Sample: Making up a Word Attack

Here’s a theoretical idea, memeing into existence the insult “armchair philanthropist”

As an armchair psychologist is someone who pretends to have advanced insight and knowledge about the human mind, but lays on a bunch of fancy words, just to seem smart. An armchair philanthropist would describe these people who rally immediately towards “helping people” and “building awareness,” but never actually go out and do anything to further their causes. Instead choosing to look at memes on Reddit/Facebook that reinforce their confirmation biases

Sample of this type of attack: Plaster the face of George Soros, et al., with “Armchair Philanthropist.”  This also includes the purpose of getting their names into the public conscious.  Right now, they’re the mysterious shadow figures who direct money to “legitimate” agencies who then toss the cash to provocateurs to incite whatever and exist outside the public mentality.

It can, therefore, be utilized in conjunction with the counter-meme of the “Action Philanthropist” or, basically, the scientist, activist or whomever who knuckles down and grabs the shovel.  Think of Donald Trump in this capacity.  He could’ve given money to say, Ted Cruz, but the Donald stepped to the podium.

It may also be useful to utilize the Hayek quote “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design” in order to create an applicable and vicious comparison between the Armchair and Action Philanthropists.  There are those people who consider someone’s success in one aspect of life as holding knowledge and abilities which enable them to produce superior results in other dissimilar areas.  Comparing someone who doesn’t act with someone who acts makes an impact in people’s minds while helping to convey the message that because Soros plays finances well does not inherently determine his efficacy in handling other issues or the validity of his ideas on these topics.

As a quick example, a picture of George Soros which presents an image of frailty, an aloof nature (due to wealth) and distance from the cause (dress, location, etc.) presents a stark contrast with a Police Officer facing down a rabid Muslim infiltrator which presents strength, fraternity (as in a member of a common man or similar attribute) and involvement in the cause (as the Muslim is right there).  The idea is to present Soros, et al., as completely unqualified to handle the situation as they’re either completely distant from the cause (for whatever reasons), unqualified (due to conflicts in abilities and skills, ex: finance versus military training) or any other factor which promotes division between Soros and the viewer while simultaneously casting our chosen heroes with a positive (strong, competent, “one of us”) image.

As a bonus, both the Armchair and Action Philanthropist memes can be presented to different groups with which the memes can resonate and influence the most.  Armchair Philanthropists can be presented to those who view the extremely wealthy with distrust while the Action Philanthropists can be distributed to involved activists.  Thus, the possibility exists that both series of memes will meet “in the middle” as the image of Soros fades in popularity the image of Police Officer rises.  Now, organizations which George Soros funds can be targeted while those which support our heroes can be enhanced.

Furthermore, this need not exist in a binary fashion.  Other players in the game can be created (ex: the Muslim Infiltrator, the Bribed Politician, the Everyman) to further enhance the scenario.  Once enough pieces evolve it may become a situation where people play a game that you rigged in its favor, where every character, though different, serves an overarching objective.

Based on this article, both Jellybism and Bonoism is words that can be memed into existance. The best would of course be Bonoism, but the academic wants show how schooled he is, so Jellybism and Telescopic Philanthropy it is.