Making the left self-implode. I had this thought. What if we could induce a sort of inverted reaction formation? Like a form of cancerous auto-reverse-demoralization? What if we could give an *entire ideology* an auto-immune disorder? That was the basis of the thought. What if we designed a meme that was designed to 1. contaminate other information 2. self-destruct the host ideas? But how do you do that? You start a trend. But not just any trend would do. The goal here is to 1. get the opposition to spread the meme themselves, rather than us having to force it on them 2. To get them to redpill or deprogram themselves, or at least *begin* to want to. THE OBSTACLE Typically the first obstacle is to bypass the automatic rejection of information. Sloganeering is usually a response given by people who have been programmed to respond with extreme outrage based on keywords or specific ideas. We see this any time anyone responds with "diversity is our strength!" But heres the achilles heel in that response: It depends on the perceived intent of the speaker. So if the person speaking an idea is perceived to be 'on their side', then anyone programmed to respond reflexively or even with slogans, isn't necessarily triggered. But saying you're on someone's side isn't sufficient, because again, its not about the information, the ideas, or the claims of which side you belong to. Those don't matter to the people we're trying to break through to. What matters is the *perceived intent* of the speaker. It is the *only* thing that matters. What if we just started presenting the ideas of the right as humor? Now this has been tried before, but always in a positive way (and subsequently cancelled), or in a negative, but unnuanced way. But see thats the angle of approach that hasn't been tried too often. We know a few things about the targets of this tactic: 1. They like to follow trends. They *really* like to follow trends. 2. They don't understand humor, and in fact, I'd say they've largely lost that ability, trading it in for ineffective deadpan. 3. To a confused listener deadpan is normally perceived either ambiguously, or as being serious 4. However, to a listener that is *familiar* with an individual, deadpan is perceived correctly. 5. Because there is no punchline, theres no psychological tripwire where someone might question whether it is appropriate to laugh or not, and therefore take offense, preventing the typical programmed reflexive rejection. 6. Status-seeking and the inferiority-complex are deeply ingrained in many establishment supporters (a wordier, and more accurate phrase than 'leftwing'). In these six points we have our trap. Remember the annoying vegan videos? Remember those? What were those? 1. deadpan 2. condemned the right/non-establishment 3. were therefore able to poke fun at the left. You remember what happened when this guy became popular? People started using his format, deadpan, to imitate the left, and therefore ridicule them? I saw more than a few hardliners become moderate after encountering this guy. Now heres the interesting bit that comes to mind; What if we just take this same formula, and push it onto the left? For any two people conversing, one is going to be further to one extreme of shared idealogy, than the other. Their own extremism fuels this meme in this case. But because the establishment doesn't understand humor, and the information is deadpan, whats the impact on the other, less extreme parties? Many of them may begin to question whether they are free to discuss or seriously agree with an idea. The kicker here is, if the less extreme of them *does* speak up, the more extreme of the two, whos "just joking to make fun of the right!", may even be forced to agree or moderate their viewpoint to not become an 'outsider' which they fear. if the more extreme of them *rejects* their friends sudden agreement, they have now pushed their friend away from the left. The left will then double down with this same meme because thats what they always do. Some of these same friends will then attempt to rejoin the in-group by imitating making fun of the right. More accurately we my say they are "aping" the right, because the intent is not to teach our ideas by force of argument, but by tricking the left into using its blind misunderstanding of humor, into learning-by-imitation. Or "monkey see, monkey do." The trend should focus on clearly and sincerely presenting right-wing ideas, while very clearly making fun of them, but if possible, in a deadpan fashion, or presenting countervailing but absurd premises to go along with the ideas. "Hey look at me, I'm a rightwinger!" says nancy the unwashed neurotic nappy-headed white college liberal. "I support guns for everyone! Grandma! Gangs killing each other over an illegal drug war! Kids having guns! Gotta protect them from all the horrible criminals and billions of muggers, murderers, and rapists!" "White suburbia needs warehouses full of guns in peoples basements! Thirteen percent of blacks commit 55% of all crimes, and I'm a racist! Hurr durr." Bonus points for getting them to claim they're "propagandists writing for north korea." like those edgy discord teenagers who make isis and nazi jokes. The key thing is it being deadpan, utilizing the inability to differentiate humor from serious conversation and pitting it against establishment supporter's need to belong vs their own private discomfort at noticing how far the left has gone and how some of the ideas on the right are actually shared with the left. Some of them are bound to hear ideas, which their friends think are jokes to insult the right, and start to think "actually that idea isn't too bad." Because, the actual ideas are less important than the process. And right now the process involved "-> I don't like what I think this person believes -> I don't like them -> Their ideas suck -> They are a nazi" and all thought ends there before it even begins. But if we can get them, through reflexively hate-fuelled social media posts, to spread information in this manner, we will put them in a state of self-conditioning themselves out of the sloganeering and reflexive group think. Because right now those are the only things sustaining the western establishment's orthodoxy.