For a quick theoretical refresher, I would like to point out that leftist groupthink holds sway because each individual believes that everyone else believes leftist groupthink. There are some devout believers, true, but most people profess groupthink because they think the group believes in it. If you remove the illusion of unanimity, you remove the incentive to profess groupthink, which removes the groupthink.
One way that celebrities vie for status is by playing more-SJW-than-thou. One need only witness Bill Nye’s recent pandering to see this in action. Celebrities have high social status, so when they affirm the groupthink to become more popular, they also strengthen the groupthink by strengthening the appearance that everyone is unanimous in affirming the groupthink. This is a feedback loop.
There is an opportunity for disruption here.
The plan is simple: whenever a celebrity or other high-status figure panders to the Left, we must make them pay. The goal is to create an aversion to leftist dogma, thereby allowing it to fall victim to its own corrosive energy by means of division. The majority of people will still believe it, of course, but our strategy here can free the best of our people from the groupthink, and freeing the best is all we need.
As to how to make them pay, there are a few ways:
Meme them down. The spread of memetic propaganda mocking, belittling, and degrading those who pander to the left will result in an adverse reaction to pandering. The attack need not be limited to their pandering, but should focus on it. If we do this with a few high-profile people in a row, a pattern will emerge, wherein pandering is visibly seen to lead to social censure. Since people, leftists in particular, fear ostracism more than death, it follows that this strategy will discourage pandering exponentially the more it is used. If high-status people begin to see pandering as career suicide, we have won a major battle.
Boycott them. This takes two forms. First, refuse to consume SJW-infected media, even if the source is otherwise reputable. In some cases, it will be unavoidable, but for the most part, you ought to be able to boycott groupthink-infected entities. The effect of boycotting is not strictly monetary. In addition to refusing to give them your money, you are depriving them of attention, which, in our society, causes institutions to wither. For example, if you stop listening to a particular podcast because that podcast is groupthink-infected, then whenever someone wants to talk to you about it, you can shrug and say, â€œI don’t listen to that anymore.â€ This makes said podcast less of a social asset because fewer people consume it. Removing attention from entities in our society kills those entities.
Attack them peripherally. In addition to meming them down and boycotting them, we can denigrate anyone who panders to the left by means of indirect attack. â€œSo-and-so is a pandererâ€ is fine, but if you can attack and denigrate the content in general of someone who panders to the left, you’re still draining away their energy. This requires a subtle understanding: consequence is more important than strict logical implication. If every person who panders experiences a drop in popularity, whether or not that drop comes from people hating them for their pandering or peripheral attacks by the Right in response to their pandering, the overall pattern visible to society will be â€œpanderâ†’ crash and burn.â€ This is key.
Remember that the left is made up of people who live for popularity and validation. Deprive them of that in response to their more toxic behaviors, and you’re well on your way to controlling them, like putting a shock collar on a dog.
This tactic will succeed if it becomes an automatic response to any pandering whatsoever. We on the Right can leverage this into a wider change if we are careful about it, so make sure to spread this article and this idea far and wide.