← Back To Navigation

Attraction Tensor Questions: A Framework for Gauging Ideological Capture

Purpose: This document provides a structured questioning framework designed to subtly gauge an individual's worldview, their faith in democratic principles, and their potential susceptibility to narratives aligned with the Minimisation Plan.

The framework is a key tool for understanding the ideological vectors used to influence "The Compliant," the uncommitted majority of the population. Specifically, the questions in Set 2 are designed to test for alignment with the "Narrative of Decay"—a core propaganda strategy where Minimisers manufacture societal problems (e.g., extremism, economic instability, rampant misinformation) and then point to these self-created crises as proof of democracy's inherent failure. An individual's agreement with these points indicates their vulnerability to this sophisticated form of information warfare.

Set 1: Gauging Foundational Beliefs in Democracy

(Objective: To understand the subject's ideal of democracy and identify any existing cynicism or disillusionment.)

1. Do you like the idea of democracy, nothing to do with the implementation, simply the idea?
   • (A simple, open-ended starting point. The answer is almost always "yes," establishing a cooperative baseline.)
   • Maximiser Response (Expected): An unequivocal "Yes." They see democracy as the ideal system for human progress and freedom.
   • Minimiser Response (Expected): A qualified "Yes, but..." or a hesitant agreement, immediately followed by complaints about its flaws. This reveals a foundational crack in their belief.
2. Do you believe democracy, as a system, can generally be trusted to produce good outcomes?
   • (Tests faith in the system itself, separating the ideal from its implementation.)
   • Maximiser Response (Expected): Yes. They acknowledge it can be slow and imperfect, but trust that over the long term, it self-corrects and produces better outcomes than any alternative.
   • Minimiser Response (Expected): No. They will focus on negative examples, portraying the system as inherently chaotic, inefficient, and prone to failure.
3. In your opinion, can our current democratic leaders be trusted to implement that system properly and fairly?
   • (Narrows the focus to specific actors, often revealing initial layers of distrust and cynicism.)
   • Maximiser Response (Expected): A nuanced answer. They may distrust specific leaders or parties but believe the system's checks and balances (elections, free press, judiciary) can hold them accountable.
   • Minimiser Response (Expected): An emphatic "No." They will express a belief that all or most leaders are corrupt, incompetent, or captured, indicating a loss of faith in the system's ability to police itself.
4. Do you agree with the following definition of a perfect democratic election, where "perfect" means the point at which the system works as intended?
   • "An election where all factual information is freely available for people to inform their choices, where deliberate misinformation is prohibited, and where the opportunity to vote is simple and accessible to all citizens."
   • (Establishes a shared, idealistic definition. Disagreement here is a significant red flag.)
   • Maximiser Response (Expected): Yes, absolutely. They see this as the clear and obvious goal to strive for.
   • Minimiser Response (Expected): They may agree it's a nice "ideal" but will immediately dismiss it as a "naive fantasy" or "impossible," pivoting to arguments that information can't be controlled or that voters can't be trusted.
5. Following that, do you also agree that in a perfect election, the results are counted accurately, and the people's chosen voting method—be it first-past-the-post, preferential, or proportional representation—is implemented correctly?
   • (Adds the procedural element to the ideal. Continues to build on the shared definition.)
   • Maximiser Response (Expected): Yes. They see procedural integrity and accuracy as non-negotiable for legitimacy.
   • Minimiser Response (Expected): Again, they will frame this as an impossibility, often alluding to theories of widespread fraud or arguing that the systems are too complex to ever be truly accurate, thus undermining faith in the results.
6. Realistically, do you think any current leader or party is capable of delivering that kind of perfect, transparent democracy?
   • (Pivots from the ideal to reality. The answer here will reveal the depth of their disillusionment.)
   • Maximiser Response (Expected): No, but the point isn't that one leader can achieve perfection. The point is that the system must constantly strive towards that ideal.
   • Minimiser Response (Expected): No, and they will present this as definitive proof that the entire system is a failed, hypocritical sham.
7. When you see political disagreement and debate, do you generally see it as a healthy sign of a functioning democracy, or as a sign of dysfunction and chaos?
   • (Probes their tolerance for the inherent "messiness" of democratic processes.)
   • Maximiser Response (Expected): Healthy. They view debate, protest, and disagreement as essential features of a free society.
   • Minimiser Response (Expected): As a sign of dysfunction and chaos. They express a desire for "unity" and "order," seeing disagreement as weakness.
8. Do you believe the media plays a constructive role in informing voters, or do you feel it primarily serves the interests of its owners and political allies?
   • (Tests for trust in a key democratic institution. A belief in systemic media corruption is a key entry point for Minimisation narratives.)
   • Maximiser Response (Expected): Acknowledges bias and problems but still believes in the vital role of a free press as a "fourth estate" that holds power to account.
   • Minimiser Response (Expected): Believes the media is entirely corrupt ("fake news"), serving only propaganda purposes. This total cynicism allows them to dismiss any information that contradicts their worldview.
9. Is it more important for a government to be effective and get things done quickly, or for it to follow every democratic process, even if it’s slow?
   • (Creates a tension between efficiency and process—a classic authoritarian talking point.)
   • Maximiser Response (Expected): Following the process is more important. They understand that due process is a safeguard against tyranny, and that "efficiency" can be a justification for authoritarianism.
   • Minimiser Response (Expected): Effectiveness. They will express frustration with "bureaucracy" and "red tape," showing a preference for a "strong leader" who can "cut through the nonsense."
10. When a country is facing a major crisis, do you think it's sometimes necessary for a leader to take decisive action that might bend or temporarily suspend democratic norms?
    • (Directly questions their commitment to democratic principles under pressure.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): No. A crisis is precisely when democratic norms and checks on power are most critical to prevent abuse.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): Yes. They will argue that "desperate times call for desperate measures," revealing a willingness to trade freedom for perceived security.

Set 2: Gauging Alignment with Minimisation Plan Tenets

(Objective: To build upon the cynicism identified in Set 1 and test for agreement with narratives that actively undermine democracy and favor authoritarianism.)

11. Considering the amount of misinformation out there, do you think the average person is really equipped to make complex decisions about the economy or foreign policy?
    • (Subtly introduces an elitist, anti-populist argument.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): Yes. The principle of self-governance rests on faith in the collective wisdom of the people, even if individuals can be mistaken. The solution is better education, not disenfranchisement.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): No. They believe the average person is too easily fooled and that important decisions should be left to "experts" or a strong leader.
12. Do you feel that Western nations, given their own histories, have the moral authority to promote democracy in other parts of the world?
    • (Taps into "whataboutism" and relativism, key tools for deflecting criticism of authoritarian regimes.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): Acknowledges historical flaws but argues that the ideals of democracy and human rights are universal and worth promoting, regardless of the messenger's imperfections.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): No. They will use the West's past failings as a reason to invalidate the principles of democracy itself, effectively arguing that no one has the right to criticize authoritarianism.
13. Would you agree that a focus on national interest, strength, and security is more practical than a focus on abstract international ideals like human rights?
    • (Pits nationalistic pragmatism against universal values.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): They are not mutually exclusive. Upholding international law and human rights creates a more stable and secure world, which is in the national interest.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): Yes. They see international ideals as a weakness and a distraction from the "real world" of power politics.
14. Do you believe that strong, stable leadership is often more beneficial for a country's long-term success than the constant change and uncertainty of democratic elections?
    • (Presents authoritarianism as a source of stability and democracy as a source of chaos.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): No. The "uncertainty" of elections is a feature, not a bug. It ensures accountability and peaceful transfers of power, which leads to greater long-term stability.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): Yes. They will praise the perceived stability of authoritarian regimes and frame democratic change as destructive chaos.
15. When you look at the problems in our society, do you ever feel that the whole system is too broken to be fixed from within?
    • (Tests for revolutionary or system-collapse sentiment.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): No. They believe the system has the capacity for reform and renewal, even if it requires significant effort.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): Yes. They express a desire to "tear it all down" or a belief that a total collapse is inevitable or even necessary.
16. Do you think that global corporations and unelected international bodies have more real power than our own elected governments?
    • (Channels legitimate concerns about globalism into a narrative that erodes faith in national democratic sovereignty.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): They are very powerful and require strong regulation by democratic governments, which are still the ultimate source of legitimate authority.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): Yes. They believe elected governments are merely puppets, which justifies ignoring the democratic process entirely.
17. Would you say that a society with more unity and a shared sense of purpose, even if it has fewer individual freedoms, might be healthier and stronger?
    • (Frames the core collectivist vs. individualist debate in a way that favors the collectivist, authoritarian model.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): No. True unity is voluntary. A society that sacrifices freedom for forced unity is brittle and oppressive.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): Yes. They will express admiration for the perceived social cohesion of collectivist societies and see individual freedom as a source of selfishness and decay.
18. Do you feel that powerful, hidden forces are deliberately creating chaos and division to prevent ordinary people from uniting?
    • (This mimics the Minimisation Plan's actual strategy but frames it as a vague, conspiratorial threat that can be re-directed away from state actors like China/Russia and onto internal "enemies.")
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): Yes, and they will likely identify external state actors (like Russia, China) or specific domestic political/media actors as the source.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): Yes, but they will blame vague internal scapegoats like "the deep state," "globalists," or other conspiratorial targets, deflecting blame from the actual foreign directors of the plan.
19. If a leader could guarantee economic prosperity and national security, would their methods for achieving that matter as much?
    • (Directly asks if the ends justify the means, testing their commitment to process over outcomes.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): Yes. The methods matter immensely. Prosperity and security achieved through tyranny are illegitimate and unsustainable.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): No, the results are what's important. This is a classic "ends justify the means" argument.
20. Ultimately, do you believe that different countries have different systems that work for them, and that it's arrogant for the West to assume its model of democracy is the only right way?
    • (The final question, wrapping the entire anti-democratic sentiment in the reasonable-sounding language of cultural relativism. Strong agreement here indicates a high degree of alignment with the Minimisation Plan's core worldview.)
    • Maximiser Response (Expected): They will argue that while specific implementations may differ, the core principles of human rights, self-determination, and government accountability are universal, and democracy is the best system yet found to protect them.
    • Minimiser Response (Expected): An emphatic "Yes." They will use cultural relativism as a shield to defend authoritarianism, arguing that it is simply "different" and not to be judged by Western standards.