I was theorising to myself and based on my interactions with friends on various tiers of intelligence that you'd need a certain type of midwitted intelligence to create the perfect Marxist Drones. Specifically, 95-115.
Under 90 and the mind can't process abstract concepts easily, so reality remains objective.
Over 120 and independent thought kicks in. Things aren't taken on faith, and observable facts and evidence influence thought. Reality remains objective.
Between 95-115 and you have a type of intelligence that I think of as being 'University Dumb'. It's a desperately-insecure type of intelligence, so needs to 'prove' it is intelligent at every opportunity. I'm sure you've experienced this. This is the Speaking-In-Buzzwords / Correcting Other's Spelling Mistakes set. Thy r th srt wh thnk rmvng vwls mks txt mpssbl t ndrstn rthr thn bcmng mldly-ncnvnnt t rd.
These midwitted minds can be manipulated to believe reality is subjective, not objective. This is why their reporting always lacks accuracy and verisimilitude, and why, by their forties and fifties, feminists are the most miserable creatures alive, when objective reality finally starts to sink in and they realise that everything they were promised by feminism was false and that high-value men aren't attracted to aggressive, masculinised women who don't want children.
It works like this:
85 IQ - 'A man is looking at a woman'. Objective reality.
110 IQ - 'That man is objectifying that woman without her consent and is therefore raping her and should be jailed'. Subjective reality.
135 IQ - 'A man is looking at a woman'. Objective reality.
This is why all my solid, reliable friends fall into either extreme. You can't manipulate the outliers, which is why Fourth Wave Feminists have abandoned and now demonise the working class: their objective reality means they're not good useful idiots. I'm been observing they're beginning to throw Asians (high average IQ) and gay men (self-interested narcissists) under the bus as well.
If these midwits can create a subjective reality where Roosh's speech didn't happen, to the extent of falsifying evidence of failure, then these midwit minds will readily-accept it, and, as such, it's pointless to try to 'prove' anything to them. Complacency over a 'victory' will make them fight less hard next time.
Instead, I believe their Subjective Reality should always be encouraged to be captured and broadcast as their delusional beliefs are the most effective PR we have to sway moderates. To that end, when infiltrating, it's always worth seeding even more extreme subjective beliefs. Don't broadcast your end belief: the trick to subversion is to drop logic breadcrumbs and let them follow and discover the next one through their own free will, so they believe the eventual idea you wanted them to arrive at was their own. This way they'll fight for it harder. The 'Progressive Stack' concept introduced by subversives to destabilise Occupy Wall Street is one of the best examples I've ever seen of this.
If working in tandem or groups, the polarising effect of groupthink will easily pull them in your direction: note the recent woman 'free bleeding' during a marathon, a Four Chan prank that became reality and has repulsed more moderates than any facts and logic presentation that I ever could have given them.
