context. They befriended people more aligned with those interests, and so on. That type of propaganda did not appeal to me at all. Others were attracted to more left-leaning propaganda (or better, anti-right propaganda) spread by their teachers, openly mocking people who declared themselves right-wing and treating it as a family matter. And there is more.

It’s all about persuasion; there’s nothing wrong with persuasion. Once someone has access to a computer, they potentially have access to the full plurality of opinions and propagandas, and can no longer use their immediate environment as an excuse for their own beliefs.

Well, that entirely seems to discount all the meta pressures of settlerdumb. Such social pressures eclipse ideas found by stumbling upon them, most of the time. Only when such attacks heart-close inclinations like our MAP identity, do we get more serious about alternatives.

Anyway, to NOT have a working knowledge of HOW coercion works THRU-OUT Western Societies (and their colonies) is to find oneself trapped in deadening-ends like sacrificing ones' life for corporate profits (i.e. recall USMC general Smedley Butler's book War Is A Racket, where he exposes how most of the wars he fought were to protect transnational business interests!!).

Honestly, I don’t like the idea of considering a teenager—or even a pre-teen—as a puppet into whom notions have been inserted. These are people who have already lived parts of their lives, who have already witnessed the contradictions between their own desires and those of their parents, who have already interacted with people different from themselves (peers, teachers), and even if externally they may seem submissive, internally they are already formed as independent individuals with their own capacity for thought.

And i agree on that first part. And how many of these young people grow up hating themselves despite their alternative knowledge? How many grow into groanup-hood Trusting unaccountable Authority? This is BECAUSE they/we all are immersed in a system of thought control and thought management!

Am i getting thru to you yet? (Well, if not you, then perhaps others reading!)

That said, just as there was Nazi youth, there were many other youth movements. Who are you to claim that anarchist youth (also propaganda) emerges from more independent thinking than Nazi youth? Ignoring the fact that it was mandatory, there was real coercion; Nazi youth were not composed entirely of Nazis. Passivity is not adherence. (Besides, there were also adult Nazis, which contradicts your idea that propaganda affects adolescents more than adults. Or at least, if it isn’t a contradiction, it certainly doesn’t confirm it.)

Well, there are certainly anarcho-propagandists, but the form i promote openly demystifies, unlike the left, right, and centers, ALL (?) the various ways that people are controlled, and that's why i like these post-left anarchist critiques! They REALLY get to the grist like no other anarchs i've ever read or heard of! Except world Indigenous folks (whom still have their traditions kept dusted off)!

Good point about 'passivity is not adherence', tho.

Oh, i think groanups are just as challenged, if not more, than, say, rebellious teens! After all of our collective psychological genocide (interiorizing the social suppression of our heart-felt desires, for instance), we ALL are "easy targets" for those whom know how to 'puppet' us.

So i merely seek to expose this covert coercion in all its forms!

[Not Forever]

So why is there a distinction made between "influence" and "propaganda"?

They are not two separate things. Propaganda is the attempt to influence/persuade groups of people (or an entire population) in specific directions, and often (though not necessarily) it is a tool of the state. Are more people needed in STEM fields? You use propaganda. Do you need more people to join the military? You use propaganda. Propaganda is often not very persuasive at the level of individual people, but thanks to its broad reach it often (though not always) manages to persuade enough people to fulfill its purpose.

During the pandemic, for example, there was propaganda (at least in my country) to push people to get vaccinated. Many people were persuaded by it (not me, but only because I was already in favor of vaccination and that propaganda was rather ridiculous), others less so.

Then there are all kinds of propaganda, from religious ones to those promoted by groups with economic, ideological, and other interests. More or less persuasive, each with the aim of steering the population toward certain ideas. Which, ideally, would also be nice for us to do regarding the topics discussed in this forum.

Essentially, propaganda refers to the intentionality and the approach.
With you, I am not engaging in propaganda; what I write is not intended to change society’s behavior in any particular direction. But does it influence? Of course. Not necessarily in the way I would like, but anyone who reads what I write will be influenced by it—positively, negatively, or simply by forming a judgment about me as a person.

"Propaganda is an intrinsically undemocratic weapon using half-truths, limited truths, and truth out of context with a purpose to agitate or integrate [into a hidden program or agenda], not inform or promote understanding. Because of this, propaganda is a greater danger to mankind than any other grandly advertised threat hanging over us." --Jacques Ellul

I don’t agree.

Not only can propaganda be based on truthful facts and build a truthful narrative around them, but what you describe is not an exclusive property of propaganda—it applies to any act of persuasion, any form of influence, and perhaps even any dialogue. The very arguments we construct—can we be sure they aren’t half-truths? Are we certain we aren’t embellishing them, consciously or unconsciously, to present our own personal version of reality in the most convincing way?

I believe it is impossible to address a broad audience without the discourse being propagandistic, because I think such communication is intrinsically so. I can reconsider the point about a hidden agenda. But what exactly could that mean?

Let’s take the example of a hypothetical propaganda campaign aimed at increasing the number of graduates in STEM fields. The messaging might focus on individual benefits: job security, the prestige of doing something useful and tangible (with a perspective that downplays other fields such as history or the social sciences, and so on). Is there a hidden agenda? Well, the underlying goal might be to build a domestic market around specific technologies in order to compete with certain foreign countries.

It’s not contradictory, it’s not necessarily harmful… and perhaps it’s not even that hidden. It simply isn’t part of the overt narrative of the propaganda. I don’t see it as something negative.

I apologize for not reading the link, but you shared a really large amount of material. I promise, however, that I will read some of it, and I’ll let you know if it leads me to change my mind drastically.

Anyway, to NOT have a working knowledge of HOW coercion works THRU-OUT Western Societies (and their colonies) is to find oneself trapped in deadening-ends like sacrificing ones' life for corporate profits (i.e. recall USMC general Smedley Butler's book War Is A Racket, where he exposes how most of the wars he fought were to protect transnational business interests!!).

And is this really relevant? I mean, I agree that all wars are fought for some kind of interest and for someone’s benefit, and that not all conflicts necessarily serve the “nation” itself, but perhaps contracts, companies, and so on—maintaining the flow of money for certain interest groups. Citizens spend money, and it won’t come back to them with interest if they win the war. But is this really important to everyone who goes to war? Are we sure this worldview applies to them as well? That they feel this disgust toward tangled networks of interests belonging to individuals whose names they don’t even know?

Of course, some people go to war with the idea of protecting their nation, but others go as instruments, or for the purely personal reasons I mentioned earlier. For the mindset. To build their character. To escape from home. Because they didn’t feel like studying and didn’t want to look for a job. Not everyone necessarily has the same priorities, and not everyone gives importance to the same things.

And if a teenager is persuaded to pursue that kind of career instead of another, well… good for him? He will have his experience, the consequences of his individual choice, even if he was persuaded by propaganda, even if that propaganda was aggressive. Well, at least as long as there isn’t an explicit obligation, as there usually is in wartime.

And how many of these young people grow up hating themselves despite their alternative knowledge? How many grow into groanup-hood Trusting unaccountable Authority? This is BECAUSE they/we all are immersed in a system of thought control and thought management!

I don’t see anything inherently negative in hating oneself; but on that point I would end up going in a completely different direction from what you probably mean. I think it’s normal, and if someone wants to place blind trust in someone irresponsible who serves as a reference authority (and honestly I have difficulty imagining a teenager who considers something faceless to be an authority—I’m increasingly convinced that the greatest act of persuasion comes from the people around them rather than from the state—but let’s suppose a situation in which a trusted teacher acts as that authority and serves as a mouthpiece for state propaganda)… for me, that’s fine. For me, choosing whom to trust is also a personal choice.

Well, there are certainly anarcho-propagandists, but the form i promote openly demystifies [...]

I admit, it’s perhaps a bit unfair to put them on the same level. Traditional political forces certainly have larger budgets and a much greater presence in the media. But despite that, I’ve always had an anarchist in my class, and there has always been an online presence as soon as you enter some kind of niche. (Even if they weren’t propagandistic anarchists—and it’s also true that, as students at the time, no one was really trying to propagate anything.)

So i merely seek to expose this covert coercion in all its forms!

For me, coercion must be concrete to be considered as such: there must be an actual act of violence, threat, intimidation, and so on. Trying to think of possible variations, I wouldn’t consider, for example, the threat of hell by a religion for behaviors deemed immoral as coercion. (Divorce, theft, homosexual relationships, etc.) There is a threat, it’s true, but it is primarily based on adherence to a certain worldview. Is the consequence of violating rules that a person can perfectly well ignore without real-world repercussions truly a threat?