Paradigms/ Current Situation

Paradigm 1 Based on: McIntyre, 2018
 * Premise: A large (domestic) (political/ commercial) initiator wants to undermine a threatening scientific mainstream narrative.
 * Action 1: The initiator recruits rogue scientists promoting alternative narratives.
 * Action 2: The press is attacked for being biased and ignoring alternative narratives.
 * Action 3: The press tries to disprove bias by allowing each side equal airtime and opportunity.
 * Effect: Recipience are confused. The initiator holds on to a positive image among recipients.

Paradigm 2 Based on: Jankowicz, 2020 - see also CISA
 * Premise: A large (non-domestic) (state) initiator wants to undermine democracy in a targeted country. According to f.i. Dave Troy this is an act of war.
 * There is no ideology involved. Facts are irrelevant. It's about emotions.
 * Action 1: The initiator focuses on existing fissures within the country and localizes outraged local actors.
 * Action 2a: The initiator produces viral infotainment consisting of a content body of entertainment and homeopathic doses of anti-mainstream local fissure-related content to grow their audience and build trust. And/ or:
 * Action 2b: The initiator produces anti-mainstream fissure-related content to be shared by outraged local activists and supported local "useful idiots". After a while the local actors are prompted into organizing (local) activities.
 * Action 3: Mainstream recipients share anti-mainstream fissure-related content.
 * Effect: Confused recipients. Apathetic recipients. Radicalized recipients focusing on domestic, divisive anti-mainstream issues. Eroded trust in media and government.
 * On country level:
 * - Russia as an initiator
 * - Poland
 * - Ukraine
 * - Czech Republic
 * - USA
 * - Philippines
 * - Mexico
 * - The Netherlands

Paradigm 3 Based on: Binckhorst Institute
 * Premise: A small local intermediate wants to sell more products.
 * Action 1: The intermediate analyzes which of the existing anti-mainstream narratives evoke the most vehement emotions.
 * Action 2: The intermediate aligns themselves with the most emotive anti-mainstream narratives.
 * Action 3: The intermediate collects data on radicalized recipients of the selected anti-mainstream narrative (and of related narratives) and targets the recipients with their products.
 * Effect: The intermediate has established a profitable business model with recipients as loyal customers while cloaking themselves as anti-mainstream actors.

Paradigm 3a Based on: The Hague Program for Cyber Norms(2021)
 * Premise: A local organisation wants to gain more influence.Or: A national governments wants more popularity.
 * Action 1: The intermediate aligns themselves with the most emotive anti-mainstream narratives.
 * Effect: The intermediate gains visibility and popularity.